What the "donors" are saying..., A continuing series.... Options

[Derktar]

Interesting little tidbit

* Can I give you a targeted or restricted donation -- meaning, can I give you money to do something very specific, that can't be used for other purposes?

Charities based in the United States -- like the Wikimedia Foundation -- are required to honor restrictions requested by donors. That means if you specify your donation needs to be restricted for a specific use, we will either honor your request or return your donation. But before you decide to do that, please consider that unrestricted donations are much more useful for us. As quickly as Wikimedia's projects evolve, Wikimedia needs unrestricted donations to remain agile.

I wonder how many people actually read this. If people really didn't want their money going toward legal fees and trustee salaries they would request their donations only be used for hardware and bandwidth costs.

Oh and as for donor sayings, I particularly like this one...

"My college students depend on Wikipedia" — Anonymous

Arrrrrggghhh

This post has been edited by Derktar: Tue 30th October 2007, 11:31pm

[Moulton]

I'd like to see a fund set up to retain a genuinely independent Ombudsman.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'd like to see a fund set up to retain a genuinely independent Ombudsman.

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-king.

[Jonny Cache]

I'd like to see a fund set up to retain a genuinely independent Ombudsman.

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-King.

It would only go toward shoring up the fundamental delusion that Wikipedia Is Some Kinda Goobermint, instead of some kind of edited publication.

And that is the Φantasy that got them into the mess they're in.

Jonny

[GlassBeadGame]

I'd like to see a fund set up to retain a genuinely independent Ombudsman.

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-King.

It would only go toward shoring up the fundamental delusion that Wikipedia Is Some Kinda Goobermint, instead of some kind of edited publication.

And that is the Φantasy that got them into the mess they're in.

Jonny

Better to take your chances with a professional trained to listen than 2,000 pseudonymous adolescent amateurs playing social networking games. It would be nice if it was Magister Ludi 's Castalia all academic and monastic but it's more like Lord of Flies and some GooberMint seems like a good idea.

[Moulton]

I would like to see Wikipedia craft a functional social contract for establishing a more congenial climate for achieving and maintaining consensus on the issues which divide conflicted parties. The present architecture, which operates more like a high-intensity chess game than an orderly and sober process of civil negotiation, has proven to be needlessly aggravating, contentious, and interminable. I believe the Wikipedians would benefit from a more suitable framework, along the lines of a functional social contract, including some more functional protocols for conflict management and conflict resolution.

A social contract is a written document setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and therefor (by definition) cannot be considered to be fiat imposed by one faction over another. A social contract represents a collection of promises that the parties have freely committed to, because they believe that it's in their mutual interest to adopt that framework. That is, a social contract is a consensus — a consensus on the terms of engagement. In the absence of mutually agreeable terms of engagement, the interpersonal dynamics of a cast of characters embroiled in conflict typically devolves into some form of a liminal social drama.

[GlassBeadGame]

I would like to see Wikipedia craft a functional social contract for establishing a more congenial climate for achieving and maintaining consensus on the issues which divide conflicted parties. The present architecture, which operates more like a high-intensity chess game than an orderly and sober process of civil negotiation, has proven to be needlessly aggravating, contentious, and interminable. I believe the Wikipedians would benefit from a more suitable framework, along the lines of a functional social contract, including some more functional protocols for conflict management and conflict resolution.

A social contract is a written document setting forth mutually agreeable terms of engagement and therefor (by definition) cannot be considered to be fiat imposed by one faction over another. A social contract represents a collection of promises that the parties have freely committed to, because they believe that it's in their mutual interest to adopt that framework. That is, a social contract is a consensus — a consensus on the terms of engagement. In the absence of mutually agreeable terms of engagement, the interpersonal dynamics of a cast of characters embroiled in conflict typically devolves into some form of a liminal social drama.

This is interesting. What would/might the contents of the contract be? Who would put it forward? How would it be enforced?

[Moulton]

What would/might the contents of the contract be? Who would put it forward? How would it be enforced?

