Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Priorities and opportunities

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

erik at wikimedia

Sep 16, 2009, 9:21 AM

Post #1 of 5 (735 views)
Permalink

Priorities and opportunities

2009/9/16 Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail>:
> Putting aside the unnecessary bad faith and challenges to the
> foundation's integrity: I find this all exciting - planning for
> significant tech budget support, possible major sponsorships (I've
> always hoped we would one day find multiple sources for long-term
> in-kind support of servers and bandwidth), &c. I would simply like to
> see more open discussion of what our perfect-world tech dreams are,
> and how to pursue what sorts of sponsorships.

Thanks, Sam. I find the discussion of the last few days symptomatic of
the problems we've begun to brainstorm about with regard to the
signal/noise ratio, healthiness and openness of this particular forum.
(And by openness I mean that a forum that is dominated by highly
abrasive, high volume, low signal discussions is actually not very
open.) I do want to revisit the post limit question as a possible
answer, but let's do that separately.

The thread did surface some topics which are worth talking about, both
in general and specific terms, and I'm taking the liberty to start a
new thread to isolate some of those topics. For one thing, I think
it's always good to revisit and iterate processes for defining
priorities, and for achieving the highest impact in those identified
areas.

Developing more sophisticated processes both for short-term and
long-term planning has been precisely one of the key focus areas of
the last year. Internally, we've begun experimenting with assessment
spreadsheets and standardized project briefs, drawing from the
expertise of project management experts as well as Sue's specific work
in developing a very well thought-out prioritization system at the
CBC. Publicly, we're engaged in the strategy planning process -- the
associated Call for Proposals is a first attempt to conduct a
large-scale assessment of potential priorities. (I hope that with
future improvements to the ReaderFeedback extension we'll be able to
generate more helpful reports based on that particular assessment.)

Ideally, the internal and public processes will converge sooner rather
than later. For example, I posted a project brief that I developed
internally through the strategy CfP:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Toolkit

I believe this one was submitted by Jennifer:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Management_practices_to_Expand_Participation

And this one by Tim:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Directed_community_fundraising

The next phase of the strategy planning process, the deep-dive task
forces, will be an interesting experiment in serious community-driven
planning work, complemented by the research conducted with the help of
our partners at The Bridgespan Group. All of this will become part of
the institutional memory of the Wikimedia movement, and hopefully
we'll continue to raise the bar in our thinking, planning, and
collaboration.

- - -

Of course separately from setting priorities, there's the critical
need to improve our ability to execute upon those priorities. This
includes the further development of project pipelines, more systematic
volunteer engagement, additional internal HR support, additional
hiring of staff to address key capacity gaps, etc. I'm thrilled by how
far we've come, and to be able to have supported, and continue to
support, an unprecedented large-scale initiative like the usability
project. I'm well-aware that there continue to be key priorities that
we aren't executing as effectively as we could.

The first thing many partners, donors and friends say when they visit
Wikimedia Foundation is how astonishing it is that an operation of
this scale can function with so little funding and staff. The truth is
that by any reasonable measure of efficiency and money-to-impact
ratio, we're achieving wonderful things together, and that's easy to
forget when looking at issues in isolation. (Yes, it would be
wonderful to have the full-history dumps running ASAP. Hm, it would be
nice to have the full-history dumps for some other top 50 content
websites. Oh, right, they don't provide any.)

But I don't measure our success compared to other organizations. The
most important question to me is whether we are continually raising
the bar in what we're doing and how we do it. The most recent
Wikimania was the most thoughtful and self-aware one I've ever
attended, with deep, constructive conversations and very serious
efforts of everyone involved to re-ignite and strengthen our movement.
There are elements of groupthink, but also very systematic attempts to
break out of it.

There are great opportunities today for anyone to become engaged in
helping to shape the future of what we do, and to accomplish real
change in the world as a result. Ultimately we all have to make a
choice how we spend our time -- how we spend our lives -- but I hope
we're creating a legacy that will fill us with pride and joy, and
inspire others to do the same.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

meta.sj at gmail

Sep 26, 2009, 7:32 PM

Post #2 of 5 (646 views)
Permalink

Re: Priorities and opportunities [In reply to]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> with assessment spreadsheets and standardized project briefs

Do you have links for these?

> Of course separately from setting priorities, there's the critical
> need to improve our ability to execute upon those priorities. This
> includes the further development of project pipelines, more systematic
> volunteer engagement, additional internal HR support, additional
> hiring of staff to address key capacity gaps, etc.

'Systematic volunteer engagement' sounds right but clinical. I should
like to see investment in our voluntary supporters, contributors, and
partners to address key capacity gaps.

It seems to me effective execution at scale involves actively
acknowledging great work done by potential partners, and finding
better ways to let them align efforts with ours on their own.

For instance, letting mediawiki users help fix or submit ideas/patches
to MW through its interface; or submit/synch categories of content
with a Wikimedia project.

> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Toolkit
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Management_practices_to_Expand_Participation

Interesting proposals - but they say nothing about learning and
teaching and sharing expertise. If you're not learning, why not move
on? And if you are learning, how important are elaborate recognition
rituals?

You go on to say that visitors to the Foundation are amazed that it is
so small. And it is true - the Foundation does a tremendous number
of things for its size.

But in my experience most people mean they are amazed that the
/Projects/ could be run by such a small group. And the Projects are
in fact run by thousands of people and groups with different
responsibilities, talents, and tools. In addition to expanding the
number of participants, we need to help this network learn all of the
skills needed to sustain and enhance their work, from development to
community organizing.

