Mailing List Archive

> I think that absolutely *no one* should have the right to *unilaterally* decide who is a partner and who can use our logos on their website. It should be a community approved decision. Possibly an approval by a limited number of people to represent the community (we are not gonna vote for any logo use), but never a *one* person decision.

I agree to that. Wikimedia is a community, so everyone is entitled, as
much as possible, to give his/her opinion and help decide.

> Anthere

Ryo

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>> I think that absolutely *no one* should have the right to
>> *unilaterally* decide who is a partner and who can use our logos on
>> their website. It should be a community approved decision. Possibly an
>> approval by a limited number of people to represent the community (we
>> are not gonna vote for any logo use), but never a *one* person decision.
>
>
> I agree to that. Wikimedia is a community, so everyone is entitled, as
> much as possible, to give his/her opinion and help decide.

I agree in the very abstract sense, but there is a practical problem
with this. As president of the foundation, I require a certain amount
of freedom of action which can't involve seeking community approval for
every single thing that I do.

When we are dealing with people who want to use our logo, it's up to the
board to decide, not the community. The board of course needs to
respect the community, but ultimately we have to really very strongly
avoid an ethos which says that we have to go through a massive public
discussion and vote about everything -- this is a formula for paralysis.

--Jimbo

Jimmy Wales wrote:

> When we are dealing with people who want to use our logo, it's up to
> the board to decide, not the community. The board of course needs to
> respect the community, but ultimately we have to really very strongly
> avoid an ethos which says that we have to go through a massive public
> discussion and vote about everything -- this is a formula for paralysis.

I'd take the somewhat less-strongly-worded position that "it's up to the
board to decide _as the representatives of the community_". That is,
there is no need for a full public vote on every detailed issue (that
would defeat the entire purpose of having representatives), but if there
is reason to believe that the community has a strong opinion one way or
the other, it would be inappropriate to just ignore that and do the
opposite. It would also be preferable to at least ask for input before
doing anything major.

-Mark

I changed the subject because I'm off on a general philosophical tangent.

Delirium wrote:
> I'd take the somewhat less-strongly-worded position that "it's up to the
> board to decide _as the representatives of the community_". That is,
> there is no need for a full public vote on every detailed issue (that
> would defeat the entire purpose of having representatives), but if there
> is reason to believe that the community has a strong opinion one way or
> the other, it would be inappropriate to just ignore that and do the
> opposite. It would also be preferable to at least ask for input before
> doing anything major.

The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a
legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of
course involves profound respect for the community.

I say this not to contradict anything specific that you're saying,
because of course it would be inappropriate to just ignore the opinion
of the community and do anything opposite to that opinion, and of course
to ask for opinion before doing anything major is our tradition and a
very sensible one indeed.

This only comes up in some counterfactual hypotheticals -- suppose we
have a huge influx of newcomers from our newfound fame, and people want
to turn this into a big joke project? Suppose the community votes to
abandon neutrality in favor of, hmm, let's say support for the US war on
terror? Some things, like Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and NPOV, are
not negotiable, as is my firm insistence that what we are doing is to be
a *high quality* work first, are not negotiable, and if the community
doesn't like it, we have to find different people to be a part of the
community.

As I said in my founder's letter in Quarto this month, though, I don't
think my position should be construed as "the encyclopedic purpose is
more important than the community". Rather, it's that the purpose of
this community is the free, encyclopedic, charitable purpose. I will
defend that purpose in the name of defending the community.

My sense is that the vast majority of really active and important
contributors consider this to be a very important part of our "social
contract"... that a huge part of my role in the community is
specifically to make sure that we stay _in focus_ and true to our
original principles -- a sort of bedrock force to make sure that as
newcomers come into our community, our values aren't swamped.

Reporters are always asking me questions like "But, as it grows, won't
Wikipedia just become another Usenet, another swamp overwhelmed by
trolls and pranksters." The answer is: no, I won't let it.

I didn't gather everyone together by saying "Let's form a really neat
online community and do whatever we feel like doing" -- I gathered
everyone together by saing "Let's do something really great in the
world: write an encyclopedia, put it under a free license, and give it
away to everyone on the planet."

Wikipedia is a social experiment of sorts, but it isn't a representative
democracy (except in elements) and it isn't a monarchy (expect in
elements) and it isn't an aristocracy (except in elements) and it isn't
anarchy (expect in elements). What it *is*, is a project to create and
give away an encyclopedia under a free license to everyone on the planet.

