Mailing List Archive

2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:
> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?

Legal threats. Debates between judges for wikimania. Complaints about
libelous content in wikipedia. Probably pay negotiations.

No wikimedia isn't the world's most transparent organisation but we
can accept that jimbo didn't know that when he made his statement.

>
> I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia
> was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium
> has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the
> case.
>
> All best wishes
>
> James

Hierarchies are inevitable. In theory no constructive user should have
any more right to edit any given article than any other but some
newbie admins keep trying to mess with this. Beyond that there tend to
be Hierarchies out of necessity (from admins to bureaucrats to
stewards) But they should impact the basic editing process.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thanks geni.

So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?

Best

James


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:
>> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
>> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
>> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
>> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
>
> Legal threats. Debates between judges for wikimania. Complaints about
> libelous content in wikipedia. Probably pay negotiations.
>
> No wikimedia isn't the world's most transparent organisation but we
> can accept that jimbo didn't know that when he made his statement.
>
>>
>> I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia
>> was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium
>> has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the
>> case.
>>
>> All best wishes
>>
>> James
>
> Hierarchies are inevitable. In theory no constructive user should have
> any more right to edit any given article than any other but some
> newbie admins keep trying to mess with this. Beyond that there tend to
> be Hierarchies out of necessity (from admins to bureaucrats to
> stewards) But they should impact the basic editing process.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg
<jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
> Best
>
> James
>

Not so much that--as a great many things are done openly.
I think it's more a general agreement that some things, by
their very nature, can't be done openly.

-Chad
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

That sounds a bit like a politician not wanting to admit that they've
abandoned a policy or goal! ;)

It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
been abandoned.

James


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chad <innocentkiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg
> <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>>
>> Best
>>
>> James
>>
>
> Not so much that--as a great many things are done openly.
> I think it's more a general agreement that some things, by
> their very nature, can't be done openly.
>
> -Chad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com> wrote:
> It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
> ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
> been abandoned.


Hello James,

Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much
as feasible public. I don't think anyone expects their employer to
publish their pay negotiations or medical conditions, and I don't mind
if there's no press release about the Executive Director's bad
diarrhea day. Some aspects are less public than I would like (such as
some committees' discussion), but overall the Foundation is pretty
good at transparency.

Hierarchy is inevitable within the Foundation (the Board of Trustees
naturally has more sway than the janitor); no hierarchy is an ideal
for wiki communities, where no editor has more decision power than any
other regardless of access flags.

I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation
fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community
itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule;
people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep
telling them they're all equal.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
>
> I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation
> fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community
> itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule;
> people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep
> telling them they're all equal.
>
>

I apologize in advance for focusing solely on the English
language (non-simple) Wikipedia, but I find it completely
contra-factual that the existing on-high powa-structure
is in fact in the process of "keep telling them they're all
equal."

And, yes to spell it out. I am referring specifically to the
Arbitration Committee, which really should in all fairness
be renamed to something that bears even a passing
familiarity to its actual function...


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:

> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?


Suggested reading:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html

Precis: if you pretend hierarchies don't spontaneously form, they'll
form out of your sight and come to bite you in the arse.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
> And, yes to spell it out. I am referring specifically to the
> Arbitration Committee, which really should in all fairness
> be renamed to something that bears even a passing
> familiarity to its actual function...

Yes, I had en-Wikipedia in mind when I said "it's the community itself
that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule". I don't
know whether it's anything particular about the English Wikipedia, or
simply a function of it's community's size.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the
Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at
least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough
about the Foundation and non-profit law to say whether the Foundation
could or should be truly transparent, but I do think it is wrong for
it to trade on the kudos of transparency when it is merely
semi-transparent. And similarly for the claims I read of it being
anti-hierarchical.

James


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
<pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
>> ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
>> been abandoned.
>
>
> Hello James,
>
> Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much
> as feasible public. I don't think anyone expects their employer to
> publish their pay negotiations or medical conditions, and I don't mind
> if there's no press release about the Executive Director's bad
> diarrhea day. Some aspects are less public than I would like (such as
> some committees' discussion), but overall the Foundation is pretty
> good at transparency.
>
> Hierarchy is inevitable within the Foundation (the Board of Trustees
> naturally has more sway than the janitor); no hierarchy is an ideal
> for wiki communities, where no editor has more decision power than any
> other regardless of access flags.
>
> I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation
> fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community
> itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule;
> people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep
> telling them they're all equal.
>
> --
> Yours cordially,
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thanks - I've bookmarked it for when I've got time to study it properly!

