Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/2019 Community Conversations/Roles & Responsibilities

Area of inquiry

On-wiki vs off-wiki or hybrid functions?

I'm curious what the working group is examining relating to the differences between on-wiki and off-wiki (or hybrid) groups. For example, stewards are a group defined by their on-wiki responsibilities (like arbcoms, etc) and do not have much formal involvement in broader movement-wide governance structures. Other groups, like certain types of affiliates, are structured around on-wiki activities yet do have involvement in movement-wide governance structures (i.e. can participate in affiliate-selected board seat votes). Is there discussion happening about whether those two categories could both be represented within movement-wide structures, or what that would look like? – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Current situation

Chapter - WMF roles and responsibilities

I agree that a lot of Chapter/WMF interactions and responsibilities are not clear or not formally specified. Therefore during the previous months on my own initiative, as a Chapter Chairperson, I have attempted to make an inventory of the mutual responsibilities between Chapters and the WMF: see wmbe:WMF Chapter Roles and responsibilities. Could this possibly be used as an input to the R&R working group process? Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Geert! Yes, we have found that a useful input. Thank you for your work on it. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Leave out the working "presently a large number". That is not a description but a judgement. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad. If I understand correctly, you're saying we don't know whether the number of Wikimedia entities is 'large' or 'small' because we have no way to establish the 'correct number' - is that what you're saying? I think that's a helpful observation for us to bear in mind Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

One half of the population might belief there are now too many, and there is a problem. Another half might belief what an awesome movement we have with such great succes of having already a large number while the movement is so young. The statement reads like a judgement, but without further context is very ambiguous. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Key questions

We invite everyone to have a look at the existing documentation of the Working Groups, and then add comments, additional input or share concerns via this talk page. Your comments will be taken into consideration by the respective Working Groups.

Question 3

How and to whom should movement roles and structures be accountable?

We must reject imposition by the Foundation of civility standards without local community involvement, review, or approval. We must forbid secret trials by secret and unaccountable judges without the right of representation, defense or appeal, on secret evidence submitted by secret accusers.

I object to the Foundation imposing any non-legally necessary sanctions within the purview of established local conduct policy and community processes. T&S shouldn't be imposing temporary or local sanctions or modifying advanced permissions. They should have only the one tool that they have ever needed for their legitimate purpose of ToU enforcement of serious, legally necessary sanctions: the global permanent ban.

I agree with Jimbo Wales that all bans are appealable to him[1] and I ask that we plan our strategy to explicitly acknowledge and leverage this avenue of appeals.

I'd like to quote from Anti-Harassment Tools Team Design Researcher Claudia Lo's November 2018 "Reporting systems on English Wikipedia" written for the Community Health Initiative:

the Wikimedia community highly prizes transparency. For reporting systems, this is interpreted as publicly-viewable processes, outcomes, and the identities of the involved users. Transparency in this case is not just a design consideration put into place to achieve a certain kind of efficiency or mode of operation, but a value to be strived for in the way the entire system operates.... whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy.

EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ellen. Just curious about your rationale for including Jimmy explicitly in our recommendations (as it had genuinely not crossed my mind that he would have any special formal role in any future movement structures). Could you expand on this? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo is easy to contact, engages with everyone -- including those asking absurd questions -- promptly, and provides thorough and transparent explanations of his reasoning. I have never seen any WMF employee engage nearly as readily or promptly. Therefore, the longstanding avenue of appeal to Jimbo should be maintained as a safeguard against star chamber abuses. EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Same aspect here, coming from deWP: Earlier this year WMF T&S banned a German user long after the issue was resolved on deWP according to the well established procedures on deWP. The problem from the view of the user is, that deWP has procedures to appeal and/or to ask for pardon after some time, WMF T&S does not. The user is in limbo regarding his options. Looking from the deWP community, MWF interfered with long standing and well established roles and procedures, without consultation, without communication usurping a role simply not acceptable. The German Wikipedia is a well known, functional community, able to deal with its issues on their own. The issue at question was already resolved. There was no need to take further action, and no one authorized WMF to interfere with day to day management. My demand is simple: Stay out unless a global ban is legally mandatory and covered by OFFICE. Either disband T&S or have them work through the established channels within the communities. Otherwise there will be a conflict, a serious one. --h-stt !? 11:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Also coming from the german community I would like to state the opposite. The german community is not working. It is a big battle field in my opinion. I would like to see much more WMF interferance with day to day management. I think T&S has an imoportant role to play. I think the foundation should rethink it's role in de.wikipedia.org! Get involved! Thank you. Greetings from Switzerland. Valanagut (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a long years active wikipedian based in Wp-de and I'd like to support the statements of h-stt above. In the recent conflict fields WMF seems to usurp a role that is not acceptable for our communities! The red links of Valanagut suggest that we see just another example of sock puppetry show up. And it even acts just like that: absurd reality bias stuff like "german community is not working. It is a big battle field"; promoting the extreme opposite of H-stt's ideas. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Financial transparency