A social contract typically includes a mission statement setting forth the purpose of the organization or project. This is typically followed by a pledge to work cooperatively toward the common goals. In addition to the express goals of the project, the social contract typically includes social and interpersonal goals for establishing a congenial climate of community. These would include goals of treating each other with courtesy and respect, fostering cooperation, and peaceable resolution of conflict in accordance with express conflict resolution protocols spelled out in the social contract.

It's crafted by the leadership of the community and ratified by the members of the community who agree to subscribe to it.

The concept of enforcement does not apply to a social contract, as the philosophy is not one of rules and punishments, but of peer promises and protocols for handling breaches of expectations in a non-judicial manner.

In terms of the Kohlberg-Gilligan Ladder, social contracts operate at Stage 5 of Kohlberg's Ladder, several rungs above the Rules-and-Punishment paradigm. Social contracts thus require a level of maturity and responsibility a notch or two above the norm.

Lawrence Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Reasoning
Plus Carol Gilligan's Seventh Stage of Ethical Care

Stage 1: Punishment-avoidance and obedience — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what is best for themselves, without regard for the needs or feeling of others. They obey rules only if established by more powerful individuals; they disobey when they can do so without getting caught.

Stage 2: Exchange of favors — Individuals begin to recognize that others also have needs. They may attempt to satisfy the needs of others if their own needs are also met in the process. They continue to define right and wrong primarily in terms of consequences to themselves.

Stage 3: Good boy/good girl — Individuals make moral decisions on the basis of what actions will please others, especially authority figures. They are concerned about maintaining interpersonal relationships through sharing, trust, and loyalty. They now consider someone's intentions in determining innocence or guilt.

Stage 4: Law and order — Individuals look to society as a whole for guidelines concerning what is right or wrong. They perceive rules to be inflexible and believe that it is their "duty" to obey them.

Stage 5: Social Contract — Individuals recognize that rules represent an agreement among many people about appropriate behavior. They recognize that rules are flexible and can be changed if they no longer meet society's needs.

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle — Individuals adhere to a small number of abstract, universal principles that transcend specific, concrete rules. They answer to an inner conscience and may break rules that violate their own ethical principles.

Stage 7: Ethics of Care — An obligation of care rests on the understanding of relationships as a response to another in terms of their special needs. Focuses on the moral value of being empathetic toward those dearly beloved persons with whom we have special and valuable relationships, and the moral importance of responding to such persons as unique individuals with characteristics that require custom-crafted responses to them that we do not normally extend to others.

[GlassBeadGame]

A social contract typically includes a mission statement setting forth the purpose of the organization or project. This is typically followed by a pledge to work cooperatively toward the common goals. In addition to the express goals of the project, the social contract typically includes social and interpersonal goals for establishing a congenial climate of community. These would include goals of treating each other with courtesy and respect, fostering cooperation, and peaceable resolution of conflict in accordance with express conflict resolution protocols spelled out in the social contract.

Don't many organizations, good, bad, otherwise, have such statements? Don't they usually have little or no impact on the behavior of these organizations? Remember just how deeply dysfunctional this community currently is, how feeble it's normal institutions, such as it Board of Trustees has become. Also is there any way that this contract can provide for meaningful participation for stakeholders that are not currently at the table at all?

[Moulton]

Don't many organizations, good, bad, otherwise, have such statements? Don't they usually have little or no impact on the behavior of these organizations? Remember just how deeply dysfunctional this community currently is, how feeble it's normal institutions, such as it Board of Trustees has become. Also is there any way that this contract can provide for meaningful participation for stakeholders that are not currently at the table at all?

Mission Statements are much more common than full-fledged Social Contracts. And there are plenty of organizations in which their charter documents (e.g. Constitution, By-Laws, etc) are mere window dressing. Corrupt and dysfunctional organizations are the norm, and have been since the dawn of civilization. In the Theory of Community Building, there are Communities of Interest, Communities of Practice, Communities of Commitment, and Centers of Excellence. Wikipedia might have become a world-class Center of Excellence, but it failed to become a Communty of Commitment. Instead, it has devolved into a dysfunctional Community of Malpractice.

