Hi Ting, It's lovely to see such operatic vision! And I for one would love to see some of those things happen.
But, just to bring it down a bit; the technological issues rear their ugly heads. Engineering-wise, hosting Wikipedia is a tough problem. Distributing Wikimedia hosting across the globe is very definitely a "hard" problem. If it could even be considered in a 5 year project scope that would be IMO an aggressive timescale :) Also, I am not sure the WMF has attitude for decentralisation to chapters; nota bene the work relating to Labs and Toolserver. So commercially that might be a tough sell. However, despite this, I hope enough people see something in your vision to push forward change. Tom On 7 April 2014 14:39, Ting Chen <wing.phil...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hello dear all, > > From 2008 on until recently the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) had seen a > staggering growth to fulfill its mission, and it had pulled a great deal of > the resources, in money, but as well as in talent, manpower and volunteer's > effort of the movement. > > > From the beginning hosting of the Wikimedia projects was the core > competency of the WMF. A big part of the WMF budget and staff is dedicated > to the operation of the servers. Meanwhile the main server farm is moved > from Tampa, Florida to Ashburn, Virginia. > > > In the last years the WMF had evolved to the main development party of the > MediaWiki software. The software and product development had drawn many > resources and talents from around the world to San Francisco. Many > developers were relocated to join the WMF team. > > > With the increased prominence of especially Wikipedia the WMF and its > projects were facing more and more legal challenges in the past years. Law > suits from around the world were reported since 2005. Because of this the > WMF had expanded its legal team. > > > To improve its role as the leader of the movement and to settle the > disputes between the WMF and chapters about the processing and distribution > of the funding the WMF had evolved since 2010 into a grant making > organization. > > > All in all the WMF is without doubt the center peace of the movement and > claims four fifth of the expanses of the entire movement. > > > The recent dispute about the URAA motivated massive content deletions on > Wikimedia Commons highlights the problem of this strong centralized > approach. > > > In basic, the storage solution of the Wikimedia projects is still a very > classical approach with two central database centers, both of them located > in the US. This approach had repeatedly induced conflicts about what > content can be stored and what cannot. It does not reflect the > international character of the projects and had repeatedly induced critics > on the Wikimedia projects to be US biased and it is, measured on today's > storage technology, outdated. Even though currently the US law is one of > the most liberal in relation to freedom of speech it does has its bias. The > US copy right law for example is meanwhile one of the most restrictive and > backward looking copy right laws in the entire world. Another example of > the potential hazardous result of this approach are the image files that > are currently stored in the individual projects. For example on Chinese > Wikipedia images that are free according to the Chinese and Taiwanese copy > right laws are stored directly there, and not on Commons. These images are > nevertheless not free according to the US law and are stored in servers > that are located in the US and distributed from there. This poses potential > problems for all parties that are involved here: for the Foundation, for > the project, for the community that is curating these images and for the > users that are using these images. > > > In a larger sense the problem is not constrained to the file repositories, > but also to the content. Even though the Foundation had increased its legal > department and had tentatively tried to work out an approach to support its > community in legal conflict basically it is still working with the old > strategy: In case there is a legal case in a foreign country the Foundation > will avoid the call of the court while the Chapter will deny any > responsibility for the content. This leaves in the end all potential > hazards to the volunteer who contributed the content. In case of a court > suit he is probably the one that have the worse legal support and had to > take the charge privately, even if he handled legally and in good will. > > > In my opinion, since the technology is ripe, it is time for the movement > as a whole and WMF especially to seriously consider the approach of a > distributed hosting. Files and contents that let's say are legal in the EU > but not in the US should be able to be stored on a server located in the EU > and distributed and operated from there. Files and contents that are legal > in PRC and Taiwan and may violate copy right law in the US should be able > to be stored in a server say in Taiwan or Hongkong and be distributed from > there into the world. This approach is meanwhile technical viable and is > used by almost all major international internet providers today. > > > This also means that the chapters, as far as there is one, should be able > to take the responsibility for the content and the hosting of those servers > in their country. They should be obliged to provide legal consultation and > defense to the community, which means a distribution of the legal defense > from a central point into the world, to the chapters and directly to the > communities. Indeed the legal consultation and protection of the community > is in my opinion one of the most missed duty of the chapters and the > Foundation to the movement. > > > Every country, that meets a certain standard of freedom of speech, freedom > and media and freedom of justice is a potential place to set up such a > server and in which the chapter can be entitled to claim the responsibility > of the content that is stored there. There are meanwhile pretty many > renowned independent organizations that provide such standards and measure > the status of a country against these standards, like Reporters sans > frontières, Human Rights Watch, etc. > > > Also software and product development can be done distributed. Many > commercial companies do this successfully, many open source projects do > this successfully. The WMF is not unfamiliar with distributed software > development. One of the most prominent developer of the WMF, Tim Starling > is for example never relocated to San Francisco. Also in the past decades > many important impulses came from outside of San Francisco, the last one is > WikiData, initiated and developed by Wikimedia Deuschland (WMDE). Wikimedia > Serbia had offered in the past to hire developers