Hoi,
In an ideal world, it is indeed the content of the Wikimedia projects that
our public sees. Each project represents a set of editors who contribute to
a project. In general, all well meaning contributors are welcome. Some
contributors contribute regularly, take pride in it and associate
themselves with the project. Some of them actually participate in
discussions on talk pages and contribute to the building of a consensus.
Then there are the policy tigers, that insist that they are best placed to
discuss policies for everybody else and insist that their consensus
represents the community. Recently, on the Croatian Wikipedia a group of
policy tigers were removed for their insistence of a nationalistic point of
view.
When the "community" is given precedence over everything else, we get into
hot water. Often their hard fought consensus does not stack up well with
the research done on communities in particular research done on Wikipedia.
Typically a project is represented by a community that insists on a bias
for their project. This is easily recognised in the arguments against
activities by the Wikimedia organisation. "We do not need that", "it is
against the consensus, see this or that discussion", we should implement a
policy and you can read it on "XX.wikipedia.org".
When we allow for a Wikimedia movement, it is much bigger than all these
communities combined. It is where out global aims play a role, it is where
we strategise for us as a whole. It is where marketing needs to be applied
particularly as it is noticable that our biggest project next to Wikipedia,
Commons does not get the public it deserves. It is where the predominant
restrictive view of Wikipedias as our key focus leads to regrettable
results. When we then consider lists, it is shown time and again that
English Wikipedia is not able to maintain all its lists and yet a
"consensus" prevents WMF from providing list functionality to other
Wikipedias because "it is complicated". Who will argue that the bottom 150
Wikipedias in size have the capability to maintain the lists they arguable
have a need for and who would deny a local community to accept the
functionality that is on a par if not better than what any Wikipedia offers
right now? Is it that complicated? Remember that "wiki" means, implies?
The Foundation or the organisation enables our movement. All our projects,
communities and chapters. It provides a setting where a consensus is sought
for all of us. It is how the 2030 strategy came about. Giving its
permanency, it is ideally suited to represent our whole to other
organisations and seek how we can best achieve our goal; sharing the sum of
all knowledge. It operates by checks and balances, it is where at this time
the board of the Wikimedia Foundation plays a key role.
When people consider it dangerous that it is the Wikimedia Foundation that
plays a key role in maintaining our values, I invite them to consider the
biases that exists in their communities and the insistence to see the
implied consensus applied on other communities and projects. My example of
lists is a relative innocent example.
In brief, we need marketing and we need to be humble of what a consensus
implies.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 19:29, Dggenwp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Certainly the projects have a role beyond content—in particular, they, not
> the foundation, are what the public sees. They are what it is needed to
> publicise (I don’t like to use the term “marketing “ — that’s the way the
> foundation speaks) and this is a key role of the chapters.
>
> The obvious role of the foundation, besides the basic central services, is
> to deal with its natural counterparts—formal organisations such as
> governments and copyright agencies.
>
> I recognise the need for coordination and the possible need to intervene
> to maintain minimum standards. But these are historically dangerous roles,
> for “protection “ against potential forces that might oppose our values has
> an ominous potential also.—
> DGG
> Obviously I speak only for myself—assume the appropriate qualifications
> before every phrase
>
> On Jul 10, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Ciell Wikipedia <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Bill/Will mentioned this might be a new organisational chart
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_chart>of the Wikimedia
> Foundation. Of course, visuals differ depending on what you are trying to
> visualize.
>
> This one
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=6>
> for instance would be more along the lines of what you, Dgg, are
> mentioning: how the different parties are involved in our projects. This
> one
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=12>
> would be more about how content on the projects is governed, and the
> different layers in responsibilities we have. This one
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Educatie_Universiteit_van_Amsterdam_14_november_2017.pdf&page=31>
> is more about how content is added to projects (example in this case:
> Wikimedia Commons): this is
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_structure_and_government_-_Community_Content_Moderation_and_the_DSA.pdf&page=7>
> a visualisation on the parties that re-use our content outside of the
> projects.
>
> It would probably be impractical (or impossible even?) to put *everything*
> in* one* visual without the purpose of the illustration becoming too
> broad, and the chart or visual therefore surpassing its purpose (visual
> support for a concept).
>
> Vriendelijke groet,
> Ciell
>
>
> Op vr 9 jul. 2021 om 23:16 schreef Dggenwp <[email protected]>:
>
>> The projects are the route by which content is added to Wikipedia. The
>> purpose of Wikipedia is not to have an organisation—the purpose is to have
>> and distribute free content. Everything else is superstructure—everything
>> except the individual volunteers and the projects. This superstructure can
>> be important, but not essential — the volunteers are capable of organising
>> themselves and maintaining the projects. The foundation by itself is
>> capable of almost nothing, as it doesn’t add content. The chapters are of
>> value, primarily in recruiting contributors—without that, they’d just be
>> social clubs.
>>
>> The volunteers and the projects to which they add content are what
>> matters. The three key functions of the organisation are maintaining
>> MediaWiki (but that’s a volunteer effort also) in raising the small amount
>> of essential funding, and the critically important political work of
>> supporting freedom of the internet and of speech more generally. But our
>> influence for this is because people in the world use the content the
>> volunteers add to the projects. The structure must be organised around
>> them. We are here to build an encyclopaedia.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Željko Blaće <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021, Ciell Wikipedia <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Bill, I always find organisation charts very much
>>> enlightening, and have been missing something like it for the WMF for some
>>> time now.
>>>
>>
>> I feel the same. We need much much more of diagramatic content and higher
>> level of organizational understanding for all Wikimedia contributors.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think all the departments of the WMF-side are equal, right? For
>>> instance, legal has no higher 'status' then fundraising or research:
>>> employees are equals, just with a different function in the
>>> organisation.Therefore all the different departments should be presented in
>>> a horizontal line, not a vertical one, like in this one
>>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Organisational_Chart.JPG> for
>>> example.
>>>
>>
>> Kind of good point, but maybe scale (same size) is enough to represent
>> equals, rather than direction/orientation? Not an expert.
>>
>> BTW.
>> .svg file export would be best
>> for the posibility of translation
>> within Wikimedia Commons ;-)
>>
>>
>> Best, Z.
>>
>>
>>> Vriendelijke groet,
>>> Ciell
>>>
>>>
>>> Op di 6 jul. 2021 om 01:03 schreef Bill Takatoshi <
>>> [email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look
>>>> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new
>>>> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from
>>>> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems
>>>> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since
>>>> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have
>>>> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't
>>>> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous
>>>> submission(s).
>>>>
>>>> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look
>>>> like in one year's time:
>>>>
>>>> https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png
>>>>
>>>> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I
>>>> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> -Will
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> Public archives at
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/ZMPBBKEMIKICK2KLLZ466VB4V7PAHHWN/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/NYBXY22IX3JGH3ADCLC2GTYG4YQJ4ESI/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/TL5M5OPWJFVS273B5VWV2UY7ODWW3OB7/
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/NCQI7KCERISCB2TZO46ZE6XPGN63TTNY/
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/FOYFIVC75ELATP2QBI5TRI4HY2XZJEQ3/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
