Making proposals easier to find / organize / work on

Hi Randomran,

first, I agree of course with Eugene (and I think you agree as well, but correct me if I'm wrong) that in order for us to be able to achieve scalable impact across projects and languages, the degree to which the Wikimedia Foundation acts as a top-down decision making entity should be minimal. IMO this is best done in the case of foundational policies, such as the licensing policy (wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy) or as community guidance (such as the wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people).

That doesn't mean that I think the set of foundational principles and guidances is complete. I completely sympathize with your frustration in both achieving consensus, and moving from consensus to implementation. I first argued for a standardized decision-making process nearly 8 years ago (see Wikipedia:Decision Making Process) based on similar experiences, even when the project was still very young. I do think the community lacks tools for more effective self-governance. It would be great if a "constitution" for the movement could emerge organically from its participants without requiring top-level approval, but that may not be possible. That said, I think it's worth pushing self-governance reform as far as possible without WMF involvement.

I also don't think we should be too pessimistic about Wikimedia's ability to agree to and implement changes. Implementing large changes requires dedication, courage, passion, and clarity, but it's not impossible. There are countless essays in Wikipedia which speak to the processes by which we can make, and agree, to changes. There are countless examples of the spontaneous emergence of important changes. I am personally fond of the description that is given in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In many cases, beginning by making a change is better than beginning by proposing it. I would add to the essay that 1) it's smart to build alignment with individual volunteers before making a change, to get their backup and support later, 2) it's often possible to pilot a change on a small scale, while still demonstrating its usefulness effectively.

Reviewing some of the most referenced proposals, most of them seem to me to be entirely implementable given enough volunteer effort. Even a controversial idea like Proposal:Expert review can be implemented by example. In fact, this recently happened with the Google project to review health related articles.

My experience is that many people simply don't know how to move past the proposal stage, or how to skip it entirely. They get frustrated by a high degree of opposition or reverts. They lack the time to refute every single counter-argument that is made. I think one of the resources needed to help people turn proposals into reality is a Volunteer Action Manual which gives clear guidance on how to overcome hurdles, what strategies to employ in piloting a new idea, etc. I hope, in coming weeks, that I'll be able to contribute to that document.

Fundamentally, I think the Wikimedia Foundation should, for the most part, only engage in soft paternalism, gently nudging the larger Wikimedia movement in ways that align with its strategy. That is a concession to both its responsibilities and its limitations. It's the global Wikimedia movement which has accomplished so much in under a decade; WMF's job is to help it achieve the greatest possible impact.

I'd like to think that you're right... but for the short year or two I was highly active at Wikipedia, I never really saw a big change occur. Not for anything of consequence. It took months and months and months of arguing to get them to go from a 5-day deletion discussion period to a 7-day period, and it was agony.

I really do think we need some kind of governance reform. There's a kind of "tyranny of structurelessness". People naively believe that we have a lot of freedom on the projects because we have no formal rules or authority figures... but in actuality, there are many editors with a lot more influence, a lot more friends, and cultural norms that are just as powerful and rigid as formal rules. But they're totally invisible, so they're impossible to understand, and even harder to change. We have people who are so invested in this structurelessness, this anarchy... but they don't realize how ineffective it's been.

Governance might be the fundamental problem with the projects... the problem that underlies every community problem, from dispute resolution to content policy to dealing with troublemakers to making things more friendly for newbies. There's enough people who want to improve Wikipedia, but we're stuck on a model of consensus that empowers fringe voices. And I really like consensus for small discussions between a handful of editors. But for any issue of importance, it's nearly impossible to find any common ground between 50 different people.

This sounds somewhat confused to me. Obviously it is so that the WMF cannot control what is happening in the various projects, nor should it want to. For many specialist topics it is only possible to contribute for those with a high degree of familiarity to the particular field. There are far too many 'kinglets' running round trying to control matters they know nothing about.

On the other hand the WMF is the only organisation with an overview of the whole thing, and there are some things it should be doing, because nobody else can do them and because they are essential to the central mission. One of these would be to guard against a take-over of a small-language wikipedia by an interest group (big business, religious group, etc) and to ensure that the central policies of wikipedia are emphasized in all the wikipedia's. Equally, if the WMF gets involved with strategy, the only way this will have consequences for the projects is if strategy is implemented top-down. Obviously, instruments for implementation are limited and the WMF should beware of overreaching. Nevertheless ... - Brya 04:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It is somewhat confused. There's a lot of contradictions coming out of this process. And navigating the obstacles is difficult. I agree that WMF needs to get involved. I can't imagine how the community can do it by itself, because the community is broken in fundamental ways.

I want to make two points. First, I disagree with Brya that strategy is inherently something that must be implemented top-down. That is what often happens, because most organizations are top-down, and frankly, most organizations implement strategy poorly. Did you know that on average, only 5 percent of employees know their company's strategy? How can you expect people to row in the same direction if they don't know where they're supposed to be rowing?

The opportunity we have here is to align the movement around a common set of strategic priorities. If five percent of Wikimedians know our priorities, than we're already doing better than most companies. Imagine if 50 percent understood and agreed with our priorities.

Here's my favorite thought experiment: Suppose you had a jigsaw puzzle with a million pieces, and you had a thousand people who were supposed to solve it. What's the best process for doing so? My answer: Project a picture of the final solution on a wall. If there's alignment on the direction, then people will figure out the best way to contribute. No top down control is necessary.

Which brings me to Randomran's very legitimate skepticism. How can we best empower individuals to make change? The Wikimedia Foundation must absolutely play a role, but I don't think it's necessary the role of authority. I think people at the Wikimedia Foundation must engage in community conversation and show leadership by encouraging people to act.

As Erik stated, there are examples of big changes that have occurred with the projects that have been driven by the community. However, as Randomran has stated, that may be more the exception than the rule, and either way, it can be a frustrating experience.

My challenge to all of you is to go over the Proposals we have right now, and identify the ones that you think might be low-hanging fruit. What can be implemented without a huge consensus process? Keep in mind that one way around project bureaucracy is to implement things on small projects first. We've done a lot of that here on strategy wiki, and there are many projects that have been excellent at innovation. English Wikinews is a great example of this.

Finally, I want to point out my favorite example du jour of an empowered volunteer. Look at the incredible work that User:Witty lama has been doing as the British Museum's first Wikipedian in Residence. None of his work is officially sanctioned by anyone, but it has the potential to make a huge impact.

I remain skeptical. :) If the Wikimedia Foundation wanted consensus on everything, we wouldn't even have the drive the improve the interface. For such a non-controversial idea, there are a ton of "ain't broke don't fix it" comments, plus a bunch of "if they can't figure Wikipedia out, they're too dumb to make good contributions" comments. That's actually an example where the foundation had to step in and say "we're doing this -- give us feedback and criticism but we're doing this".

I'm willing to give it a shot. I'll scan through the proposals in the next week or two. But I suspect anything uncontroversial enough to work without consensus will be very small, and have virtually no impact on the big strategic picture.

We don't need authority, but we certainly need leadership.

Just to make sure we're on the same page: The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want consensus on everything. It wants to encourage action. I think we all want to encourage action; that's how I'm interpreting from your messages, Randomran.

And I think it's very fair for you to say that the Wikimedia Foundation needs to show leadership. To me, leadership means several things. One way to show leadership is to create a space that facilitates action -- in other words, empowering others.

Another way is to lead by doing. The Foundation is certainly doing that, and volunteers have an opportunity to do this as well.

A third way is to engage. We've seen some of that on strategy from Foundation staff; I hope much more of it happens in the future.

Finally, I forgot to mention something. I leave the project in a few weeks, and I will no longer have any official status. I'd love to stay involved, and I'd love you in particular to stay involved. This is an open invitation, but it's targeted especially at you, Randomran. Find an interesting proposal, let's agree to lead by doing, and let's see what a few volunteers can accomplish together. :-)

Thanks Eekim... I left a message on your userpage.

I agree. At least Wikipedia don´t need much change, but projects like Wikinews, Wikiversity and Meta do need new ideas. Wikis are very much stable, which is positive but if something went wrong, it is negative. Maybe a short time change in the way a wiki is run, could be a solution. Or we could clone a wiki and change the rules for the new wiki. If the new wiki works better than the old ones, we close the old wiki.