User talk:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts/Phase I Task Forces/Structure

General Discussion
I consolidated DStrassmann's Remaining tasks into the to-do (and renamed it). Manumitany (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also just moved the whole content part to the main page; the auto-signing by bots when editing throughout the piece was becoming problematic, and I think putting the bulk of content on the talk page just isn't the right use of the Wiki.

I like how some questions are being asked inline with the different pros and cons. I think this is a good idea and we should do it more. For discussion of particular questions/pros/cons, let's hash things out properly on this Talk page.Manumitany (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Fund dissemination committee (FDC)
Questions on how much is available from these folks. See eligibility stuff here: EligibilityManumitany (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The WMF will not really be able to prejudge a budget size for us; we'll just have to come up with a reasonable budget on our own, and then submit that to FDC. (For what it's worth, efforts done through Wikimedia NYC are already eligible for the FDC process in October, something that would otherwise take some time to achieve.)--Pharos (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Hegemony" Discussion
A question in the "cons" for general Wikimedia US non-profit organization says "U.S. hegemony over the U.S.?" The concern here was originally phrased as geographic jealousy by Diana, I think. The point or problem is that we've been tasked towards a U.S./Canada education program. As much as many, including myself, may joke about it, Canada isn't the fifty-first state. If we host the two-country education program in an explicitly-American organization, the Canadian program participants may be disheartened. Even if they're not, it is to a certain extent just rude. Potential resolutions may include narrowing the organization's scope to U.S. only, or expanding the federation plans to be a North American WP Chapter federation.Manumitany (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we can make the program a collaboration between the U.S. federation and Wikimedia Canada. Another option is that we can broaden the scope of the federation and bring in Canada, but then such an organization runs the risk of mission creep and we're going to need Wikimedia Canada buy-in anyway. Harej (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see another alternative, which gets at the internal structure of this new organization. If the program runs on a campus level (think: chapter structure of Greek organizations on university campuses, Red Cross structure, etc.), then each campus is using the tools provided by the central organization (nonprofit staff members?) but actually running the program based on the campus culture and the needs of professors and students. If this were the case, then each campus runs its own program anyway. Plenty of organizations operate this way in the US and Canada (though, again, I'm thinking primarily of Greek organizations, which are some of the longest-standing campus groups that essentially self-sustain). I would think this would really get at the "decentralized" structure we've talked about. Also, we would still have far more campus groups in the US, but there are far more universities (and people) in the US than Canada. Are other Working Group members allowed to participate in these discussions? :) JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't generalize too much about Canadian pride and such, but I believe we are quite used to being junior partners in mostly American enterprises (e.g. NAFTA, American League (MLB)) when it suits our needs. I'm starting a draft for Wikimedia Canada - we'll see how interested they are in partnering.  I, of course, am opposed to leaving out Canadian institutions from the new group - as mentioned before, our academic system is closest to that of the States, and we don't really mind taking part in a group that is predominantly American in focus.  We're pretty pragmatic when it comes to these things.  The Interior  (Talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Explain this a bit more?
There is a con for independent organization that says:


 * A closed system leaves less of a scope for bottom-up volunteer participation, and there is a disadvantage to starting a new organization without direct Wikipedia community involvement.

I don't quite understand this item. I think that it was added by User:DStrassmann in the original notes of our call. I don't remember this (but I may have been distracted when we went over it). I don't think that the closed structure will necessarily or even would tend to be a closed system; I think that it can be structured and set on a path with a focus on tapping into and enabling volunteer participation. The advantage is that it has the potential to catalyze new volunteer participation through dedicated effort (e.g. of paid outreach staff like Annie, Frank, Jami). The whole enterprise needs to have direct community involvement throughout. We're a small working group laying out a vision because (A) that sort of thing is difficult to do as a massive collective, and (B) we're bringing together different communities besides just the Wikipedia community (re: the academy).

But again, I'm not sure that I'm on the right track as far as what the con item is intended to convey. Please guide me in the right direction if so.Manumitany (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the idea Richard was getting at with this 'con' is that the education program is working from a pretty significant reputation deficit with the Wikipedia community, and that setting it up the program structure as a new entity that's independent from the existing off-wiki community organizations runs the risk of worsening that. Much of the community has felt (opportunities to get involved notwithstanding) excluded from the development of the education program so far, and Wikipedians may feel they have even less of a stake in a new non-profit.--Ragesoss (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand now. I think that we can turn this into a positive, because the whole idea is that we have a structure that is more directly accountable to the stakeholders of the education program - not that WMF staff wasn't awesome, but this lets us fix our own problems.  By being the ones in charge of fixing our (i.e. the Education Program's) own problems, and by getting WP community members more directly involved in being the decision makers in that, I think that buy-in can be built.  This will happen in two ways, (1) the decisions made will be what the community thinks is right, and (2) involvement in the process will persuade WP community members that the best decisions were made. Manumitany (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Were the principals of the education program not allowed to make their own decisions before? Harej (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I read what he was saying as: if we have an organization that is solely dedicated to Wikipedia and education, people can make decisions in the best interest of using Wikipedia as a teaching tool. Sometimes that may conflict with WMF missions/goals/policies, but now the Wikipedia Education Program can have more flexibility to do what seems right for the program, professors, students, Ambassadors, and Wikipedia. I may have read that wrong, though. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)