in Belgrade because the > people there are well educated, talented and the wage there is low. I > believe there is no necessity to concentrated all developers at one place. > Fore sure distributed developer teams need certain trainings, standards, > communication skills and procedures to be able to doing well. But it is > possible, it is even meanwhile industrial standard. It is meanwhile a > backward looking approach to draw and concentrate developers at one place. > > > From organizational view it makes more sense to have these distributed > developers organized by the chapters (as far as there is one) instead of > let them work as contractors for the Foundation, which also means an > organizational decentralization of the software and product development. > > > For me personally there are some life experience that makes me an absolute > supporter for the decentralization. > > > I was born 1968, the year which marks the climax of the darkest period of > the Chinese history, the Cultural Revolution. In the year when I was born > Chine was experiencing the worst political purge since Stalin's death in > the whole world. At that time, no one could imaging, that from the boys and > girls that were born that year in China, millions will go to North America > or Europe to study there and work there and live there. No one could > imaging that some of them will go back to China because they know that > China will provide them better chances for work, research and life than in > North America and Europe. 1988 I traveled with the train throw Soviet Union > and crossed the no man's land of Berlin Wall, and at that time no one in > the whole world could imagine that less than four years later there will be > no Soviet Union any more and the Berlin Wall will fall. > > > Those experiences tell me not to trust any fortune teller and future > researcher. I won't bet that USA will not turn into a dictatorship within > my life time, and I won't bet that Central and West Africa won't turn into > the most prosperous and most liberal region of the world in my life time. > However unprobable this looks like. Because of that I don't trust one > central prominent hub, because however strong and well developed and well > organized, it is the single point to fail. > > > Decentralization, on any aspect, only works if the parties are aligned. > One of the darkest hour of my board chair's personship was by an interview > with an Austrian television. Together with me a chair's person of a chapter > board, a volunteer and a researcher of Wikipedia were interviewed. When the > reporter came to the topic of gender bias and Foundation's effort to > balance it he at first addressed the question to the chapter chair's > person. And the person answered: Well, for our chapter this is not a topic, > we concentrate our work on article quality. And for the next few seconds > before the question is addressed to me I was feverish thinking about an > answer which would not sound like I support and agree with him but also > don't like as if we will publicly take out a dispute about what is the > movement goal. > > > I think this should not happen. And if the movement really want to be > organized decentralized, we cannot afford such things to happen. It made me > sad to see that WMDE and WMUK published their strategic planning for the > coming years, each by themselves. I think it should be a strategic planning > with all organizations, agreed by all organizations and all organizations > will work together on those goals, together. > > > I think there should be a charter for all organizations in our movement, > signed by all organizations that want to join us, that set up standards, > set up things like working together on strategies and working together on > goals. Unfortunately, and I do blame myself partly for this, that despite > the movement roles work group, despite some other tries afterward, we were > not able to set up such a charter. And I think that one of the goals for a > movement strategic planning should be set up such a charter in the next few > years. > > > So, if we decentralize the hosting, the software and product development, > the legal and the movement organizations, where is the place of WMF? > > > I imagine the WMF as the United Nations of Wikimedia. I can see a lot of > people now wrinkle their nose and say: What? that ugly and useless > bureaucracy? And I will tell you: No, I am not thinking about that ugly and > useless bureaucracy, I am thinking about that organization that > concentrated and coordinated the world's effort to eradicate smallpox, I am > thinking about that organization that set up standards to preserve the > world's heritages, the organization that coordinates and develops standards > for civil air and sea traffic that makes an smooth and safe international > travel possible. So, I am imagining an organization that coordinates the > movement resources, that set up and safe guard standards, but not > dominating the movement. And all in all, despite the 40 and plus partner > organizations, there are still more volunteers that don't have an > organization to support them, and there are still much to do for the > Foundation. Especially, I still see the WMF as the leader of the partner > organizations and the movement. > > > Looking back into the history I believe it is necessary for the Foundation > to have the last six year's growth. The Foundation had learned a lot from > this and it had repeatedly set up standards for the movement, despite all > the grudging and all the disputes, looking back, it is good to have those > standards set up. All organizations inside of the movement are profitable > from those standards. > > > But the growth of the WMF had more and more extincting the growth of the > partner organizations inside of the movement. Its dominance and its feeling > responsible for everything inside of the movement began to take the air > away from the other organizations, its concentration at one place had > always been felt as an alienation and is becoming more and more a problem. > A good captain of see knows when the wind turns and he need to change the > sail setting and course to cope with that change, for the Wikimedia > movement now is the time. > > > I want to repeat one sentence I said earlier: I see the WMF as the leader > of the partner organizations and the movement. I want to emphasize that I > want to see the WMF as the strong leader of the partner organizations and > the movement. The strong leader because he is wise and experienced, not > because he is a dictator; the strong leader that knows that every member in > his team has something that they can do better than himself and knows to > use those abilities in benefit of the group, and not the one who dominates > the team. > > > Greetings > Ting > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