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:
>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
>
> Suggested reading:
>
> http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
>
> Precis: if you pretend hierarchies don't spontaneously form, they'll
> form out of your sight and come to bite you in the arse.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>

I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki projects, which still remain
almost 100% transparent and non-hierachical in a sense that everyone
can edit and admins have rather organising and cleanig tools but they
have no special power to decide the shape of content. But this is not
necesarily about Wikimedia Foundation itself which is real life
organization and has to cope with financial and legal issues. I think
it is obvious that legal threats, most of financial decissions and
most of technical issues has to be maintained by hired professional
and maiking such decision by open discussions voting could lead to a
disaster. However, indeed there is a tendency in Foundation to move
many decission to "secret bodies" without any good reason. Among
others, IMHO the big mistake was to move decisions of closing and
opening projects (except it is forced by legal problems) to language
committee, which was theoretically created as an advisory body only
and making all process secret.


--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This 'principle':

"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia."

does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be
a departure from this.

James


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>>
>
> I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki projects, which still remain
> almost 100% transparent and non-hierachical in a sense that everyone
> can edit and admins have rather organising and cleanig tools but they
> have no special power to decide the shape of content. But this is not
> necesarily about Wikimedia Foundation itself which is real life
> organization and has to cope with financial and legal issues. I think
> it is obvious that legal threats, most of financial decissions and
> most of technical issues has to be maintained by hired professional
> and maiking such decision by open discussions voting could lead to a
> disaster. However, indeed there is a tendency in Foundation to move
> many decission to "secret bodies" without any good reason. Among
> others, IMHO the big mistake was to move decisions of closing and
> opening projects (except it is forced by legal problems) to language
> committee, which was theoretically created as an advisory body only
> and making all process secret.
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Rigg wrote:
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?

No, not at all.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Rigg wrote:
> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?

Contract negotiations. Personnel issues. Things of that nature, for
starters.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Rigg wrote:
> This 'principle':
>
> "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
> Wikipedia."
>
> does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
> Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be
> a departure from this.
>

As has been said, certain things require privacy, if not by law, by
common sense or courtesy. Obviously things like CheckUser data can't be
discussed in public and making things like emails to OTRS and
oversight-l public would greatly reduce their usefulness to the projects.

The biggest departure from that principle is that most of the day-to-day
running isn't done on the mailing lists, mostly everything at the
project-level is done on-wiki on discussion pages.

--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.

James


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Alex <mrzmanwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
>> This 'principle':
>>
>> "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
>> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
>> Wikipedia."
>>
>> does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
>> Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be
>> a departure from this.
>>
>
> As has been said, certain things require privacy, if not by law, by
> common sense or courtesy. Obviously things like CheckUser data can't be
> discussed in public and making things like emails to OTRS and
> oversight-l public would greatly reduce their usefulness to the projects.
>
> The biggest departure from that principle is that most of the day-to-day
> running isn't done on the mailing lists, mostly everything at the
> project-level is done on-wiki on discussion pages.
>
> --
> Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:

> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
> is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.


Tens of thousands of active editors a month. That such a thing could
run without bureaucracy defies rational thought.

Also, you can't actually stop people talking amongst themselves. See
"Tyranny of Structurelessness."


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
<jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
> is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
>
James,

The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your
original post is that you seem to conflate "the Foundation" with
"Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about
the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia.

People here have given you several examples of the types of
Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think
the point has been well-made that there are certain types of
information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the
Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the
Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters
private and confidential. I thought you accepted those examples.

How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a
separate matter. Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an
arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run.

Teresa

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:
> Hi
>
> This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
> England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
> thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
> possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the
> importance of transparency to any organisation

I am increasingly concluding that the concept of organizational
transparency can only be fully understood if one considers the concept
of organizational responsiveness an important accompanying principle
(whether one believes this to be an inherent subset of transparency or
not). I consider them separate: it is possible to publish
organizational internals but to never engage in dialogue; it is
possible to engage in dialogue but to not publish facts.

Moreover, I believe that in order to best serve the public interest,
both principles are necessary. Transparency, by itself, can facilitate
necessary organizational changes if organizational flaws are made
visible through media and the legal system. This, typically, only
affects the deepest organizational flaws, and if the organization is
not itself responsive to questions regarding its general practices, it
is meaningless for most practical purposes. Moreover, poorly
articulated raw information can lead to damaging misunderstandings
which remain uncorrected.

