Movement roles project/Initial Questions II

Over the weeks leading up to our meeting in Frankfurt we have heard from a range of Wikimedians. The sample was neither large nor representative, but the thoughts shared were illuminating. On this page I've tried to summarize what we heard, and offer some reflections for discussion in Frankfurt at the end of January 2011.

Summary

We have work to do, as there is confusion

Confusion about role of chapters

• Email debate on internal-l about “Why do we have chapters?”
• “Lack of clarity of their purpose”
• Lack of interest in and response to our investigations

Confusion as to whom chapters are accountable

• Movement, e.g. for adherence to mission and delivery of goals
• Foundation
• Other entities in the network
• “Community”
• Government
• Members?

Confusion about whether chapters should be membership organizations or not

• And, if so, how to guard against ‘takeover’ by ‘newcomers’
• How open should membership be?
• How should board be elected

On some issues there is broad agreement

Most see chapters as helping advance movement goals:

• “... local activities, to make things happen that move us on a local basis to what is our mission”
• “Get people to contribute, edit”
• “Build awareness before user-ship before participation”
• “Awareness and partnerships with local institutions, e.g. universities”
• “Provide a channel for those that wish to contribute but not write
• Work alongside WMF offices in India, Brazil, Africa, etc.
• Acting as a first point of contact for the movement (press, institutions etc.)

Most agree that chapters should be transparent “As open as possible without invading privacy” “Need to guard against corruption and allegations”

• Although some qualified this, e.g. “elections and resolutions [should be transparent] but not board minutes”

However some concerns need to be explored

Concern that chapters require much work to set up

• Email chain on “Help, my chapter is drowning”

And, that this work distracts or detracts from the movement goals

• “Volunteers stop editing when involved with chapters”
• “Mutual suspicion between chapters and editing community”
• Different “culture”, e.g. hierarchical and nationalistic vs non-hierarchical and global
• “Only ~1,000 involved” vs. 100,000 editing actively
• Chapters not needed for Wikipedia, which runs ahead: more Wikipedias than chapters
• Easier to open a chapter than a start a new Wikipedia
• “We do not need chapters in the US”
• “We are losing volunteers on Wikipedia”

Concerns that national chapter model is too inflexible or “Eurocentric”

• Catalonia, Quebec, etc.
• “Idea of national chapters is hurting the movement”
• “Chapter should not regulate activity in a country”
• “We should let multiple groups flourish”
• “Chapter formation is always contentious”

Concerns that chapters not sufficiently accountable to the movement or Foundation

• Audit report saying lack of accountability creates a “risk to the movement as a whole”
• Fears of corruption from Latin America, E Europe, Africa
• Chapter link to movement and foundation seen by some as weak
• “We have over-privileged’ the chapters”
• The foundation could ensure chapter transparency and enforce global alignment
• “We need to be able to act when Chapter becomes inactive, such as Taiwan”
• Chapter start up needs to be more centrally managed [by the Foundation], with money ... not just waiting for low-hanging fruit
• Chap com “not transparent”, “misinterpreting rules”
• “A cabal”

And concerns from others that the WMF is not sufficiently accountable to the chapters

• WMF is ‘overpowering’, which chapters ‘balance’
• Chapters are ‘second class’ to the foundation
• WMF should not set up offices outside USA
• Chapters to be only route to WMF board and direct election by volunteers should end

Which are not concerns shared by all

• “WMF board is fine as it is now, with plenty of representation from around the world”

To help understand option proposed

‘TEDx’ approach to use of name by any group

• Allow all groups to flourish in parallel with WMF agreeing to use of name or not
• Local chapter should only have exclusive to represent as ‘national organization’ and perhaps for fundraising for legal purposes
• “Chapter should not have a veto”

Chapters could have a series of graduated responsibilities in return for accountabilities

• Start with legal registration and fundraising in country
• Grow to more activities within a country
• Perhaps take on a global lead role, once it has enough funds and volunteers
• Eventually distribute global roles to build cohesion with “complementarity”

Sources

Interviews

Wikimedian	Affiliation	Interviewer
Thomas de Souza Buckup	"Wikimedia Brazil"	Jon Huggett
James Forrester	Wiki Educational Resource Ltd. (Wikimedia UK v. 1.0)	Jon Huggett
Jon Davis (shakataganai)	Wikinewsians	Jon Huggett
Achal Prabhala	Advisory Board	Jon Huggett
Abbas Mahmoud	Prospective Kenyan chapter	Jon Huggett
Carol Rossini	Brazil Catalyst Project (WMF)	Jon Huggett
Béria Lima	Wikimedian from Brazil but/and WMPT member	Jon Huggett
Milos Rancic	Wikimedian from Serbia, Wikimedia Serbia	Anirudh Bhati

Posted on Meta

Wikimedian	Affiliation
Joan Gomà	Associació Amical Viquipèdia- Wikimedia CAT
David Richfield	Wikimedia South Africa
Ray Saintonge	Wikimedia Canada
Luis Ulzurrun	Wikimedia España
Salmaan Haroon	en.Wikipedia

Presentations

• "Conflicts between Local Chapters and Respective Editor Communities" presented by H Cain at Wikimania 2010
• Audit Committee Presentation on Chapters for WMF Board August 26, 2010
• "What Wikimedia can learn from the Red Cross and other large volunteer-driven organizations" presented by J Riggs at Wikimania 2009
• Regional Cooperative Initiative for Ibero-America, G Vidoni

Publications

• "How should Wikimedia organize itself?" by B Newstead in Harvard Business Review, May 2010

Surveys

• 2007 chapters survey

Email exchanges

• "Why do we need chapters" initiated by Milos Rancic, Dec 2010
• "Help, my chapter is drowning" initiated by Lodewijk, Dec 2010