Recommendation C: Avoiding the pitfalls of privileges / Designing for diversity edit

Q 1 What is your Recommendation? edit

People don’t have the same opportunities for participation within the structures of decision making.

In order to increase diversity of the people who make decisions and to ensure equitable allocation of resources, we need to design for diversity. This means allocating resources to ensure that the people making decisions reflect the equity we want to achieve through our resource allocation framework.

Our current system of engaging volunteers in resource allocation decisions only creates room for those who:

  • Are already in the privileged system to continue to participate;
  • Are currently able to live in a context where they can use the privilege of information, language, skill sets, etc. to participate;
  • Have the time, luxury or enabling circumstances (money, job security, time, etc.) that allows them to easily take up such roles or participate in such opportunities.

In order to make resource allocation more equitable for everyone (current and new) we need to give everyone the same opportunities, taking into account those with existing privileges and planning to equitably distribute those privileges to those who lack. We need to pay or otherwise compensate people to participate (to avoid making it a luxury or an option for only those who can) so that their existence is not threatened (their ability to meet their basic and social needs) by working on what others can afford to do as volunteers. We also need to remove the barriers of participation to ensure equity in decision making. It is important to ensure accessibility of information to existing opportunities (documentations, sites, etc.) and including language diversity in the decision making bodies.

The solutions we are exploring (tentative recommendations) are:

  • Payment for ‘necessary services’ to ensure equity in who is able to spend their time being a Wikimedian. We’re thinking about Boards, and other 'functionary' roles (Fund committees, etc.) that require special privilege access to data/tools, and have a 'term' for their role in which they are considered to be on duty (e.g. 2 years), and for which they are personally responsible. We are currently not sure about ‘paid editing’, and leaning towards not supporting that.  Perhaps this will be decided at a local level, e.g. via the Regional Hubs.
  • We are wondering about the angle of allocating resources to increasing diversity on online Wikimedia projects.
  • Making sure there is a system for knowledge exchange and learning (on and offline). This is to help new people so they don’t start from scratch. It also prevents single points of failure.

Even though we recommend a participatory resource allocation system, we acknowledge that many things can go wrong in attempting to design such a system, and implementers must be mindful of this to avoid the following: amplification of elitism, gatekeeping, corruption, lack of inclusivity.

Q 2-1 What assumptions are you making about the future context that led you to make this Recommendation? edit

  • Current leadership positions and decision making bodies include people who can afford to make the time or have the luxury due to their privileges (time, money, access, job, etc.), hence systematically excludes others without these privileges.
  • There is no current design for true diversity in the way professionals are hired for these decision-making positions.
  • There is no current design for true diversity in the way volunteers are integrated into decision-making for resource allocation.
  • There’s an assumption that volunteers want to be involved in distributing resources
  • This recommendation is also based on the assumption that better decisions will be achieved with more diversity.

Q 2-2 What is your thinking and logic behind this recommendation? edit

  • To ensure diversity we need to plan for it. If you don't design ways to include people you wish to make decisions for, you only continue to maintain people with current privileges: the status quo prevails.
  • Current decision making bodies are solely based on years of policies or framework (volunteerism) that does not work for the regions/communities we wish to include in decision making (because the lack the social security to volunteer their time), hence the need to strategise to meet their needs or ensure they are present (have all the necessary conditions to be present).
  • Things can go wrong when we build for participation, and we need to be very mindful of that too.

Q 3-1 What will change because of the Recommendation? edit

  • People who could not access those positions before will have access.
  • Decisions will be reflective of the diversity we envisage, in perfect line with our vision and strategic direction.
  • People with current privileges may have to make room for the people who have currently been left out by our structures and privileges.

Q 3-2 Who specifically will be influenced by this recommendation? edit

  • We want to affect the people who will be making decision making (positively)
    • The professionals who decide on resource allocation.
    • The volunteers who decide for resource allocation.
  • Ultimately the recipient of resources because they will have people who understand them to decide on how  resources are allocated.

Q 4-1 Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? edit

  • Risk of losing existing volunteers.
  • Unsuitable people may receive support
  • Backlash from the privileged who will see their privilege stripped.
  • If not properly designed could lead to issues such as tokenization.
  • The dependency on a salary/stipend could stifle the new decision makers’ independence and corrupt their judgement.

Q 4-2 What could be done to mitigate this risk? edit

  • Existing volunteers should be briefed on the need before effecting changes.
  • The risk of unsuitable people taking up roles can be mitigated through a set of criteria and careful scrutiny to ensure well deserved participants are selected even from regions/communities we wish to include.
  • The risk of backlash can be mitigated through proper communication of the goals for the change and the need for the entire movement strategy.
  • Tokenization can be avoided by ensuring the faces in the room are not just representatives but people with knowledge to support the system.
  • The stipend to be provided should just be a compensation to ensure participants can have the privilege to freely participate and should be clearly explained to be a compensation for their time and effort (not necessarily a salary).
  • The issue of independence can be mitigated by ensuring people who fill such roles sign an agreement that stipulates their roles and clearly defining that the stipend is not an inducement but support to insure their participation and commitment to the tasks.

Q 5 How does this Recommendation relate to the current structural reality? Does it keep something, change something, stop something, or add something new? edit

  • This recommendation encourages changes that can be effected within the current structures or in newly proposed structures.
  • It focuses on policies for creating a criteria for an award or compensation which can be built on top of whatever exists or will exist in the near future.

Q 6-1 Does this Recommendation connect or depend on another of your Recommendations? If yes, how? edit

  • It connects with our recommendation on participatory decision making by ensuring a framework that will create the ease for participation or allow everybody to participate regardless of their personal circumstances.
  • It connects to Regional Hubs as a potential vehicle to decide who will be provided with resources to participate, and to work on preventing participation pitfalls.

Q 6-2 Does this Recommendation connect or relate to your Scoping Questions? If yes, how? edit

This recommendation addresses a participatory challenges of Q1 How can resource allocation support structures that empower different actors within the free knowledge movement long-term? How is power connected to resource allocation and how can we utilize resource allocation to create change?

It shows what needs to be taken into consideration so that the resource allocation structures are truly empowering and equitable.

Q 7 How is this Recommendation connected to other WGs? edit

  • Roles and responsibilities:
    • What are the structures of decision-making participation and decision-making accountabilities?
    • Who currently makes the decisions on behalf of the movement?
    • Are the current participants in decision making the people we expect to effect the equity we strive to achieve?
  • Community Health  - principles of inclusivity, things that could harm communities and volunteers