Per my discussion with Kaarel, I request that the Resource Allocation, Revenue Streams, and Roles & Responsibilities groups include the subject of financial transparency in their list of priorities to address. My belief is that the standard for financial transparency for affiliates and for the WMF should be very high, including transparency of all spending on salaries, bonuses, severance packages, and other benefits for individual staff. This level of transparency makes accountability easier and also facilities more thorough public reviews of organizational budgets, spending, and annual plans. Regards, --Pine^✉ 07:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pine! Just responding to this comment from last summer. As you can see from our scoping questions, both accountability and inclusive governance behaviours are included in what we're thinking about (q3 and q4 in particular). However, we have not yet thought about financial transparency specifically - we can feed this in to our thought process and see where it fits alongside the bigger picture of accountability. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I also support transparency. Benjamin (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Transparency is vital if we want to avoid the emerging of another FIFA type organisation. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Summit input summary

Summary of input at the Wikimedia Summit - further input is warmly invited! Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

WMF practice of secret and termless punishments

I would like to call this Work Group attention to the current practice by the Wikimedia Foundation of imposing secret and termless punishments over members of the Wikimedia Community, without even informing them of the fact, and the reasons and evidence that had led to it, therefore not providing any venue of defense before making them effective. This is absolutely wrong and unacceptable on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is unbelievable that the Wikimedia Foundation is not following itself even the most basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights towards members of the Wikimedia community. This should be seriously be taken into account, as it is certainly not the role or responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation to behave this way.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Could you provide any detailed information, please? Such complaint is a short monologue rather than feedback to questions included in the Scoping Document. At least this is what I think. Are you sure you really mean the Wikimedia Foundation, or is it about admins on a wiki? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Certainly. Today my affiliate has received information from the Wikimedia Foundation that I am being subject to a punishment that I was not aware at all, about an episode I was not involved in, and without any stated term or expiration. So I do know of what I am talking about, and yes, this is directed at this WG, because I do find absolutely appalling for the Wikimedia Foundation to be engaged in this sort of behavior. It is not "admins or wiki", it is about the Wikimedia Foundation, and it's roles & responsibilities, specifically.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@DarwIn: yet you share your feelings only, and the background remains unknown. I advise to write directly to WG members if the story shouldn't be made public. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): No, I shared facts, not feelings. It is a fact that the WMF communicated to my affiliate there is some punishment placed on me, of which I had not the least idea it was in place. It was a secrete decision, without allowing any space for defense nor explanation, and I had not any idea or information it was even on place. It has happened to me and it may be happening to others as well, as I'm not more or less than anyone else around here. This is the kind of stuff we expect of some very much abhorred types of government, but not from the Wikimedia Foundation. It is absolutely appalling to know that secretive and clandestine kangaroo courts are taking place inside the Foundation, issuing decrees at will, without even informing the targets of those decrees. It is not the role nor the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation to have or take part on this kind of deplorable behavior, and I want to leave an official note to the Working Group about it, for further discussion. Anyone wanting to know the details may contact me directly by email, and I'll be happy to provide them. Thanks,--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are looking at a very high level at the structures and governance behaviours of the Wikimedia movement. We are not a court of appeal for people unhappy with WMF decisions. It sounds to me like this is some kind of decision from the WMF Trust and Safety team, which is really at a more operational level than what this working group is looking at. Probably issues about how that team acts and how its decisions are communicated might be within the scope of the Community Health working group. Though if you are hoping for someone to overturn something the WMF has done, then they are also not going to do that for you. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@The Land: I do not want any kind of overturn or whatever. As I wrote above, the WMF taking decisions that affect affiliates and individuals alike secretly, informing them only after the fact, is an unacceptable behavior from any organization, even more one like the Wikimedia Foundation. This has happened and is happening, I know it first hand, so it's not some hypothetical case. And IMO it is very much part of Roles & Responsibilities WG scope. Of course, inside those groups you are free to pick whatever you want for discussion, so you may as well ignore my request. But I do want to state it here, even if it is just another cry in the dark.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Land: Adding: As far as I know, this request is not related in any way to Community Health, as this is merely a matter of procedure and proper bureaucracy, and good practices in general, as well as following the minimum standards of expected behavior from an organization. As far as I know, there is nothing secret or that should stay secret about it, it is a procedure which was carried on, decided and communicated to a third party, without informing the target of that procedure in any moment. Apart from very serious situations involving crime, as far as I know the WMF has not the role nor the responsibility to dictate decisions secretively and clandestinely, and only communicate them after the fact, as they have been doing.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to stress that in my experience with AffCom and the WMF, since I joined the "structured" part of Wikimedia, those secret courts and punishments inside the WMF are common and recurrent. This is not an isolated case, but rather something that seems to be common practice. Last year we at WMPT were accused without any evidence being presented - in fact, without even stating what the accusation was. Even so, we were accused and punished by those secret WMF courts. In the end, as far as I know, either the evidence was very week, or false, as we never heard again of those elusory misdeeds, which granted us a suspension last year. There are other cases as well, of which I have knowledge and can inform teh WG, if they find it useful. Now the WMF is at it again. I wish this strategy group calls for the WMF to stop with this despicable practice, as I'm pretty sure it's not in line with the ideals and principles of the Wikimedia Movement we all follow and love.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@DarwIn: That is indeed concerning. Benjamin (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Role of the AffCom

My personal experience and understanding is that currently the Affiliations Committee, with the excuse of a permanent and superior need for secrecy, has distanced itself enormously from the principles that dictated the constitution of its former self, the ChapCom, being now basically a secretive institution were much is decided out of process and without due investigation, evidence testing, in a very superficial, if not fraudulent, way. The problems with this institution start already with the process of nomination of its members, which is entirely decided by the members who are already part of it, perpetuating any problems that may exist, such as clientele/power networks and malfunctioning internal mechanisms. The WMF presents AffCom as a "community-run committee", but the community has no part on deciding who is to be there. It may be a group of volunteers from the "community", but is not a "community-run committee" at all, as the community has no word on it. Then, I've been seeing AffCom serving basically for two sorts of things: 1) Blind-signing any User Group proposal that follows a certain number of basic rules, usually in a completely secrete and opaque process, resulting in very superficial and problematic decisions; 2) as a forum for influence peddling, dissemination of false information and personal revenge. It seems obvious to me that the total lack of transparency, from the nominations, to the proposals of UGs, to the decisions of AffCom, is directly connected to its currently rotten state. In the times of ChapCom, AffCom used to be a service to the community and the Wikimedia Movement. Now it is basically a tumor on the body of the Wikimedia Movement, having on itself the mechanism for self-perpetuating its own problems.

I therefore would like to invite, ask and recommend this Work Group to study, debate and hopefully present solutions on the following questions:

• Is the AffCom still serving its original role and purpose, acting as an useful institution for the movement?
• Should AffCom exist at all, or some other mechanism or institution should do its current assigned functions?
• Is the current AffCom nomination mechanism effective on preventing the perpetuation of internal illnesses and problems? Should a committee in charge of overseeing very sensitive matters, be allowed to pick itself its own members?
• What should be the profile of the members of a committee like AffCom? Should they be all volunteers or include professionals in certain key areas? Is the current volunteer model working at all, for AffCom?
• What are the limits of secrecy and lack of transparency for an institution like AffCom?
• Who is AffCom accountable to, in case of malfunction and misdeeds?
• What should be the recommendations for AffCom internal procedures to make sure it is not abused, on the cover of secrecy, for purposes not in line with the ones of the Wikimedia Movement?

