Sorry, typo: the CAAs serve an average of about 16,000 people a year: see http://www.communityactionpartnership.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=50
"Rogol" On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@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. > > > 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/wik >> i/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>
