I'm thinking similarly in terms of distributing tasks broadly among an
array of Wikimedia affiliates instead of concentrating so many of them in a
single entity. Recent events have highlighted the systemic problems that
happen when WMF takes a stance against its volunteer communities (such as
with VisualEditor and Superprotect) or has governance, management, or
integrity issues (as with the situations with James, Jimbo, and Arnnon).
Transitioning to a federated model of Wikimedia infrastructure and funding
may be tricky. I the long term I am thinking that a federated model would
increase the resilience of the ecosystem as a whole because the systemic
risk from a problem in any one affiliate would be much lower than the risks
that we have with so much centralization in a single organization,
particularly when I personally feel that its WMF Board is misaligned with
the values of the movement that it was intended so support.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:21 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>
> ha, i read the thread and i did not notice the core question :) lets
> start from the annual plan then:
> there are 280 persons working for the WMF, all departments are
> growing. money given to somebody else is shrinking below 10%. the word
> "fun" is mentioned zero time, and innovation gets one important
> "We will create spaces for future community-led innovations and new
> knowledge creation."
> and after that innovation is mentioned in the *legal* and
> *communications* paragraph. but - there is no money attached to it.
> except maybe paying employees.
> one could strive to allocate money differently, in the line of "30%
> goes into grants to improve or develop new technology". making sure
> that the innovation money is going to all regions of this planet
> should be self evident. or one could clearly define that community
> money is spent through local organisations, not central. one could
> also suppose community money goes to members of the community, not
> employees taking care about the community. this btw is also a major
> fundraising problem - people have no problem to give money to
> community members. but they have a problem if such money is spent on
> to play the devils advocate, this increasing money spent not within
> the WMF from <10% to 50% means, in reverse, WMF needs to shrink from
> 280 persons to 180 persons. one could even advocate for an upper limit
> of 200 persons for central functions no matter of the income. as food
> for thought, FIFA has a staff of 300. there are 250 million people
> playing association football worldwide.
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> > Potato potato - availability can be interpreted in many different ways.
> > Thanks to the free license, we've covered a big part of that by design.
> > What activities the WMF should be doing wasn't quite the core of the
> > discussion though, but rather how big the WMF should be.
> > Lodewijk
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>
> > wrote:
> >> (anonymous) wrote:
> >> > […]
> >> > But 'getting big' is maybe not the most important thing in the world.
> >> > Working on our mission, is. And part of that, is security. The WMF is
> >> > in this world to play the odds, but rather to ensure that knowledge is
> >> > freed, and stays free - most specifically by securing Wikipedia's
> >> continued
> >> > availability (at least, that is what our deck of cards looks like
> >> > Fully focussing on one sigle stream of money may indeed allow you to
> >> > more out of it. But the question here is rather, how to you tackle the
> >> > situation when that stream dries up? And for that question,
> >> diversification
> >> > is actually key.
> >> > […]
> >> I don't agree with that. From the Library of Alexandria to
> >> the Duchess Anna Amalia Library it has always been a mistake
> >> to keep knowledge in one place and try really hard to keep
> >> it from falling apart. The biggest advancement in that
> >> field probably came from Gutenberg's press which allowed
> >> knowledge to be spread around and resist attempts of censor-
> >> ship.
> >> When cinema and television came along, the ancient pattern
> >> repeated: Cultural goods are lost today because the broad-
> >> casters put them in one vault and then did not maintain the
> >> fire alarm properly.
> >> We have the same issue now with streaming services: During
> >> dictatorships, you could hide books and jazz records. Net-
> >> flix or YouTube just stops serving videos some entity does
> >> not like, and Amazon can wipe your Kindle clean of anything.
> >> So the diversification for the purpose of the advancement of
> >> knowledge should not lie in making WMF immortal, but ensur-
> >> ing that it survives WMF's death.
> >> Tim
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org