It need not have been that way.

[Jonny Cache]

I'd like to see a fund set up to retain a genuinely independent Ombudsman.

Any independent dispute resolution would be a major step toward social responsibility. It would be a curb on the unquestioned dominance of the dysfunctional social networking "community" and the blow to the last vestiges of the Cult of the God-King.

It would only go toward shoring up the fundamental delusion that Wikipedia Is Some Kinda Goobermint, instead of some kind of edited publication.

And that is the Φantasy that got them into the mess they're in.

Jonny

Better to take your chances with a professional trained to listen than 2,000 pseudonymous adolescent amateurs playing social networking games. It would be nice if it was Magister Ludi 's Castalia all academic and monastic but it's more like Lord of Flies and some GooberMint seems like a good idea.

BTDT, too many times already.

Wrote it all down for Larry Sanger while he still had a chance of doing a NewPedia instead of the SameOleSameOleTedia. Will try to save some of that time on my hands by going off to look up what I wrote before.

Don't know why you can't see that Your Third Coming Saviour And All Round Young Virgin Omnibusman will end up looking indiscernible from Your First Messiah and Your Second Co-Flounder before the Year is Out.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 31st October 2007, 1:56am

[Moulton]

There are a few examples of open source projects that adopted the framework of a social contract, adhered to it, and developed into a world-class center of excellence. The Debian Linux Project is one that comes to mind. Google also has a social contract with its employees.

[Jonny Cache]

There are a few examples of open source projects that adopted the framework of a social contract, adhered to it, and developed into a world-class center of excellence. The Debian Linux Project is one that comes to mind. Google also has a social contract with its employees.

I thought from the title of this thread — oh, sorry, I forgot where I was for a moment there, nevermimd — that y'all were talking about a course correction for the brain-drain-train already in motion. Nope, too much MimboJimboMomentum there to keep it from going over the falls without a barrel — poor monkeys!

But if you are talking about starting from scratch, dumping that sorry site entire, well, dream on, dream on!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 31st October 2007, 2:05am

[badlydrawnjeff]

Wikipedia Review should totally raise $30k - enough for a retired somebody to act as an ombudsman for a year, and enough to force Jimbo to meet with a couple people from here. Only $100 from each registered member!

[Moulton]

Rather than hire a negotiator, I think we would be better served by stepping up to a professional level of investigative journalism. I'd like to see an article in a prestigious magazine like Atlantic Monthly which fairly reported the issues that Wikipedia is confronting as a function of its structural problems.

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia Review should totally raise $30k - enough for a retired somebody to act as an ombudsman for a year, and enough to force Jimbo to meet with a couple people from here. Only $100 from each registered member!

I don't understand the "force Jimbo to meet" part. Also I don't think Mr. Wales is the appropriate person to engage in any negotiations. Perhaps WMF B/T could designate a representative though.

[Jonny Cache]

Rather than hire a negotiator, I think we would be better served by stepping up to a professional level of investigative journalism. I'd like to see an article in a prestigious magazine like Atlantic Monthly which fairly reported the issues that Wikipedia is confronting as a function of its structural problems.

BTDT. Ask Greg Kohs to tell you what Marshall Poe is up to lately. A year ago you might have excused Yet Another Gee Whiz MainDream Journalist for writing what MP wrote then, but now he appears even more clueless than he did before.
No, I'm afraid the information will have to flow from places like this to places like that.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 31st October 2007, 2:50am

[Moulton]

There is a progression in these observations that goes from disappointment to frustration to cynicism to bitterness.

Mebbe I should leap-frog you, Jonny, and go straight to bitterness.

[Jonny Cache]

There is a progression in these observations that goes from disappointment to frustration to cynicism to bitterness.

Mebbe I should leap-frog you, Jonny, and go straight to bitterness.

I prefer to think of it as Dis-Illusionment.

And, y'know, that can be A Good Thing.

Well, after you get out of the Wiki-Pokey.

Jonny

[Moulton]

Then again, there's the option of writing yet another comic opera.