> > > Rogol, there are some interesting ideas in this model, and perhaps useful > language to prompt discussion, but you cannot fit a societal model to a > modest sized organization. > > Your conclusion would rely on the WMF (or indeed the Community of > Wikimedians) having an inexhaustible supply of politicians and bureaucrats > jockying for their sinecures. Though there are quite a few people with > related interests, they fail to have a systematic coordination or a > machaevelian strategy, nor seem very interested in having these things.
Thanks for that. Arnstein's ladder is based on a study of the working of Community Action Agencies [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Action_Agencies] in US cities, of which around a thousand were set up, They seem to match the WMF in terms of number of officials and citizens (read: staff and volunteers) reasonably well (typically 115 staff, according to http://www.communityactionpartnership.com/ serving an average of 160,000 people each year). However, as you say, the question is whether the model fits the Wikimedia situation and whether it can be useful for discussion and planning. Personally, I was struck by how good the fit was. As to whether there is an inexhaustible supply of volunteers jockeying for jobs at the WMF, which I believe to be the correct analogy, I could not say. I do note, however, that it is a common practice for the WMF to explicitly seek to hire people with experience of volunteer working on the various projects. In this context I simply note Arnstein's comment "Depending on their motives, powerholders can hire poor people to co-opt them, to placate them, or to utilize the have-nots' special skills and insights." "Rogol" On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rogol, there are some interesting ideas in this model, and perhaps useful > language to prompt discussion, but you cannot fit a societal model to a > modest sized organization. > > Your conclusion would rely on the WMF (or indeed the Community of > Wikimedians) having an inexhaustible supply of politicians and bureaucrats > jockying for their sinecures. Though there are quite a few people with > related interests, they fail to have a systematic coordination or a > machaevelian strategy, nor seem very interested in having these things. > > A more pragmatic way to measure the WMF is using an organizational maturity > model. In these terms the WMF may be measured as doing lots of firefighting > (making mistakes and then fixing them) and though having good intentions of > learning from the past, this has yet to be seen to be meaningfully > repeatable. A key aspect of the stickiness of firefighting is that the WMF > can be seen as part of its Americanocentrist thinking to put the interests > of the individual over other concerns, so individual firefighters get > attention and rewards, while effective project managers are likely to > remain invisible. > > Thanks for your email, I rarely reply to your stuff on-list or on-wiki, > but I appreciate your critical thoughts. > > Fae > > On 29 Dec 2016 22:15, "Rogol Domedonfors" <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was reading Sherry Arnstein's 1969 paper "A Ladder of Citizen > Participation" (JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224) > available at > http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of- > citizen-participation.html > or at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 and found it remarkably > relevant to the issue of the engagement beween the volunteer community and > the formal structures of the WMF (Board and executive). > > The analysis proposes eight stages or rungs to the ladder: > > 1. Manipulation > 2. Therapy > 3. Informing > 4. Consultation > 5. Placation > 6. Partnership > 7. Delegated Power > 8. Citizen Control > > They are grouped as 1-2: Non-participation; 3-5: Tokenism; 6-8: Citizen > Power (see > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladder_of_citizen_ > participation,_Sheey_Arnstein.tif > ) > > Reading "volunteer" for "citizen" throughout, I thought it instructive to > map some of the WMF activities onto the scale, with quotes from the > analysis. > > 1. Manipulation "In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on > rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose > of "educating" them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine > citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the > distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by > powerholders." > > 2. Therapy "under a masquerade of involving citizens in planning, the > experts subject the citizens to clinical group therapy." > > 3. Informing. "the emphasis is placed on a one-way flow of information - > from officials to citizens - with no channel provided for feedback and no > power for negotiation" > > 4. Consultation. "People are primarily perceived as statistical > abstractions, and participation is measured by how many come to meetings, > take brochures home, or answer a questionnaire. What citizens achieve in > all this activity is that they have 'participated in participation.' And > what powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the > required motions" > > 5. Placation. "An example of placation strategy is to place a few > hand-picked 'worthy' poor on boards [...] If they are not accountable to a > constituency in the community and if the traditional power elite hold the > majority of seats, the have-nots can be easily outvoted and outfoxed." > > 6. Partnership. "At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact redistributed > through negotiation between citizens and powerholders." > > > Can there be aby doubt that the majority of WMF group meetings world-wide > falls under the heading of 1 and 2? Or that the communications strategy > and product development strategy of the WMF falls under 3? Or that 4 is a > desciption of the WMF approach to community consultation? Or that 5 is an > uncannily exact description of the way the community nominates (under the > guise of "electing") a minority of board members who may be removed if they > ask impertinant questions? Or that there is precisely zero substantiative > activitity that has risen to level 6? > > > It is clear that on this analysis the WMF/Community engagement is still at > best "Tokenism" -- discussion is invited. > > > Rogol > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