Thanks,--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. While I wouldn't agree with your description of Affcom, these questions are actually quite related to our scoping questions. Our main focus at present is broader questions like "should there still be a structure based on a central WMF and affiliates linked to it". But if there are, then we will also be looking who makes decisions about affiliation and how, as well as transparency and accountability in decision-making generally. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Land: The description is based on my own experience with AffCom, public and private evidence of situations related to it, and some research I've made on AffCom past activities, specially since 2013 when the current model was implemented. I understand others may have had more positive experiences with AffCom, and have a different opinion - as always, YMMV.

As for the question: "should there still be a structure based on a central WMF and affiliates linked to it" - My answer would be yes, of course. Someone have to pay the servers, and take care of all other stuff that needs to be centralized somewhere. With all the problems WMF has, it still seems to be the best model available. An affiliate with too much power would suffer from many of the same problems and illnesses I appoint above on AffCom. Personally, I do like the WMF/Affiliates model, it is functional, especially with the introduction of UGs. Needs some adjustments, but it looks functional and good. However, the overseeing entity that looks after the relations between the WMF and the Affiliates - currently named AffCom - is in serious need of revision, and it's malfunction is often passing a message that the WMF/Affiliates model may not be the best.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

An Independent Body is required for addressing conflicts due to Government legislation, executive actions etc. Affcom at present has the mandate, however, Affcom members may not have the necessary expertise on say taxation, data privacy laws etc--Abhinav619 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Management of systemic risks

I suggest that the strategy process consider, "What are systemic risks to the Wikimedia online services, Wikimedia organizations, Wikimedia contributors, and Wikimedia content consumers? How can those risks be mitigated?" Examples of risks include external threats such as political or legal interventions against WMF or affiliates, censorship, government threats against individual Wikimedians, and loss of fundraising effectiveness. Internal risks include corruption, insider threats, loss of competent and good-faith contributors, and conflicts of interest that lead to degraded integrity of content. Included in risk management should be a review of the current "too big to fail" problem with WMF. --Pine (✉) 02:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Role of the Wikimedia Foundation

On the broader role of the Wikimedia Foundation, I believe its medieval culture of secrecy and obscurantism is not in line with the Enlightenment and transparency of the Wikimedia Movement and the Wikimedia Projects (at least its ideals, and, to some extent, its practice as well). Therefore the WMF should not be allowed to interfere in any way with the Movement or its projects, and its role should be restricted to running, maintaining and expanding the core server farm necessary to run the Wikimedia projects - with the obligation of a transparent report on the associated costs. The culture of obscurantism should be terminated for good, not only there but in any instance representing the movement, such as affiliates, and secrecy should be restricted to the cases where it is absolutely necessary, while ensuring that due process is respected in any case, as in the civil society.

Even more, while there is a rationale to keep the core server farm in the USA, the same can't be said of (this is my impression) all other WMF activities, which are gaining absolutely nothing by being hosted in such an expensive city as São Francisco, requiring a lot of wages well above the average, considering the rest of the world. Very questionable decisions (such as the money invested in the new WMF website, and the results of that investment), plain incompetence and a general sense of inefficiency, makes it difficult to understand what would be the advantage of keeping the structure as it is, and specially hosted in such an expensive country. I do not have a solution for this, but I believe the Movement should congregate and seriously discuss an alternative to the US centralization - which also gives the impression that most of the donors money disappears in São Francisco and surroundings, and never gets to where it would make a difference to the Movement, helping, promoting and supporting it.

