Pete, one thing that I loved about my time at reddit was the existence of a subreddit called “r/museumofreddit”. It was mandatory reading for every new hire on my team and every other team I could convince and it was critical to onboarding me.
It lived to serve just the documentary process that you mention. Regards, pb Philippe Beaudette > On Aug 25, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped working > at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering: > > 1. Often, institutional memory is measured in terms of > staff/executive/board turnover; while there has indeed been a very high > rate of turnover at times, I would argue that another factor (see #2) is > actually more important. > 2. An organization can do a great deal, with a well-planned top-down > approach, to ensure institutional memory is *generated* and *retained* even > if there's a lot of turnover. > 3. The main thing that can be done is to ensure that significant events > are *debriefed and summarized *("documented") in a way that is clearly > and concisely articulated, supported by evidence and logic, and fair to > various good faith perspectives. > 4. We might call that an "encyclopedic" approach. (The skills required > are almost exactly the skills that tend to be cultivated in our Wikipedia > volunteer community, as codified in its policies and norms, and learned > through practice by its core volunteers.) > 5. The Wikimedia Foundation has not historically done very much in terms > of thorough encyclopedic documentation of important events in its history. > There have been exceptions, and I believe that where it has been done and > done well, much good has come of it. The best example of this, in my > opinion, is the Assessment of Belfer Center Wikipedian in Residence > program > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assessment_of_Belfer_Center_Wikipedian_in_Residence_program>. > This was initiated by then-Executive Director Sue Gardner and her deputy > Erik Möller, who participated actively in it. Specific programmatic > improvements in the Grants department were a direct outcome. > 6. But many events have never been documented with > guidance/resourcing/participation by the WMF. It's worthwhile to debrief > and summarize both positive and negative experiences. > 7. If you don't document positive outcomes, WMF staff may have > difficulty replicating that success, because the experience is not widely > understood within the WMF (or in the community, etc.) The example foremost > in my mind is the 2012 rewrite of the Terms of Use, overseen by > then-General Counsel Geoff Brigham. He made changes to his process to > leverage the knowledge and experience within the volunteer community, and > ended up with a document substantially superior to his initial draft, and > that also had the buy-in of many volunteers whose fingerprints were on the > final document. (I hope to write this up myself some day; if I ever get > around to it, it'll be linked here > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/governance#Organizational_governance> > . > 8. If you don't summarize/debrief negative outcomes, you don't learn in > the moment what went wrong (so as to avoid repeating the mistakes), and you > leave anybody impacted by the problems (e.g. volunteers) with the > impression that you don't care. The example I think of is Superprotect > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Superprotect>. As the author of a > diplomatic letter, signed by more than 1000 people, making straightforward > requests of the WMF, I am not too bothered that they didn't do what we > requested; but I am very bothered that they never acknowledged the > existence of the letter, nor stated which parts of it they agreed/disagreed > with, or what motivated the subsequent decisions they did make. (These are > things they could still do, even several years later, that would still make > a difference.) > 9. As any seasoned Wikipedia writer/editor knows, there is an important > difference between writing that aims first and foremost to be useful and > informative ("encyclopedic"), vs. writing that aims first and foremost to > present an organization in a good light, or to advance an agenda ("public > relations" or "communications" for an organization). People who excel at > one of those types of writing are not always great at doing the other kind; > the two types of writing require a different mindset. > 10. The kind of writing required to summarize and debrief > important events, to create and preserve institutional memory, is (in terms > of the ways I defined them above) *encyclopedic* writing. > 11. In closing, I'd like to make a point about the skillset the WMF > board has hired. I want to be really explicit -- I like and admire the > WMF's Executive Director/CEO; she is highly skilled, and a kind person. But > I am continually surprised that there has been little acknowledgment of > what the board did by hiring her, and the direction the WMF has > (unsurprisingly) taken since her hire. She was previously the WMF's > Communications Director, and her earlier career was largely in > communications. I would urge others to consider that it is not surprising, > if an organization is guided by an executive with a Communications > background, that it would not embrace an encyclopedic approach to its own > self-knowledge. > > If the Board wants to build an organization that learns about its assets > (first among them, IMO, is its extensive and passionate volunteer > community) and its history, and retains what knowledge it gains, I believe > it is entirely within the power of the Board to make that happen. The Board > has several tools at its disposal to ensure that kind of outcome. It can > make its wishes known through directives and motions passed in its > meetings, and it can exert its influence on documents like Annual Plans and > budgets. > > So, I would argue that if there are observable patterns that the WMF is not > doing a great job of retaining institutional memory, and if anybody has the > energy to try to change that (I don't), advocating to the Board is the most > worthwhile way to bring that about. Anything less, it seems to me, is > rather pointless. > > -Pete > -- > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > p.s. If interested, please review my own (work in progress) list of > significant events in Wikipedia's history, with links to more detailed > information. I'm interested in feedback, additions, or criticism of this > list. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/governance > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/governance#Organizational_governance> > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 1:52 PM Strainu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> It seems the WMF is going through another crisis of institutional >> memory, with the T&S team taking center stage. It's not really >> important what they did wrong, it's minor compared with other faux-pas >> they did in the past. >> >> I was wondering though if the organization as a whole has learned >> anything from major crisis in the past and if there is a formal way of >> passing to newcomers information such as when and how to contact >> communities, what's the difference between a wiki, a community and an >> affiliate etc.? >> >> Strainu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