As a practical example, we spent a lot of time this year drafting Q&As
for documents like the Annual Plan and the Audited Financial
Statements, to help people understand the meaning thereof. In
addition, we are actively engaged in discussions like this one: many
staff members and Board members participate in mailing lists with
stakeholders (some of those lists are open to the general public, some
of them have principles under which access is granted).

In this basic understanding, it's important to recognize that an
organization's ability to respond to questions is not unlimited. In
fact, it is highly limited (which was exactly the point of the phrase
"23-people-organization" in an earlier e-mail of mine). While most
people understand this principle in theory, in practice, any
individual petitioner will often feel that surely their argument is
important enough, surely their e-mail or request significant enough,
to be heard and carefully responded to. When this is not the actual
outcome, they will feel deeply injured by this neglect. That is human
nature from the cradle to the grave.

An organization's ability to publish information in any meaningful
fashion (i.e. with explanations that make it actually useful) is, of
course, equally limited. With thousands of people taking an interest
in organizational affairs, it is almost inevitable that some question
will not have been anticipated, and some fact will not have been
published.

Where an organization's limits are is partially determined by its
overall human bandwidth, and partially by its allocation of internal
resources to publishing information and responding to stakeholders.
Does every staff member spend one hour a day on it? 4 hours? 8 hours?
Ultimately the organization must weigh the public service it performs
through its actual work against the important, but separate, function
of talking about it.

Finally, there are limits to transparency which are not just
defensible but in fact ethically necessary (privacy of individual
human beings) or simply practical (most businesses and organizations
don't operate at very high levels of transparency, and an organization
is not an island - it has to be able to deal with other people's
expectations in a reasonable manner in order to function).

In sum,
* I believe transparency and organizational responsiveness must go hand in hand;
* both are limited by an organization's capacity and must be balanced
with its other priorities;
* both are further limited by both ethical and practical considerations.

Where the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, I consider it to be doing
a pretty good job, but I hope we can publish and share even more
information, and respond even more consistently, in the future. I know
that WMF policies and documents, even its fundraising pages, are used
as examples and templates by other non-profits, and I'd love to see
more of that happening.

I would be interested to hear about organizations that are weighing
and using their own resources in a fashion that better serves the
public interest. I don't think WMF is a fully mature organization yet
- we've only just gone through a year of "growing up" - but I would
love to see it collaborate with other organizations and OD experts in
eventually developing and evolving sets of best practices for
organizations which support purpose-driven communities.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>:
>
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
>> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
>> is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
>
>
> Tens of thousands of active editors a month. That such a thing could
> run without bureaucracy defies rational thought.
>
> Also, you can't actually stop people talking amongst themselves. See
> "Tyranny of Structurelessness."
>
>
> - d.
>

First, I actually began the email to which you are replying with: "I'm
not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical..."

Second, re tens of thousands of editors requiring a bureaucracy,
again, that may, or may not, be true, but the point I'm simply making
here is that I've *recently* read in several different places that
Wikipedia *is* non-hierarchical, when this isn't true. For example,
Jimmy Wales states on his user page:

"There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no
hierarchy or structure..."

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia <sfmammamia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
> <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
>> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
>> is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
>>
> James,
>
> The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your
> original post is that you seem to conflate "the Foundation" with
> "Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about
> the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia.
>
> People here have given you several examples of the types of
> Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think
> the point has been well-made that there are certain types of
> information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the
> Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the
> Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters
> private and confidential. I thought you accepted those examples.
>
> How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a
> separate matter. Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an
> arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run.
>
> Teresa
>
> _______________________________________________

Please see my previous reply to David Gerard.

Also, people here have equally given me examples of how *Wikipedia* is
run in a non-transparent way that they are *not*happy about.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
> No, not at all.
>
>

But there isn't full transparency, and there is a hierarchy.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock you.


The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any
community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing lists
that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the
community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with
complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion
precursors.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern
business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its plans,
its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising
model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every
major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of
time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.

When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in working
on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing
what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response
from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in short
order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other
corporation in the world.

Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so
hopefully you will now reconsider.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I believe the point that Jimbo is making (i will certainly be corrected if
wrong :-) is that there is no externally imposed hierarchy. The wiki really
did start as a tabula rasa, and all discussions of its hierarchy can be
found in its pages.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM, James Rigg <jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> > James Rigg wrote:
> >> Thanks geni.
> >>
> >> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> >> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> >> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
> >
> > No, not at all.
> >
> >
>
> But there isn't full transparency, and there is a hierarchy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
You have successfully failed!
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l