--Jimbo

Jimmy Wales wrote:

> The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a
> legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of
> course involves profound respect for the community.

That's only true for the unelected 3/5 of the board---two of the board
members very explicitly represent the community, and indeed the
community can replace them at the next election if it dislikes how it's
being represented.

> This only comes up in some counterfactual hypotheticals -- suppose we
> have a huge influx of newcomers from our newfound fame, and people
> want to turn this into a big joke project? Suppose the community
> votes to abandon neutrality in favor of, hmm, let's say support for
> the US war on terror? Some things, like Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
> and NPOV, are not negotiable, as is my firm insistence that what we
> are doing is to be a *high quality* work first, are not negotiable,
> and if the community doesn't like it, we have to find different people
> to be a part of the community.

This seems incompatible with en eventual move to an all-elected board;
does that mean the board will perpetually have less than 50% of its
members be elected? I was under the impression that that was only a
temporary situation, not a permanent one.

-Mark

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:09:11PM -0400, Delirium wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a
> >legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of
> >course involves profound respect for the community.
>
> That's only true for the unelected 3/5 of the board---two of the board
> members very explicitly represent the community, and indeed the
> community can replace them at the next election if it dislikes how it's
> being represented.
>
> >This only comes up in some counterfactual hypotheticals -- suppose we
> >have a huge influx of newcomers from our newfound fame, and people
> >want to turn this into a big joke project? Suppose the community
> >votes to abandon neutrality in favor of, hmm, let's say support for
> >the US war on terror? Some things, like Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
> >and NPOV, are not negotiable, as is my firm insistence that what we
> >are doing is to be a *high quality* work first, are not negotiable,
> >and if the community doesn't like it, we have to find different people
> >to be a part of the community.
>
> This seems incompatible with en eventual move to an all-elected board;
> does that mean the board will perpetually have less than 50% of its
> members be elected? I was under the impression that that was only a
> temporary situation, not a permanent one.
>

Maybe the time has come to consider creating a "constitution" of sorts
that constrains the board against corrupting the purpose of the project,
then. While it is true that elected boardmembers can make decisions
counter to the intended spirit of the endeavor, it is also true that
constraining them from engaging in that sort of behavior is possible
through the application of a set of rules that are, as Jimbo indicated,
not negotiable.

I'm no devotee of democracy for its own sake. What makes the United
States government tolerable is not the fact that it has representative
democratic elements; it is the fact that the government is constrained
by the terms of the Consitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in
particular. Given enough time and corruption in the right places, this
can of course be undermined to a great degree in practice, but at least
the attempt has been made to limit the damage that can be done. This is
a good thing, in my way of thinking, and I think it may in time become a
necessary thing for Wikipedia and sibling projects as well, if the
spirit of the entire project is to be preserved at all.

--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Delirium wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a
>> legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of
>> course involves profound respect for the community.
>
>
> That's only true for the unelected 3/5 of the board---two of the board
> members very explicitly represent the community, and indeed the
> community can replace them at the next election if it dislikes how it's
> being represented.

Board members, elected or unelected, have a duty to the organization's
charitable aims, not to the members who elected them.

Over the very long haul future, I anticipate increasing community
participation on the board, in some fashion, but I do not anticipate
that this should ever be allowed to give rise to the idea that Wikipedia
can be whatever the community wants it to be, no matter who the
community is.

This is not as simple as "voting versus not voting" for board members.
The exact _mechanisms_ by which we (in the long run) organize the board
can have a huge impact on the project, and I intend that we slowly and
carefully modify and test and design those mechanisms to ensure that we
continue to hold to our fundamental ideals.

Let me give a very simple example to explain what I mean about it not
being as simple as "voting versus not voting" -- it is not hard for
anyone who has studied a little bit of election theory to come up with a
plan for electing board members which would guarantee a victory only for
people who are either en.wikipedia users or are somehow famous in the en
community.

This would lead to no representation for other languages, etc.

Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
representation at the board level. This is not easy.

This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people. And so
long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
representation for different languages.

We also have to be very concerned about the possibility as we become
more important of outside groups trying to control the content of
Wikipedia by controlling the votes. I think this is a very easy thing
to deal with, so I only mention it to mention yet another way in which
the question of "elected or not" doesn't really get us very far.

If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.

