Re: [Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF (cleaner version), apology
I owe a number of good people an apology. I have worked for several self-protecting bureaucracies myself, and it is possible, though not easy, , for individuals to do good work there. I never intended to imply that everyone there is incompetent, though it is certainly my opinion that some of the people assigned to some of the programs I have been involved in have been. I admit that my anger is an inappropriate reflection of my frustration at my inability to work with those in one particular program. On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:54 PM, David Goodman wrote: > One obvious possibility for support is the chapters and the thematic > organizations; even if the WMF continues these fellowships as it > should, the other bodies in the movement should supplement them--it is > good to have more than one source of funds and more than one body > deciding on requests. But whether their work can be actually > implemented at those levels is another matter. > > The proposal at meta says "the Wikimedia Foundation was never able to > resource the fellowships to the point where they could achieve > significant impact: " I don't think the resource at issue is primarily > money, considering that in all recent years we have had not only > surpluses, but greater than expected surpluses. The resource which is > lacking is sufficient qualified people at the Foundation to work with > the fellows and help implement their projects. Rather than get such > people--which admittedly would require a change in WMF culture--the > WMF staff finds the easiest thing is to not even attempt to make the > improvements; it is too troublesome to deal with the good ideas of the > community, so the reaction is what one expects of self-protecting > incompetent bureaucracies: diminish the flow of good ideas. > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Steven Zhang wrote: >> In my opinion, the value of fellowships in my opinion is huge, and I feel >> that ceasing to support projects like the Teahouse would be a real shame. >> That said, I do feel there are other ways that individual editors could get >> the support they need to work on critical projects. As long as this remains >> in some capacity, then I think that could work too. >> >> Regards, >> >> Steve Zhang >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 22/10/2012, at 10:25 AM, Jacob Orlowitz wrote: >> >>> A letter in support of the Community Fellowship program from past, >>> current, and prospective Fellows, >>> >>> The WMF has expanded profoundly over the past decade, and especially >>> in the last few years. Recently initiatives to streamline and focus >>> the WMF have been undertaken; while these efforts are worthy in spirit >>> and necessary at some level, one useful if not vital program has been >>> caught in that process: The Community Fellowship program. We would >>> like to express our strong support of this valuable and important >>> program. >>> >>> The Fellowship program is first and foremost a community-based >>> program. It selects editors to work on projects -- those which are >>> novel and have yet to be tried, those that have been tried but have >>> not been rigorously developed or tested, and those otherwise that need >>> financial, technical and institutional backing to succeed. It >>> represents a direct line of support from the WMF to >>> community-organized, community-driven, and community-maintained >>> projects. >>> >>> We strongly believe that the Fellowship program is a great way to jump >>> start many projects cheaply, efficiently, and with low-risk. Most >>> importantly, because Fellowship projects are community-organized, >>> there is high potential for their broad community support. >>> >>> We recognize that the Wikimedia Foundation’s allocation of funding >>> must reflect the priorities of the Foundation’s annual and strategic >>> plans, and we understand that the future of the Fellowship program is >>> at risk under the justification that it does not fit within those >>> plans. >>> >>> The Fellowship program of course has a cost, but it is one we believe >>> is well justified by its impact. The following reasons explain why we >>> think the program is a worthwhile asset to the WMF and one that will >>> ultimately help it succeed in its strategic goals: >>> >>> 1) The program has a track record of producing successful projects, >>> with promising upcoming efforts that would be interrupted by a loss of >>> funding. Most recently a new-editor community called the Teahouse was >>> developed directly through the Fellowship program. The Teahouse, as >>> well as other projects have targeted goals which often match up with >>> those identified by the Foundation as urgent, such as new editor >>> engagement and editor retention. Other projects besides the Teahouse >>> have worked on improving our dispute resolution processes, our small >>> language wiki development, improving the usability of help >>> documentation, and facilitating cross-wiki translation efforts. >>> GLAM/
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question for Board
On 25 Oct 2012, at 08:10, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > Finally, my understanding is that formally the big general governance > picture is that FDC is meant for the largest proposals from Wikimedia > entities, while grants are meant for the smaller ones and individuals, so > the whole discussion clearly does not apply to FDC concern. That's also my understanding. The recommendations that the FDC make do connect to grant-making to individuals, but at a step or two removed - e.g. the WMF's GAC budget is part of the WMF's FDC application [1], and various chapters also have grant-making processes (e.g. [2] [3]) described in their FDC applications. [1] See row 4 of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form#Key_initiatives_and_objectives_of_the_upcoming_year_annual_plan [2] search for 'grant' in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland/Proposal_form [3] see row 3 of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikim%C3%A9dia_Magyarorsz%C3%A1g/Proposal_form#Key_initiatives_and_objectives_of_the_upcoming_year_annual_plan Thanks, Mike (FDC member) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question for Board
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:26 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > > Impoverished long term contributors should get a job. > That's not really helpful, John. The flaw is what one considers impoverished. It is very possible to be worth a lot on paper and owe more than that sum on paper. The entire premise is erroneous. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question for Board
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:46 PM, James Salsman wrote: > ... > > It is sad that those who are very well off are so quick to exclude the > possibility of helping impoverished long term contributors. WMF is not a welfare system. Donors would rightly complain if the money was used for purposes other than those described in the donation solicitation messaging. Impoverished long term contributors should get a job. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question for Board
good point, Keegan! Also, my experience with NGOs in the Soros Foundation wide network (about 12 Invisible Colleges) was that when gifted students were given minor stipends, they developed a really demanding attitude. They kept complaining that their stipends are too low, and that they deserve more. Only after all stipends were withdrawn, they started to engage in voluntary work for the NGOs. This anecdotal evidence is symptomatic of some more general phenomenon - a lot of people treat whatever they do for the money as a chore, labor, something that is the antithesis of a hobby and fun. Much more than the possible loss of quitting power I would worry about the fact that paid editors would start treating editing as any other job, and on a competitive market they would immediately see, that we cannot really pay competitive wages. One way to make editing a chore is paying for it. Regarding James' thesis of 18% below the poverty line - besides obvious issues with the definition of poverty line (in some countries poverty means starvation, in some it means not being able to eat out as often), as well as clearly non-representative sample of the poll, poorly devised questions, and serious ethical considerations of a possible misuse of private data and expanding the research beyond of its original and approved scope, there are just minor practical problems with singling out the poorest editors for support, obvious for anybody familiar with the state social benefits programs (borderline cases, reporting, etc.), major even when needed to be addressed within ONE country, and not as a worldwide policy. Finally, my understanding is that formally the big general governance picture is that FDC is meant for the largest proposals from Wikimedia entities, while grants are meant for the smaller ones and individuals, so the whole discussion clearly does not apply to FDC concern. best, dariusz On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > When you subsidize volunteers they a) are no longer volunteers and b) the > same problem with paid editors: losing the power to walk away. > > Give me money to administrate Wikipedia and I give up my bit. The freedom > to pick and choose what we do on the website is one of our greatest > strengths. > > -- > ~Keegan > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Question for Board
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton < rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bullshit, every human with money to buy a pc and have access to internet, > and capable to donate. That's WMF commitment. > > All comments about the choice of partners aside, that is not true. The Zero partnerships provide Wikipedia for free on mobile devices across countries that completely missed the PC generation. Without asking for donations aside from the mobile carriers' bandwidth. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
