Thanks Philippe. Funny, the minute I hit "send" I thought of you -- I don't know whether or not it was your idea originally, but the "Wikimedia-Pedia" that was created during the 2010 Strategic Planning process was probably the closest thing I've seen to an organized effort to do this.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 5:25 PM Philippe Beaudette <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