- --Jimbo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCYwW9PmU5MGI9SZcRAmskAJ9o6AoYI1XBEcVkqoygI4hUeuq9bACfUFUq
03qCW1mjo8Qt8cqsfZXMzXY=
=5HdS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Delirium wrote:
>
>
>>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a
>>>legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of
>>>course involves profound respect for the community.
>>>
>>>
>>That's only true for the unelected 3/5 of the board---two of the board
>>members very explicitly represent the community, and indeed the
>>community can replace them at the next election if it dislikes how it's
>>being represented.
>>
>>
>
>Board members, elected or unelected, have a duty to the organization's
>charitable aims, not to the members who elected them.
>
>Over the very long haul future, I anticipate increasing community
>participation on the board, in some fashion, but I do not anticipate
>that this should ever be allowed to give rise to the idea that Wikipedia
>can be whatever the community wants it to be, no matter who the
>community is.
>
>This is not as simple as "voting versus not voting" for board members.
>The exact _mechanisms_ by which we (in the long run) organize the board
>can have a huge impact on the project, and I intend that we slowly and
>carefully modify and test and design those mechanisms to ensure that we
>continue to hold to our fundamental ideals.
>
>Let me give a very simple example to explain what I mean about it not
>being as simple as "voting versus not voting" -- it is not hard for
>anyone who has studied a little bit of election theory to come up with a
>plan for electing board members which would guarantee a victory only for
>people who are either en.wikipedia users or are somehow famous in the en
>community.
>
>This would lead to no representation for other languages, etc.
>
>Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
>representation at the board level. This is not easy.
>
>This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
>fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people. And so
>long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
>representation for different languages.
>
>We also have to be very concerned about the possibility as we become
>more important of outside groups trying to control the content of
>Wikipedia by controlling the votes. I think this is a very easy thing
>to deal with, so I only mention it to mention yet another way in which
>the question of "elected or not" doesn't really get us very far.
>
>If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
>undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
>principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
>And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
>promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
>would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.
>
>- --Jimbo
>
>
Hoi,
In your reply, you mention how the voting system will decide how the
Wikipedia community is represented on the board. The Wikimedia
Foundations does however not only represent the Wikipedia communities,
there are the other communities as well. They are equally deserving in
having some representation on the board. In my opinion we are fortunate
that the current board is open to the needs of the other projects. This
does not mean that more could be done for the other projects, it means
that I am happy with our board and if anything I hope that we will find
both Anthere and Angela on the board after the elections because some
stability is a good thing in our current form of organisation.

Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:56:29PM -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
> representation at the board level. This is not easy.
>
> This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
> fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people. And so
> long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
> representation for different languages.
>

Yikes. That sounds like the beginnings of the United States Congress.

Of course, we all know that CONgress is the antonym to PROgress. Yes?

This useless digression has been brought to you by the number 16, the
letter O, and . . .
--
Chad Perrin
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
>undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
>principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
>And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
>promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
>would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.
>
>
I agree with that, but I don't think those scenarios are likely to come
up, and certainly not very often. In the more common case, there are
issues on which reasonable people can disagree within the scope of
Wikipedia's mission, and on those I think deferring to the community in
large part makes some sense.

I don't necessarily mean holding votes on everything, but at least
recognizing that in principle this isn't a top-down organization, but
rather a community that largely works on its own to write a high-quality
encyclopedia. The community resolves disputes over articles, develops
policies on specific projects, and so on, with a legal organization that
provides servers, loose guidance, and suggestions, and a baseline
assurance that nothing is straying unacceptably from the Foundation's
mission (abandoning neutral viewpoint or something of that sort).

There seems to be a tendency lately, since we have a board, to just dump
all decisions onto it as a convenient arbiter ("this should be a Board
decision"), which I think would be a mistake.

-Mark

Chad Perrin wrote:

>On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:56:29PM -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>
>>Alternatively we can design processes which somehow guarantee diverse
>>representation at the board level. This is not easy.
>>
>>This is particularly not easy because it would be undesirable from a
>>fast decision-making point of view to have a board of 75 people. And so
>>long as we have a manageable group, of course it is hard to get proper
>>representation for different languages.
>>
>>
>
>Yikes. That sounds like the beginnings of the United States Congress.
>
>Of course, we all know that CONgress is the antonym to PROgress. Yes?
>
>
It gave me visions of our very own electoral college.