< I'm thrilled by how far we've come, and to be able to have supported
> an unprecedented large-scale initiative like the usability project.

Yes, this is an excellent example.

Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability
project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the
community?

SJ

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

pbeaudette at wikimedia

Sep 26, 2009, 8:20 PM

Post #3 of 5 (648 views)
Permalink

Re: Priorities and opportunities [In reply to]

On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

> Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability
> project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the
> community?

Are you sure that's the best option? Playing devil's advocate, does
doing something entirely internal provide the necessary "outside look"
at the software that's important to finding out, for instance, what a
potential new user thinks about the interface or redesigning functions
with non-contributing readers in mind? I don't mean to intimate that
we should use entirely external people for this, of course, as I'm a 4
year member of the community, but I think doing anything that's
entirely from within the community brings its own unique set of
challenges. You seem to imply that it's a settled case that we would
WANT to do that, and I'm not sure it is.

Philippe

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

meta.sj at gmail

Sep 26, 2009, 9:21 PM

Post #4 of 5 (648 views)
Permalink

Re: Priorities and opportunities [In reply to]

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<pbeaudette [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability
>> project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the
>> community?
>
> Are you sure that's the best option?

We should be capable of such a thing as a community, in terms of
knowledge, experience, and process. That does not mean there is no
place for the outside input or guidance you devilishly advocate.

> doing anything that's entirely from within the community brings
> its own unique set of challenges.

Yes.

That said, there are degrees of community nature. Many contractors we
have worked with were already Wikipedians to a small degree.

Imagine that we succeed in helping every person in the world learn,
and in engaging most of them to share what they know with others.
Then we will be a global community with few boundaries. At which
point you can ask: How much of a project requires engaging people who
would not otherwise do it, and how much can we accomplish by
coordinating those already gladly doing to such work?

An example that does not cross the community/outsider boundary:
translating a given set of documents. Requesting translations can
feel like pulling teeth, asking favors of people who would rather do
something else. But every day there are ten times as many people
enthusiastically handling translation requests to create or improve
Wikipedia articles. This is a question of finding and directing
existing interest, and sharing the underlying drive and vision for why
it matters.

SJ

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

saintonge at telus

Sep 29, 2009, 11:39 AM

Post #5 of 5 (623 views)
Permalink

Re: Priorities and opportunities [In reply to]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>
>> On Sep 26, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think we will be in a position to run a second usability
>>> project of similar scope, two years from now, entirely from within the
>>> community?
>>>
>> Are you sure that's the best option?
>>
> We should be capable of such a thing as a community, in terms of
> knowledge, experience, and process. That does not mean there is no
> place for the outside input or guidance you devilishly advocate.
>

I think that Philippe's question is important. Renewal processes from
within are often stuck in a community's own inertia, and an inability of
most people to look upon those processes with any kind of detachment.
Those who are comfortable with existing processes become ill at ease
with the notion that they might have to change the way they do things.
Inertia makes it most difficult to abandon the most outrageous aspects
of requests for adminship. Those of us who recognize those outrages most
clearly do so with the clarity of infrequent participants, and have
little stomach or patience for the hand-to-hand combat that would be
required to effect change.
>
>> doing anything that's entirely from within the community brings
>> its own unique set of challenges.
>>
> Yes.
>
> That said, there are degrees of community nature. Many contractors we
> have worked with were already Wikipedians to a small degree.
>

That's fine. "Small degree" allows a person some time to become familiar
with the underlying philosophy and operational parameters, without the
zealotry that often comes with "large degree".
> Imagine that we succeed in helping every person in the world learn,
> and in engaging most of them to share what they know with others.
> Then we will be a global community with few boundaries. At which
> point you can ask: How much of a project requires engaging people who
> would not otherwise do it, and how much can we accomplish by
> coordinating those already gladly doing to such work?
>

I apologize in advance if I characterize this as starry-eyed idealism.
There's even a very American element of believing "We have the best
system in the world so why wouldn't everyone else want to adopt it."
That builds resentment and antagonism among those who are not within the
system. From the inside, it is difficult to see that we engage people
just as much when we provide them with positive encouragement to work on
a competing project. The problem with co-ordinating those already doing
the work is that it encourages inertia. Headquarters evolve into
creationist Wizards of Oz at the centre of the universe, and not because
it is decreed by any intelligent design; it just evolves that way.

The wisdom of crowds is a statistical operation. Its fractal geometry
succeeds because most people accidentally choose the right answer. At
the same time it allows for statistically deviant results which run the
gamut from great ideas to outright stupidities. This is in sharp
contrast to the kind of rigidly syllogistic thinking that has dominated
western thought since at least the time of Plato. Syllogistic thought
fails to accommodate the power of the paradox.

> An example that does not cross the community/outsider boundary:
> translating a given set of documents. Requesting translations can
> feel like pulling teeth, asking favors of people who would rather do
> something else. But every day there are ten times as many people
> enthusiastically handling translation requests to create or improve
> Wikipedia articles. This is a question of finding and directing
> existing interest, and sharing the underlying drive and vision for why
> it matters.
The community of translators is a validly defined sub-community with its
own insiders and outsiders. Some will respond to established priorities
for what needs translating; others will translate whatever they damn
well please. If the pool of translators for a given language is big
enough there is a high probability that everything that needs doing will
be done. It is that last sentence with which I take issue because it
ignores the influence of Murphy and the trickster. The people you are
trying to direct or drive (or herd) are not sheep; they're cats. The
vision that you propose to share is yours not theirs. This does not make
your vision wrong; it's just not theirs. Sheep cannot build a
Wikipedia; only cats can.

Ec

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

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads