Thanks for the reply, Rupert, and for pushing me to think harder. I like that!
Without repeating myself and building on your questions, here's what I'll say: I agree that chapters are an important way to take the wikimedia movement forward across the globe. No issues with that. I'm still not convinced that *any entity* should see itself at the centre of the movement either globally or in a country - either because it has members, or because it has funding, or because it is an entity. For any reason. Why is it important for an entity in a volunteer movement to be at the centre at all? If there is anyone or anything that I see at the centre of the wikimedia movement, it is individual volunteers - who work on the projects, edit day in and day out, do other things etc. When entities and formal organizations start up in a country, individual volunteers who are not affiliated to any of these start seeing themselves as 'lower order volunteers' in some way; to me, this is tremendously sad. I've heard editors in India say, "I'm just a volunteer" (to describe themselves, since they are neither office bearers in the chapter, nor work in the program trust). When I hear that, I feel we're doing something wrong - the presence of entities in a country should make individual volunteers and editors feel supported and part of this universe, not devalued or disconnected. In response to your questions about not doing it differently in India, I think there's good reason for us to experiment in different ways in different geographies - wasn't wikipedia itself a grand experiment to begin with? But yes, experiment in a way that does not exclude the communities that have organically grown in these places. If we really want to sustain the projects at a time when the editor base is declining, I do think some experimentation may be in order. Agree that things don't work out should be dropped, but maybe new ways of doing things can also provide new answers. And yes, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to work, given how culturally diverse the world is. So yes, boots on the ground, but also ear to the ground. :) Cheers Bishakha On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com>wrote: > hi bishaka, > > many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge > constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :) > > just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing > anything different than in all other countries: > * http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm > * http://www.msfindia.in/ > * national indian football leage > * http://www.wwfindia.org/ > > coming to the other point you made about "living up to expectations". i am > pretty sure you know that the chapters are "per definition" at the center > stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding > which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the thoughtful > and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the > wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can be > seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination. > > is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it differently > in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the > other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are? > > rupert > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhada...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo, > > > > Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want > to > > take this conversation forward. > > > > One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness > within > > the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are > > certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens - > > these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored > > in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated > > almost as sacrilege. > > > > One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started > > operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - > > regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been > > expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has > > implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which > > deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some > sort > > of trespasser or gate-crasher). > > > > A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and > > without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every > > country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many > > countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only > workable > > model?) > > > > For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 > > countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not > > mistaken. > > > > India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, > > atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities. > > > > If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia > > movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities, > > not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge > to > > people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a > second > > entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources > > do not seem to be scarce. > > > > Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in > > any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email: > "...this > > new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the > potential > > to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage > > anymore." > > > > I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity, > should > > feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove > > that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the > > chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the > > community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying > > any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage. > > > > And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too - > > via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it > > doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then, > will > > it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't > think > > anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that > would > > be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect > > with which volunteers are treated; they're human too). > > > > So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in > > India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what > > this problem actually is. > > > > Best > > Bishakha > > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union > > > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India > > > > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India > > > > [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
