At the last day of the HBS course there are two cases about organizational scale ups. The first case was about an international nonprofit organization, which has the strongest similarity to WMF from all the cases. Organizational changes often mean a lot of stress inside of the organization.
Shortly after the Foundation was established the first chapters were created. In the following time both the Foundation, the chapters and other formal and informal groups grew up in a more or less organic way. In the past time we are more and more confronted with questions like: Who has which roles? Whom can we expect for what? Who has which duty?
Because our structures are so grassroot and so organical created, it poses some difficulty now to sort all these questions out. This is the reason why the board initiated the Movement Roles workgroup. It is a very important workgroup and its work will have influence on the organisation of the Foundation, the chapters and other friendly or informal groups. Because of this it is very very important, both for the Foundation, as well as the groups that would be potentially affected, to take part in this process, make their suggestions and work together.
At the end of the four days I would say that the course was a good investment for the Foundation. Even though the cases seem to be far distant from our own situation at the first glance, I inevitably discovers again and again similar situations and principles. We got some framework on how to analyse situations systematically, but more of that is that we got excercises in a lot of situations which can face a nonprofit organization in how to concentrate on the most important part of the board work: remain calm, always keep the mission in mind, and communicate.
The course was very intensive. Everyday we studied three to four cases. Every case had a discription of about in average 30 pages. The day started at 7:30 with groupwork on the cases of the day and ends at about 17:00. But that doesn't mean the end of day. On the receptions afterward and on dinner table discussion would go on and on. After I closed my door in the dorm and started my recapitulation about the next days course.
Although the days were very tough, I never felt sleepy in the classrooms because it was so interesting, so challenging and so engaging. I only noticed how tired I got went at the end of the day I shut off the light and fall almost instantly into sleep.
Preparation is important for the course. Who go to the course without studied the cases beforehand would find himself lost quite soon. Because the cases are all quite complicated and long, one need to cross read them one day before again so that the details can come back into the memory.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Theory of Change
One of the most discussed problem on the 4-day HBS course "Governing for Nonprofit Excellence", both on the course as well as off the course, is how to measure the impact of a strategy, an organization and how to measure the performance of an organization as well as its parts.
It is one of the most interested questions by almost all attendees. And it is also important for the WikiMedia Foundation.
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this question, not even from HBS.
The researchers at HBS consider the question in a very systematic way: At first, every organization has outputs. Outputs are things an organization can influence directly with its strategy and action. And they can be measured directly. In comparison to the outputs are outcomes. In HBS jargon outcomes are effects of an organization with their output. It is less in control of the organization, it is more a public effect. The sum of all outcomes are called impact by the HBS researchers.
For the WikiMedia Foundation, the number of articles is an obvious output. In issuing different policies we can (or can try to) influence this output. It is easy to measure. WikiMedia has a lot of such measurable values, like length of articles, article depth, visitor counts, etc. These are all what we often call metrics when we are discussing on our mailing-list or in the projects.
As everyone of us know, who had took part in these discussions, these metrics are no good measurements. The reason from them to be not good is that one can interpret them in a lot of ways. And they do not necessarily correlate with the outcome we wish.
The outcome we want to achieve is higher quality of our articles, more penetration of our projects, more participation of our users, more diversity of our projects, etc. And these are not so easy to measure.
Let's take the example of article quality. I know discussion about article quality since I joined our editing community. How can you design a measurement for so much articles in more than 270 languages in topics as different as top quark and Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva? The most obvious suggestion is article length. But the sole length of an article doesn't really reflect the quality of an article. An article could be very long, but still badly structured, poorly referenced and contains strong point of view. The article depth is a more sophisticated approach which treats a language version as a whole and tries to calculate how often the articles are updated. Beside technical and methodological problems there are also other difficulties in measuring quality. The perception for a good article and a bad article can differ between the editing community, the general public and experts of their fields. Each of these groups can have different criteria for quality of articles. For example the general public may value an article as higher quality because it is more comprehensible, but comprehensible may mean for an expert explanations that contain more ambivalent and misleading analogues.
Because of the difficulty of measurement of outcomes there is often a big gap between the measurable output of an organization and its impact. This problem is annoying for most of nonprofit organizations and highly uncomfortable for their boards. Nevertheless most of the organizations believe that they achieve impact with their work. The HBS researchers call this believe Theory of Change. It is a hypothetical and in many cases unproved theory about if we do this, than we will change the society in that way, and that would lead to the fulfillment of our mission. Most strategies of nonprofit organizations are based on theories of change.
So the theory of change of article length is that longer articles tend to contain more information, tend to be more thorough and thus of higher quality. The theory of change of article depth is that if more updates are done on a language version, then we can assume that the articles are more up-to-date, and more failures are corrected by the editing community, and thus better articles.
But as the many discussions in the past and current suggest these are all hypothetical theories and we don't really know.
The best way to proof the theory of change is to measure the outcome. As I had already written before, this is not easy. In many cases the organization also has no resource in know-how, man power and money to conduct a measurement or survey. The WikiMedia Foundation and our communities had in the past conducted a score of experiments and methods to measure the quality:
The featured article is doubtless the most successful of these. It is a measurement from the view of our editing community for high quality articles. Across all projects the threshold for featured articles are very high. With the public policy project WikiMedia Foundation began in the last months a test on user feed backs about quality from the reader perception. Although there were some outside evaluations with experts like those conducted by Nature or c't, these evaluations are often of too small a scale and not consistent enough to give us an overall trend over the years and across the language versions, or in more general fields.
So one of our major tasks in the coming years is still to find a way to bridge some gaps of theory of change. And one of the tasks of the board would be to engage our community and outside experts to free their resources and expertise to help us in this endeavor.
It is one of the most interested questions by almost all attendees. And it is also important for the WikiMedia Foundation.
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this question, not even from HBS.
The researchers at HBS consider the question in a very systematic way: At first, every organization has outputs. Outputs are things an organization can influence directly with its strategy and action. And they can be measured directly. In comparison to the outputs are outcomes. In HBS jargon outcomes are effects of an organization with their output. It is less in control of the organization, it is more a public effect. The sum of all outcomes are called impact by the HBS researchers.
For the WikiMedia Foundation, the number of articles is an obvious output. In issuing different policies we can (or can try to) influence this output. It is easy to measure. WikiMedia has a lot of such measurable values, like length of articles, article depth, visitor counts, etc. These are all what we often call metrics when we are discussing on our mailing-list or in the projects.
As everyone of us know, who had took part in these discussions, these metrics are no good measurements. The reason from them to be not good is that one can interpret them in a lot of ways. And they do not necessarily correlate with the outcome we wish.
The outcome we want to achieve is higher quality of our articles, more penetration of our projects, more participation of our users, more diversity of our projects, etc. And these are not so easy to measure.
Let's take the example of article quality. I know discussion about article quality since I joined our editing community. How can you design a measurement for so much articles in more than 270 languages in topics as different as top quark and Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva? The most obvious suggestion is article length. But the sole length of an article doesn't really reflect the quality of an article. An article could be very long, but still badly structured, poorly referenced and contains strong point of view. The article depth is a more sophisticated approach which treats a language version as a whole and tries to calculate how often the articles are updated. Beside technical and methodological problems there are also other difficulties in measuring quality. The perception for a good article and a bad article can differ between the editing community, the general public and experts of their fields. Each of these groups can have different criteria for quality of articles. For example the general public may value an article as higher quality because it is more comprehensible, but comprehensible may mean for an expert explanations that contain more ambivalent and misleading analogues.
Because of the difficulty of measurement of outcomes there is often a big gap between the measurable output of an organization and its impact. This problem is annoying for most of nonprofit organizations and highly uncomfortable for their boards. Nevertheless most of the organizations believe that they achieve impact with their work. The HBS researchers call this believe Theory of Change. It is a hypothetical and in many cases unproved theory about if we do this, than we will change the society in that way, and that would lead to the fulfillment of our mission. Most strategies of nonprofit organizations are based on theories of change.
So the theory of change of article length is that longer articles tend to contain more information, tend to be more thorough and thus of higher quality. The theory of change of article depth is that if more updates are done on a language version, then we can assume that the articles are more up-to-date, and more failures are corrected by the editing community, and thus better articles.
But as the many discussions in the past and current suggest these are all hypothetical theories and we don't really know.
The best way to proof the theory of change is to measure the outcome. As I had already written before, this is not easy. In many cases the organization also has no resource in know-how, man power and money to conduct a measurement or survey. The WikiMedia Foundation and our communities had in the past conducted a score of experiments and methods to measure the quality:
The featured article is doubtless the most successful of these. It is a measurement from the view of our editing community for high quality articles. Across all projects the threshold for featured articles are very high. With the public policy project WikiMedia Foundation began in the last months a test on user feed backs about quality from the reader perception. Although there were some outside evaluations with experts like those conducted by Nature or c't, these evaluations are often of too small a scale and not consistent enough to give us an overall trend over the years and across the language versions, or in more general fields.