One thing is clear: As things are, they can't stay. As said José Régio in his poem Cântico Negro, "Não sei por onde vou, Não sei para onde vou - Sei que não vou por aí!" - I don't know where I'm going, I' don't know ehere I'm going - I know I'm not going there! --- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Implementation of a standing Elections Committee

Further along in the strategy process I suggest that this Working Group consider recommending the establishment of a standing Elections Committee that would be tasked with overseeing WMF Trustee elections and possibly setting policy for those elections. An example of an issue that a standing Elections Committee could consider is which affiliates get to vote in Affiliate Selected Board Seats votes, and how different types and sizes and affiliates should have their votes weighted. One proposal that I heard, which I think is worth considering, is that user groups could select one ASBS seat while chapters (and probably thematic organizations) select the other ASBS seat.

A standing Elections Committee could also provide oversight of selections for and/or elections to other WMF committees and commissions, such as the Affiliations Committee, grants committees, the Ombudsman commission, and the Technical Code of Conduct Committee.

Many, perhaps all, of these additional WMF committees and commissions currently self-select their members, while members of the Ombudsman commission are selected by WMF. A topic that the Elections Committee could consider is whether these practices should continue or should be modified in some way(s). --Pine (✉) 02:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Like the Wikimedia Foundation elections committee? Unclear why it wasn't used for the affiliate-selected process. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ajraddatz: - I'd be interested to hear if you feel the Elections Committee has actually continued to play any role after the conclusion of the 2017 election? When it was announced that we'd have a 'standing' elections committee I sort of envisioned that it would e.g. publish postmortems, look for ways to improve the election process, and so on - and create space for those conversations in between the deadlines of the actual election process. But I don't recall hearing anything, and (for instance) the feedback at Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Post_mortem has gone unanswered. Generally in the strategy process we've found that feedback about most WMF-volunteer committees has been very mixed and there have been many issues where boundaries between volunteers and staff have been unclear, volunteer participation has dropped off and nothing has been done to resolve that, and/or support for committees in terms of facilitation, coaching, skills development and/or logistics hasn't worked out. So to be honest I've been assuming that the Elections Committee has become inactive, for one or more of those reasons, but I'd be interested to hear your views. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As originally envisioned, the standing committee was meant to be a policymaking body (evident from the WMF board's resolution), but was staffed with volunteers who were more interested in the conduct of the elections and left without a clear mandate for consulting the community or implementing changes. There has been minimal activity since the 2017 election.

I'm curious -- has the working group found any solutions yet, particularly to lack of volunteer involvement? I'll also repeat that I'd love to join the working group if possible at this late stage, especially if you're transitioning from fact-finding to solution generation. I've asked the WMF staff involved but they didn't get back to me. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

thank you! And very sorry no-one has got back to you. In short, we decided not to add anyone to the group - about 3 people applied to join in April/May and all of them seemed like they would have valuable perspectives. However the group is already large enough that we have logistical problems, and combined with the time it would take to orient and onboard new members, we felt this was not the right moment. However that could well change in the next few months!

We haven't looked at specific solutions to the volunteer engagement problem yet, we are currently working on a very meta, structural level. But the 'how do we make sure there is capacity and bandwidth for governance in the movement' will turn out to be a very important question that both we and Capacity Building WG should be looking at in due course. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is the discussion even for this?

The Land, at the English Wikipedia, you invited us to give you input here. I see you've asked nine different questions, but I have no idea where the discussion on those questions is even being held. When I hit the "talk" link, it just brought me to this talk page, but I see no actual discussion of them here, nor at least anything that clearly looks like a link to it.

If anyone complains about discussion processes on Wikipedia being confusing—well, this is confusing. I'd give you my answers, but I do not have the first clue where I should even do it. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Seraphimblade: on this page, you can elaborate on 4 sections of the document: area of inquiry, current situation, the scope and key questions. The section you're looking for is Key questions. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• SGrabarczuk (WMF) Thanks, but I'm still not sure, I suppose, what the purpose even is here. Are those key questions ones you plan to put up for discussion later and are discussing first, or are you seeking answers to them now? If you're seeking feedback on the questions themselves, "knowledge equity" and "nodes in our future network" are fuzzy terms that should be specifically defined. I would have no idea what you mean by those. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade! Thanks for coming here. Basically, the questions are defined, and we are looking for answers to them (or, at least, thoughts prompted by them). The questions overlap quite a lot, many of them are basically re-framings of the same issues (which is deliberate, we wanted to look at the same issues through several different lenses).

