Strategic misdirections Options

[Kevin]

The Wikimedia Foundation has released their 2010-2011 Annual Plan this week. A lot of talk about money, so I guess the overall goal is to move as much of it about as possible.

Some of the interesting bits from the risks appendix:

6) The Wikimedia movement fails to evolve structurally. Response:
In order for the Wikimedia movement to be effective, it needs to make
progress towards developing appropriate organizational structures. In 2010-11,
the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has named “movement roles”
as a Board priority: the staff will support this work as required.

Movement roles? WTF are they? Better to implement say, an organisational structure? Like an editorial oversight committee for starters.

7) Scandal damages the Wikimedia movement. Response: In part, this
risk cannot be mitigated: as an open project founded in the idea of
participation-by-anyone, Wikipedia is inherently vulnerable. That being said,
the Wikimedia Foundation has taken steps to provide buffer against scandal:
it's advised by an excellent PR company, and its fundraising strategy is
designed to be robust.

What, instead of developing a structure that attempts to avoid the scandal in the first place?

Here's the best bit though, from page 10:

Priority 1.
Build the technological and operating platform that enables Wikimedia to function sustainably as a top global Internet organization
Priority 2.
Strengthen, grow and increase diversity of the editing community that is the lifeblood of Wikimedia projects
Priority 3.
Accelerate impact by investing in key geographic areas, mobile application development and bottom-up innovation

What about a priority to ensure that the content you publish is not utter shite? Isn't that important? To that girl in Africa, if nobody else.

[GlassBeadGame]

7) Scandal damages the Wikimedia movement. Response: In part, this
risk cannot be mitigated: as an open project founded in the idea of
participation-by-anyone, Wikipedia is inherently vulnerable. That being said,
the Wikimedia Foundation has taken steps to provide buffer against scandal:
it's advised by an excellent PR company, and its fundraising strategy is
designed to be robust.
{emphasis added}

What, instead of developing a structure that attempts to avoid the scandal in the first place?

Sounds like they know something about the future of Flagged Revisions that you guys are just beginning to piece together.

[Moulton]

Anything in there about adopting a Code of Ethics?

[Somey]

Movement roles? WTF are they?

This is a major part of their problem: These people (being the only ones who are getting paid) have to pretend to see Wikipedia as a movement, like the "civil rights movement" or the "world peace movement." They're not being paid to see Wikipedia for what it actually is, i.e., a time-wasting activity for (mostly) bored, socially-inept teens and housewives that just happened to be in the right place at the right time when Google needed a way to prevent itself from being made useless by blogspam.

As for the "roles" in question, movements need leaders, organizers, and idealist proselytizers, but they also need propagandists, apologists, spin doctors, and snake-oil salesmen. I suspect they simply want to formalize these roles among the people they already have, to avoid needless duplication of effort.

What, instead of developing a structure that attempts to avoid the scandal in the first place?

The term "robust" is organizational code-speak, a shorthand if you will - it means "as far removed as possible from what's actually going on." They're fortunate in that the people who run the big foundations don't read the tech press, so all they really have to do to keep the dollars rolling in is flat-out lie to them.

Here's the best bit though, from page 10:

Priority 1.
Build the technological and operating platform that enables Wikimedia to function sustainably as a top global Internet organization

This is also code-speak - it means "catch-all bucket for legal and consultancy fees."

Strengthen, grow and increase diversity of the editing community that is the lifeblood of Wikimedia projects

"Administrative overhead." I mean, how are they supposed to do that, sitting in an office in San Francisco, forbidden to actually get down 'n' dirty with the users because of the need to maintain the Section 230-derived illusion that they're a "service provider, not a publisher"?

Accelerate impact by investing in key geographic areas, mobile application development and bottom-up innovation

This one essentially means, "We couldn't have just two bullet points because that would look retarded, so we added this bit to pad our buzzword count."

[Kevin]

Anything in there about adopting a Code of Ethics?

[dogbiscuit]

It is hardly surprising that we should think that their direction is flawed, if it seems that their perception of key issues that they base this strategy on is hopelessly naive.

Wikimedia’s contributor community has been and continues to be its greatest asset, but there are a number of warning signs about its health and vitality that require attention:
– The contributor community has not been growing
– It lacks diversity in terms of gender, age and global representation
– It is difficult for new editors to learn the system; the existing community doesn’t always help to train new editors and can come across as unwelcoming and harsh
– There are also experienced editors who find some of the behavior in the community to be overly aggressive and stressful; this is a problem that may lead to burnout
– Quality standards are somewhat opaque and there aren’t good tools for identifying how and where to improve articles
– Further, esoteric “insider” debates that tend to be labeled as “quality” over notability or NPOV or “wikilawyering” make it more complex to be an editor

Don't see anything about libel, pornography or ethics there.

[Somey]

Don't see anything about libel, pornography or ethics there.

Most of that list quoted above doesn't even make sense, not even within its own hopelessly naive context. Particularly that last bit - who writes this material? "More complex to be an editor"? They think the user community needs more dumbing-down?

By the way, WMF folks, the English Wikipedia at least has plenty of age-diversity, and it doesn't do so badly on gender diversity or "global representation" compared to the rest of the internet. What it really lacks is diversity "in terms of" race/ethnicity, education level, and degree of affluence - not that it matters; it's not like they can change the demographics of the worldwide internet with a few bullet points.

[Kelly Martin]

"More complex to be an editor"? They think the user community needs more dumbing-down?

The metric of success the Foundation has adopted for the editorial community is size. Simply put, the more people who edit, the better, as far as they are concerned. I have yet to understand how "more editors" leads to success in their nominal mission. I don't think they understand that either; on the other hand, I don't think they care, either.

By the way, WMF folks, the English Wikipedia at least has plenty of age-diversity, and it doesn't do so badly on gender diversity or "global representation" compared to the rest of the internet.

Jimbo is very very upset that there are so few women involved in Wikipedia. True, the percentage of self-identified females editing Wikipedia is about the same as for the Internet as a whole, but that's not consistent with Jimbo's vision of his fanbase: he wants millions of screaming women all competing for his affections, as it were, and that's just not happening.

[Selina]

Jimbo's vision of his fanbase: he wants millions of screaming women all competing for his affections, as it were, and that's just not happening.

everyone's seen the boat pic right... does international waters have laws against sinking a boat you're actually on? pretty sure he has no idea who I am

^^^^ FBEYE THIS IS WHAT'S KNOWN AS JOKING

[Collect]

I will not quote platitudes, which means my quoting of the above (initial post) is short. Erm ...

Dave

This post has been edited by Collect: Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:51pm

[Zoloft]

I will not quote platitudes, which means my quoting of the above (initial post) is short. Erm ...

Dave

<Cheech&Chong> - Dave's not here! </Cheech&Chong>