So one of our major tasks in the coming years is still to find a way to bridge some gaps of theory of change. And one of the tasks of the board would be to engage our community and outside experts to free their resources and expertise to help us in this endeavor.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Vision, Mission, Strategy
In the four days while my stay in the Harvard Business School I often looked back at our vision, mission and strategy. The second day of the course concentrates on how vision and mission decide strategy. As Professor Leonhard put it, the question 0: What is we supposed to do.
Our vision is: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
Our mission is: The mission of the WikiMedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
And our overall strategy to fulfill that mission is: In coordination with a network of chapters and individual volunteers, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
One of the most appalling think that we experienced in study the cases by HBS is that it shows how easily one lose his mission out of the sight and how difficult it often is to judge if a decision supports the mission. This seems especially easy in time of crisis. And that brings me back again and again to the most difficult discussions at the moment in our movement. The most difficult inside the board, between the board and the community, and inside the community: The controversial content discussion.
We have here two radical position that in my opinion reflects two aspects of our mission:
*The freedom of speech, the not censoring of project content according to whatever criteria as long as we move inside the frame of law reflects the aspect in our mission and vision, that we want to share the sum of ALL educational knowledge. And the sum of all knowledge certainly includes also those that are controversial.
*On the other hand, if part of the knowledge we are providing is so upset for part of the people around the world, so that they feel our projects as insulting and refuses to share their knowledge on our projects or share the knowledge that is collected on our projects, than we certainly failed to fulfill this aspect of our mission.
The call of boycott on the Aceh Wikipedia against the rest of our projects shows in a radical and confusing way how emotional and sometimes irrational this conflict even can evolve inside of our own community.
To me the duty of the board is to find out a way so that all aspects of our mission can be fulfilled, in engaged discussion with the community. Because it is a mission matter, it is a board issue, and because it is a mission matter, it is important. The lessons I learned by studying the cases is, it is all too easy to lost our mission, because of our personal view, because of the emotion that is involved in the discussion, because it relates to value and is a complicated topic. All this is for me even more reason to keep our mission in our mind when we are working through this topic. And again
Our vision is: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
Our mission is: The mission of the WikiMedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
Our vision is: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
Our mission is: The mission of the WikiMedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
And our overall strategy to fulfill that mission is: In coordination with a network of chapters and individual volunteers, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
One of the most appalling think that we experienced in study the cases by HBS is that it shows how easily one lose his mission out of the sight and how difficult it often is to judge if a decision supports the mission. This seems especially easy in time of crisis. And that brings me back again and again to the most difficult discussions at the moment in our movement. The most difficult inside the board, between the board and the community, and inside the community: The controversial content discussion.
We have here two radical position that in my opinion reflects two aspects of our mission:
*The freedom of speech, the not censoring of project content according to whatever criteria as long as we move inside the frame of law reflects the aspect in our mission and vision, that we want to share the sum of ALL educational knowledge. And the sum of all knowledge certainly includes also those that are controversial.
*On the other hand, if part of the knowledge we are providing is so upset for part of the people around the world, so that they feel our projects as insulting and refuses to share their knowledge on our projects or share the knowledge that is collected on our projects, than we certainly failed to fulfill this aspect of our mission.
The call of boycott on the Aceh Wikipedia against the rest of our projects shows in a radical and confusing way how emotional and sometimes irrational this conflict even can evolve inside of our own community.
To me the duty of the board is to find out a way so that all aspects of our mission can be fulfilled, in engaged discussion with the community. Because it is a mission matter, it is a board issue, and because it is a mission matter, it is important. The lessons I learned by studying the cases is, it is all too easy to lost our mission, because of our personal view, because of the emotion that is involved in the discussion, because it relates to value and is a complicated topic. All this is for me even more reason to keep our mission in our mind when we are working through this topic. And again
Our vision is: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.
Our mission is: The mission of the WikiMedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
Friday, November 5, 2010
"Leadership is ...
German version
Chinese version
... the process of bringing a new, and generally unwelcome reality to an organization, group or society and helping her/him/it/them successfully adapt to it."
Thus was it written on the blackboard in the classroom. I was attending a 4-day-course at the Harvard Business School with the name "Governing for Nonprofit Excellence".
While I was preparing for the course and reading through the cases my doubt and unease increased slowly. Would this be the right investment the Wikimedia Foundation is making? Would we and I as the current board chair really get any benefit from this course?
The cases are all very interesting, but they seem all so far away from us, I agree, a very unique organization. So what can I learn from a hospital in Cambridge, Massachusetts, searching for a merge partner?
A lot.
The story is about a non-profit organization, that had until now lived in a very comfortable zone, and that means,
- serving the value it is supposed to provide,
- has support from its community
- has resources for its operation,
and is now facing a changing environment which moves it out of this comfortable zone, erupting its support base. The story is about a board that recognized this danger and must make an uncomfortable decision and lead its organization to move on.