To answer your questions, "equity" means as defined in the strategic direction Knowledge equity: As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. We will welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities. We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge. And "nodes in future network" is fuzzy on purpose - it serves to highlight that the future Wikimedia movement will continue to have different actors contributing in different ways, with complicated relationships between them, without presupposing any one set of actors/relationships.

You may still be left wondering where the discussion is - actually, there is a whole load of discussion happening on a mixture of village pumps, at in-person meetings and so on across the movement (most of it not in English) that is getting fed in, but not on Meta (may be it will be? if anyone from the strategy core team is reading this please could you clarify : ) ). Also you might be interested to read what we have already documented about different impressions of the status quo. Regards, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Do other communities know about this

Just came here after hearing it from others, my question is that before it was mentioned on enwp on that page, I dont even know this. There is no notice whatsoever on my homewiki. If en got this news late, we never have this news at all. I will hope WMF at least delay this and reach out to enough communities about this before implementation. As for me, I dont even have time now to understand what this is, so I cant make comments. Thanks much and Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @KStineRowe (WMF): who has been attempting to organise consultation/discussion about this :) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF's use of "Wikimedia", "Wikipedia", etc.

I am unsure which working group is best suited to consider this proposal. I propose that WMF continue to use "The Wikimedia Foundation", "Wikimedia Foundation", or "the Foundation" to refer to itself, but cease using "Wikimedia", "Wikipedia", and other project names to refer to itself as a legal entity. I think that it is important for donors, NGOs, and governments to know that WMF does not represent the contributor community/communities, speak for the community/communities, supervise the community/communities, or act as an agent of the community/communities. For better and for worse, WMF and the community/communities have important distinctions, although there are also several important areas in which they are largely compatible and have mutual interests. --Pine (✉) 23:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd support these statements by Pine, WMF should never be confused with the communities fundamental for creating Wikipedia etc. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the statement by Pine, one thing is the Wikimedia Movement, and another is the Wikimedia Foundation. The two should not be confused.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose the ideal venue for this is the Wikimedia brand strategy project. However, we can also accept your proposal for our working group. Then it would be good to understand why you think there should be a strong naming dichotomy between the community and the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, who should speak for/represent/supervise/act as an agent for the communities, if not the Wikimedia Foundation? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Deutschland staff perspective

Over the last weeks WMDE's Strategy Liaisons, Moritz Rahm and Cornelius Kibelka, have conducted interviews with 13 experts among our staff on the themes of the working groups. Mostly, the qualitative interviews were done with groups of 2 or 3 people, the texts provided are summaries of the statements.

What do ‘roles’ and ‘responsibilities’ mean?

In general, the scoping document makes sense, I can follow its structure. Nevertheless, I think the working group could (or should) only actually draft recommendations as soon as they have seen and understood the other groups’ recommendations – as roles and responsibilities is a cross-cutting theme, interwoven with all other working group themes. That applies especially to the scoping questions, too.

Beyond the document itself, I’d say that I am missing an actual definition of the words “roles” and “responsibilities”, as these terms are actually quite broad. Based on that an inventory (or mapping, as the group states itself) should be done. With these roles, responsibilities (and tasks) defined and mapped, a model could be created in a bottom-up way, always asking ourselves ‘What do we have?’, ‘What do we need?’, and ‘Where do we want to go?’. At the moment, the documents transmits the feeling that the group is working on predefined structures, that will be applied top-down.

Before working on equity, needs need to be identified, priorized, and then resources applied

For me, equity means how we create the foundation and space for the best possible development for everyone. In German the term “Bedarfsgerechtigkeit” (translates more or less to equality of needs), comes closest to the definition of Equity, I’d say. For this, it’s important to understand how these needs are identified, prioritized, and resources applied.