Ec

Delirium a écrit:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>> If your question is: will there ever come a day when the community
>> undertakes a vote of some kind to do away with neutrality or the
>> principle of free licensing, then my answer is: not if I can help it.
>> And this is not me _against_ the community, but rather this is my
>> promise to the community, to defend it and not make hasty decisions that
>> would lead to the potential corruption of our ideals.
>>
>>
> I agree with that, but I don't think those scenarios are likely to come
> up, and certainly not very often. In the more common case, there are
> issues on which reasonable people can disagree within the scope of
> Wikipedia's mission, and on those I think deferring to the community in
> large part makes some sense.
>
> I don't necessarily mean holding votes on everything, but at least
> recognizing that in principle this isn't a top-down organization, but
> rather a community that largely works on its own to write a high-quality
> encyclopedia. The community resolves disputes over articles, develops
> policies on specific projects, and so on, with a legal organization that
> provides servers, loose guidance, and suggestions, and a baseline
> assurance that nothing is straying unacceptably from the Foundation's
> mission (abandoning neutral viewpoint or something of that sort).
>
> There seems to be a tendency lately, since we have a board, to just dump
> all decisions onto it as a convenient arbiter ("this should be a Board
> decision"), which I think would be a mistake.
>
> -Mark

Sort of agree with the latest comment...
But... I do not see that a *recent* trend at all. Previously, most
unsolved issues were dump on Jimbo ("this should be decided by Jimbo").

In principle, Jimbo has been careful not to necessarily react to such
appeals, but only to get involved in the most untractable cases (and not
even always so) or those potentially damaging the basic principles of
the projects.

ant

On 4/18/05, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> I agree with that, but I don't think those scenarios are likely to come
> up, and certainly not very often. In the more common case, there are
> issues on which reasonable people can disagree within the scope of
> Wikipedia's mission, and on those I think deferring to the community in
> large part makes some sense.
>
> I don't necessarily mean holding votes on everything, but at least
> recognizing that in principle this isn't a top-down organization, but
> rather a community that largely works on its own to write a high-quality
> encyclopedia.

A rather theological thought ... but "a community" sounds me a bit
strange when we contemplate the current situation; even we limit the
topic on Wikipedia, I doubt strongly the idea there is one sole
(unified) community; it is ideal rather than real; in fact most of the
community exist as islands not a part of continent. the issues on
German Wikipedia give no or little effects to English Wikipedia,
supportingly and vice versa. In this situation what designate "a
community" without lacking communication and interest, I strongly
doubt unification here assumed.

I have noticed signs of tendency of isolation; hereby I introduce two
episodes.(sorry, a rant begins ... you can skip it ). a Japanese
editor made a typo in a stats table and a German editor found this
tweak; I let the former his mistake and asked him to check other his
similar table which would be to other projects, because we don't know
where he had put this table exactly. He denied saying "it is not my
major concern; I have more interest on on other tasks [his newly
created other tables on JAWP]. Finally German editor checked out other
projects. Or recently an Japanese editor made me requests for comments
on my wording and blanking the content not acceptable from academic
view; besides this 'request' it was just before the Wikimania site
opening, and it was my responsible to care for translators in 8
languages and therefore pages on the site. I admit my engagement is
only a small part of it, but it required some sort of concentration
and devotion. And moreover I have been inactive on Japanese Wikipedia
since this February,. before this RfC. So when this editor complained
me he coulnd't get my answer, I replied him I was very inactive,
specially then, because of Wikimania site preparation, already
overdue, and WQ (then the submission deadline was set on 8 April,
very soon from then), and some update of WMF site. I think this
editor could understand the dispute if he as the third party [.very
strangely, he didn't edit the page I blanked, and no other editors of
that page complained] was pleased to my edit and the preparation of
overdue opening official site of WMF events, which was important in
those days situation, but he accused me "It is not the time for you to
engage '''such things''', you should realize importance of your
"basement of activities'"(honestly confessed I can't understand even
now what he meant).

I added hereby this editor didn't withdraw this underestimation,
though he admitted not everyone shared his view, nor he made
apologies. For this editor, I should have talk with him, besides the
translation coordination to announce hosting news in language as many
as possible to the entire Wikimedia community. Perhaps, even now.

It was just the day Yahoo! announcement, and even now I regret to
spend time to be nice to such an editor, instead of caring sites and
my fellow translators... specially sorry to translators who I couldn't
give a notice in advance.

.. So I am afraid if there is really "a community", Delirium ---
unless you consider English Wikipedia community and the entire
Wikimedia project community identical .
--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com