Wikimedia at the Crossroads
Wikimedia 2006 Elections
Part 1: Wikimedia at the Crossroads
Part 2: Who Writes Wikipedia?
Part 3: Who Runs Wikipedia?
Part 4: Making More Wikipedians
Part 5: Making More Wikipedias
Part 6: Code, and Other Laws
If you translate this essay, please contact me.
Vote for me in the election for the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Directors.
A couple weeks ago I had the great privilege of attending Wikimania, the international Wikimedia conference. Hundreds from all over the world gathered there to discuss the magic that is Wikipedia, thinking hard about what it means and why it works. It was an amazing intellectual and emotional experience.
The main attraction was seeing the vibrant Wikipedia community. There were the hardcore Wikipedians, who spend their days reviewing changes and fixing pages. And there were the elder statesmen, like Larry Lessig and Brewster Kahle, who came to meet the first group and tell them how their work fits into a bigger picture. Spending time with all these people was amazing fun — they’re all incredibly bright, enthusiastic and, most shockingly, completely dedicated to a cause greater than themselves.
At most “technology” conferences I’ve been to, the participants generally talk about technology for its own sake. If use ever gets discussed, it’s only about using it to make vast sums of money. But at Wikimania, the primary concern was doing the most good for the world, with technology as the tool to help us get there. It was an incredible gust of fresh air, one that knocked me off my feet.
There was another group attending, however: the people holding up the platform on which this whole community stands. I spent the first few days with the mostly-volunteer crew of hackers who keep the websites up and running. In later days, I talked to the site administrators who exercise the power that the software gives them. And I heard much about the Wikimedia Foundation, the not-for-profit that controls and runs the sites.
Much to my surprise, this second group was almost the opposite of the first. With a few notable exceptions, when they were off-stage they talked gossip and details: how do we make the code stop doing this, how do we get people to stop complaining about that, how can we get this other group to like us more. Larger goals or grander visions didn’t come up in their private conversations; instead they seemed absorbed by the issues of the present.
Of course, they have plenty to be absorbed by. Since January, Wikipedia’s traffic has more than doubled and this group is beginning to strain under the load. At the technical level, the software development and server systems are both managed by just one person, Brion Vibber, who appears to have his hands more-than-full just keeping everything running. The entire system has been cobbled together as the site has grown, a messy mix of different kinds of computers and code, and keeping it all running sounds like a daily nightmare. As a result, actual software development goes rather slowly, which cannot help but affect the development of the larger project.
The small coterie of site administrators, meanwhile, are busy dealing with the ever-increasing stream of complaints from the public. The recent Seigenthaler affair, in which the founding editor of USA Today noisily attacked Wikipedia for containing an grievous error in its article on him, has made people very cautious about how Wikipedia treats living people. (Although to judge just from the traffic numbers, one might think more such affairs might be a good idea…) One administrator told me how he spends his time scrubbing Wikipedia clean of unflattering facts about people who call the head office to complain.
Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation Board seems to have devolved into inaction and infighting. Just four people have been actually hired by the Foundation, and even they seem unsure of their role in a largely-volunteer community. Little about this group — which, quite literally, controls Wikipedia — is known by the public. Even when they were talking to dedicated Wikipedians at the conference, they put a public face on things, saying little more than “don’t you folks worry, we’ll straighten everything out”.
The plain fact is that Wikipedia’s gotten too big to be run by just a couple of people. One way or another, it’s going to have to become an organization; the question is what kind. Organizational structures are far from neutral: whose input gets included decides what actions get taken, the positions that get filled decide what things get focused on, the vision at the top sets the path that will be followed.
I worry that Wikipedia, as we know it, might not last. That its feisty democracy might ossify into staid bureaucracy, that its innovation might stagnate into conservatism, that its growth might slow to stasis. Were such things to happen, I know I could not just stand by and watch the tragedy. Wikipedia is just too important — both as a resource and as a model — to see fail.
That is why, after much consideration, I’ve decided to run for a seat on the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board. I’ve been a fairly dedicated Wikipedian since 2003, adding and editing pages whenever I came across them. I’ve gone to a handful of Wikipedia meetups and even got my photo on the front page of the Boston Globe as an example Wikipedian. But I’ve never gotten particularly involved in Wikipedia politics — I’m not an administrator, I don’t get involved in policy debates, I hardly even argue on the “talk pages”. Mostly, I just edit.
And, to be honest, I wish I could stay that way. When people at Wikimania suggested I run for a Board seat, I shrugged off the idea. But since then, I’ve become increasingly convinced that I should run, if only to bring attention to these issues. Nobody else seems to be seriously discussing this challenge.
The election begins today and lasts three weeks. As it rolls on, I plan to regularly publish essays like this one, examining the questions that face Wikipedia in depth. Whether I win or not, I hope we can use this opportunity for a grand discussion about where we should be heading and what we can do to get there. That said, if you’re an eligible Wikipedian, I hope that you’ll please vote for me.