It strikes me how similar this sounds to us.
As a high-tech based organization, we are living in a fast changing world. A lot of things change around and inside of us:
- almost all governments, western free ones as more restrictive ones, are changing their laissez faire politic to the Internet and imposing more rigid policies for the web.
- the perception of the public on our projects, especially Wikipedia, is changing. We are no more that freaky Internet site five years ago, but one of the most important information source of the world. And that changes our responsibility to the public.
- our content changed, comparing the most early version of the article Boston with its state of the art there is a tremendous difference. And that means we raised our bar for new participants tremendously. And that changes slowly the composition of our very own community. It changes how we work and how we debate.
- the web technique changed in the past ten years since Wikipedia started. Its landscape changed dramatically during the ten years. Who is a veteran and had his own (first?) website on Geocities?
A lot of things that the Foundation and its board did in the last years has to do with these changes. The BLP resolution is a direct response to our changing responsibility to the general public as well as to the affected person. The usability project is a direct response to the changing technology. The change of our licensing model is also related to public perception and demand, because the pure GFDL is awesome for the use for printings. The strategic planning engages all the challenges we are facing. And the ongoing controversial content discussion is a result of our strategic planning (development and adaption in the nonwestern cultures) and the response of the changes in public policy and in our responsibility.
Non of these changes are uncontroversial and non of the discussions is unpainful. But if we want to fulfill our mission there is no other way as to move on.
What is interesting about the HBS course for me, is that by analyzing the cases I unavoidably come back again and again to our own situation. By looking at the others as an uninvolved observer it makes me more clearer to our own cases. And it provides me some guidance by providing frameworks or algorithms to analyze the situation more calmly and systematically.
Führung ist ...
... das Prozess, eine neue, allgemein unwillkommene Realität einer Organisation, Gruppe oder Gesellschaft kundzutun und sie/ihn/es/ihnen helfen, sich erfolgreich daran anzupassen."
So stand es auf dem Schwarzen Brett im Klassenraum. Ich nahm gerade an einem viertägigen Kurs an der Harvard Business School mit dem Namen "Governing for Nonprofit Excellence" teil.
Als ich das Kurs vorbereitete und die Fallstudien las, wuchs in mir den Zweifel, ob die Investition der WikiMedia Foundation diesmal wirklich so sinnvoll ist. Wird die Organisation und ich als der momentane Boardvorsitzender wirklich von diesem Kurs profitieren?
Die Fallstudien sind alle sehr interessant, aber sie scheinen alle so weit von uns weg zu sein. Ich gebe zu, wir sind eine sehr ungewöhnliche Organisation. Was kann ich also von einem Krankenhaus in Cambridge, Massachusetts lernen, der gerade eine Fusionspartner sucht?
Viel.
Es ist die Geschichte einer Nonprofitorganisation, die bis dahin in eine sehr komfortable Zone gelebt hatte. Das bedeutet,
- dass es die Werte seiner Community bringt, für die sie gedacht wurde
- Unterstützung von seiner Community erhält
- Resourcen für seine Operation besitzt.
Angesichts der sich ändernden Umwelt droht sie aus ihre Komfortzone herauszurutschen. Die Basis seiner Unterstützung eruptiert. Die Geschichte ist über einem Board, das diesen Gefahr erkennt und unangenehme Entscheidung machen musste und seine Organisation weiterführt.
Es ist erstaunlich wie ähnlich dies zu unsere Situation klingt.
Als eine High-Tech basierende Organisation leben wir in eine sich schnell ändernden Umwelt. Viele Sachen ändern sich um uns herum und in uns hinein:
- fast alle Regierungen, die westlich freiheitliche wie die restriktiven, ändern ihren Laissez-faire-Politik gegenüber dem Internet und führen immer restriktiveren Regeln für das Netz ein.
- die Sicht der Nutzer zu unseren Projekten, besonders zu Wikipedia, ändern sich. Wir sind nicht mehr das Kuriosum im Internet von vor fünf Jahren, sondern ein der wichtigsten Informationsquelle der Welt. Und das ändert unsere Verantwortung zu unseren User.
- Unsere Inhalten ändern sich. Vergleicht man den Inhalt der ersten Version zu Boston mit seinem aktuellen Inhalt sieht man den riesigen Unterschied. Das bedeutet, dass wir die Anfangshürde für Anfänger erheblich angehoben haben. Diese Änderung ändert langsam die Zusammensetzung unserer eigenen Community, sie ändert auch wie wir arbeiten und wie Diskussionen geführt werden.