To identify these needs the context and field of problem (or action) needs to be understood well. Especially, when it gets to decisions, you need good criteria for prioritization. It is possible to find them, but they must be developed in a good way. Example: Because of large cultural diversity, the understanding of Wikipedia (and necessity of using it) is totally different in Europe than in Africa. That creates the challenge not to apply ‘European’ concepts to an African space. But you need to go bottom-up: Creating totally different ways of assessing needs, and apply then the resources needed.

We need a strong, central facilitation unit.

How do we include everyone without degressing? I think the Wikimedia movement should work quite decentralized, with autonomous and self-organized units, as inclusiveness works by experiencing it, not by predefining it. This has one huge disadvantage: Not everyone is made to work autonomously and self-organized. That needs a strong facilitation, as people shouldn’t be left alone with self-organizing them. Furthermore, we need entry and exit points for this self-organization.

The role of such a facilitator (or ‘facilitating unit’, can be an organization, too) is to path the way, to enable people, but not to take decisions by itself. I imagine this as a circle model which is constantly rotating and creates dynamics from the inner to the outer sphere. The facilitation needs to happen through a formal, stable, reliable unit, which lies in the center of the circle. The other units in the outer spheres work decentrally, but are facilitated through this central facilitation role. I think, at the moment we talk and think quite ‘globally’, but actually we act super-local. I think we should act more together on a global level – this doesn’t exclude local actions. At the moment, both, the global thought level, and the local action level, are way too separated from each other.

How do we create the connections between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ level? I think we need ‘local’ people who understand this ‘global’ level, that could act as ambassadors. Nevertheless, such global needs and challenges should not overwhelm local communities and their interests. People (communities) should have the space to fulfill their own interests as best as possible.

We’re a movement of encyclopedists, but we haven’t documented our history

I think we need to be more conscious of our own history, from where we are coming from. The history of the Movement, despite being – only or already – 18 years old, is not really written. Not knowing / being aware of our history is harmful for change processes. We have to take into account where we come from in order to decide where we want to go to and to win support for the chosen path.

For meaningful decision-making processes we need to lose the ego and be able to make compromises

How do we as a Movement decide on issues? I think it mainly depends on people, that are responsible and accountable for their decisions, following the principle of free yourself from your own power – it starts with your ego. A reflecting mindset is important for this: You need to accept other perspectives, but also to leave previously accepted positions behind yourself. We should not work like the UN General Assembly, where every representative is only representing their country and the country’s interest. We need the capability to make compromises and leave your own positions behind.

Furthermore, I think, not everyone can or wants to make decisions or be part of the decision-making process. While being ‘open’ should be the basic principle, it should be one as well to not force everyone to make decisions. Think about the ‘Request for Comments’ (RfC) in Wikipedia.

Everyone works best in decentral, autonomous, self-organized, smaller units.

If we take the Strategic Direction and the Movement Strategy seriously, we shouldn’t have more organizations as big as Wikimedia Deutschland. In my opinion, the overall majority should be small, flexible, agile, self-organized units. At the same time, you need 2-3 larger units to manage the budget, the trademarks, the servers, etc. To create bigger things, you need to come from a small unit – take Wikidata as an example. There is a reason why we haven’t had ‘a second Wikidata’ for the last few years.

As soon as you have formal organizations with 3 to 5 staff members, you create an administrative overhead. In European terms, I think we shouldn’t have this range of mid-size organizations, but actually small units. At the same time, we should ensure that people (communities) can do what they want to do, and receive the money for it – without the necessity of foundation an organization and acquire money on a regular basis.

How to create trust for such a structure? In German we say ‘The sound makes the music’ (meaning: It's not what you say, but how you say it.). You need to create honesty, integrity, and authenticity. Only via good work, and good results you can leave mistrust behind. As already said above, it’s highly dependent on honest, integer, authentic leaders. And if people leave, you need to have clear succession policies and processes for leadership positions on roles and responsibilities. I’d say our “Übergangskommission” (transition team) for our transition time between our previous executive director Pavel Richter and his successor Christian Rickerts was such an example.

If you have any questions, please let us know. Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)