You should follow me on twitter here.
August 31, 2006
Comments
Aaron, somewhere I lost thread of your argument, though I think I’ve got the gist.
Let’s examine the basics:
“The Board consists of five directors. Since June 2004, two of these seats have been elected.”
This means that the board will do what the three permanent members want it to do. That’s just a fact.
Thus, the two elected members are some sort of advisory helpers. They have no power when in conflict with the others.
Now, as far as I can grasp what you are saying (and I may be wrong), I think you believe that since “the vision at the top sets the path that will be followed”, you can provide a vision which is true to the spirit. But that would have to be done by strength of vision alone, as voting power is not an option per above.
If, hypothetically, just for the sake of an interesting discussion, the $4 million of venture capital invested in Wikia generates imperatives that conflict with the vision (remember, VC’s want a big payoff), there wouldn’t be much you could do against that. I mean, you could argue for your vision, but in such a conflict I’d bet on the money every time.
But the upside of being pure of heart is that I doubt you could be bought-off with some IPO shares :-).
posted by Seth Finkelstein on September 1, 2006 #
I tried:
[[ Sorry, you are not qualified to vote in this election here on the English Wikipedia. You need to have made 400 edits here before 00:00, 1 August 2006, you have made 26. Also, your first edit on this wiki was at 17:29, 1 October 2002, it needs to be before 00:00, 3 May 2006. ]]
I can just about believe the first part (I’d have thought a lot more, though probably not 400), but am less than convinced by the second part ;-)
posted by Danny on September 1, 2006 #
I think a lot of the way boards operate is by who’s in the room and who they’re talking to — what information is presented and what arguments are made. So even if you and whoever else could get outvoted, you know there’s communication between the regal three and the grassroots two, and the outsiders know what’s going on in the insider room and vice versa.
If the insider three were Rupert Murdoch, Hillary Clinton, and Michael Powell I’d be less convinced of this but I think whoever these people are, they’re pretty certainly broadly dedicated to the principles Wikimedia was founded on, having worked without hope of financial incentive for years on the project.
posted by Kai Stinchcombe on September 2, 2006 #
I would love to vote for you, but I’m not allowed: I have only 155 edits to my name. Why? Because when I have edited articles, which I do from time to time, I take care to proof them before posting, often by using Preview. Now, if I posted stuff before proofing and then fixed it, I would be over 400 by now: my typing isn’t anything like perfect, and sometimes I can’t remember which way things go in the [thing|thingy] syntax.
posted by ringbark on September 4, 2006 #
The conclusions of your essays are new to me and interesting. You’re a bit vague on the specific problems of Wikipedia (may not be your fault) although you create a plausible general picture. You got my vote.
posted by fairykarma on September 11, 2006 #
Hello
I just found out your blog and this collection of essays related to the elections. Fascinating ! I’ll read it entirely in and out one more time as I think there is much to learn about it.
One sentence caught my attention though.
Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation Board seems to have devolved into inaction and infighting. Just four people have been actually hired by the Foundation, and even they seem unsure of their role in a largely-volunteer community. Little about this group — which, quite literally, controls Wikipedia — is known by the public. Even when they were talking to dedicated Wikipedians at the conference, they put a public face on things, saying little more than “don’t you folks worry, we’ll straighten everything out”.
May I dare ask you whether you took the time to attend the presentation I made ? I am doubting you did. Either you did not, or you understood nothing of what I said. That’s unfortunate. I’d like to invite you to listen to the presentation as well as look at the powerpoint. And if you desire so, to talk about it a bit more. But I am absolutely rejecting the validity of the sentence above. Yes, Jimbo does that. I do not. I have never done that. And I took much pain to try to be as open and honest about how things were NOT working and how much help we needed. That’s frankly dishonnest to claim that our little group is just pretending to fix it all. Either you were being dishonnest because you were a candidate to the board, or you are simply confusing Jimbo with the other members of the group. Please, do me the favor of considering us as human individuals with own opinion and abilities and fear and joys, and not simply as Jimbo’s valets. Thanks
Anthere
posted by Anthere on October 11, 2006 #
Thanks!
I did; I came up afterwards to thank you for such an open and honest showing, that must have taken courage, but I didn’t get a chance to speak to you before the next session started. Anyway, the comment you quoted was purely about the next session (i.e. Jimbo).
posted by Aaron Swartz on October 22, 2006 #
Two days ago, I was answering an interview and fell on the question running about the idea 20% of editors makes 80% of the work. I thought immediately of the blog you made on that issue. I hope you do not mind me using you as a source ;-) The information is now in Finland :-)
anthere
posted by Anthere on October 27, 2006 #
I am setting up a few pages on famous Australian media personalities.
I am not very computer literate.
I cannot for the like of me work out how to simply add a photo can you help me at all?
Regards Brenda
posted by BRENDA GALE on November 2, 2006 #
What about russian translation?
posted by Russian Market on July 14, 2007 #
You can also send comments by email.