- Die Webtechnologie hat sich in den letzten zehn Jahren seit dem Start der Wikipedia geändert. Ihre Landschaft hat sich in den zehn Jahren dramatisch verändert. Gibt es hier Veteranen, die ihren (ersten?) Webseiten auf Geocities gebastelt haben?
Viele Sachen, die die Foundation und ihr Board in den letzten Jahren getan haben, haben mit diesen Änderungen zu tun. Die BLP-Resolution ist eine direkte Antwort auf die Änderung unserer Verantwortung zum allgemeinen Publikum wie auch zu den betroffenen Personen. Die Änderung unseres Lizenzmodells ist ebenfalls in Zusammenhang zur Publikumssicht und -anforderung zu sein, weil die reine GFDL für gedruckten Büchern einfach zu unpraktikabel ist. Mit der Strategischen Planung versuchen wir, eine Strategie gegen alle Herausforderungen zu entwickeln, die uns begegnen. Und das andauernde Diskussion zu umstrittenen Inhalten ist ein Ergebnis unserer Strategischen Planung (Entwicklung und Adaption in den nichtwestlichen Kulturen) und eine Antwort auf sich ändernden Politik und unserer Verantwortung.
Keine diese Änderungen sind nicht unumstritten und keine der Diskussionen schmerzlos. Aber um unsere Mission zu erfüllen gibt es keinen Weg vorbei.
Was für mich besonders interessant zum HBS Kurs ist, dass beim Analysieren der Fällen ich unvermeidbar immer wieder und wieder zu unsere Situation zurückkehre. Beim Studieren der anderen als ein unbeteiligter Beobachter wird es mir klarer zu unserem eigenen Fall. Und das Kurs liefert mir einigen Frameworks oder Algorithmen, um Situationen systematischer und mit einem kühleren Kopf zu analysieren.
领导是……
……把一个新的、一般来说不令人欢心的事实展现给一个组织、一群人或者一个社会，并帮助他们成功地适应这个新情况的过程。”
这句话写在教室的黑板上。我当时正在参加哈佛商学院提供的四天课程。课程的名称是《非营利精秀的管理》。
在我预习这个课程，阅读课程案例的时候我越来越怀疑这个课程对于维基媒体基金会来说是一个有效的投资吗？基金会和作为理事会主席的我能够从中获益什么呢？
所有的案例都很有意思，但是它们看上去离我们都很遥远。的确，我承认，维基媒体基金会是一个很不寻常的组织。那么我们可以从一个正在寻找合并伙伴的麻省医院里学到什么呢？
很多。
这个故事讲的是一个至此为止状况良好的一个非营利组织，这也就是说
-它提供它应该提供的服务
-获得社群的支持
-拥有足够的资源来运行。
但是它面临着一个正在变化的环境。这使得它的处境越来越不舒适了。它的基础被逐渐销毁。这个故事讲的是一个认识到这个危险的理事会，它必须做出不舒适的决定，来把它的组织领出险境。
这一切让我觉得它与维基媒体基金会有许多相似处。
作为一个以高技术为背景的组织我们生活在一个变化迅速的世界里。在我们的周围，在我们的内部，许多事情在变化：
-几乎所有的政府，不论是西方自由主义的还是比较封闭的政府，都在逐渐改变它们对互联网的随便政策，对网络施行更严格的政策
-公众对我们的项目，尤其是对维基百科，的看法在改变。我们已经不是五年前网络上的一个奇怪网站，而是世界上最重要的信息资源之一。这改变我们对公众的责任。
-我们的内容在变化。比较“波士顿”条目最早的版本和目前的版本我们可以看到变化有多么大。这个变化意味着我们对新手入门的门槛提高了许多。这慢慢地在改变我们社群的组成，以及改变我们的工作和讨论方法。
-网络技术在维基百科建立的十年来变化了。网络的组成在这十年中变化剧烈。我们这里有在Geocities上建立了他的（第一座）网站的老战友吗？
基金会和它的理事会在过去几年里做的许多事情与这些变化有关。在世人物传记决议是对我们对公众和被涉及人物的义务的直接反应。易用性项目是对技术变化的直接反应。对版权协议的更改也与对公众责任和需要有关，因为GFDL无法满足打印出版物的需要。我们的战略计划面对所有我们面临的变化。目前正在进行的有争议内容的讨论是战略计划（向非西方文化的发展）以及对政策变化和公众责任的反应
所有这些变化都是有争议的。没有任何这些讨论是不疼痛的。但是我们必须完成我们的使命，我们只能继续前进。
对我来说哈佛商学院的课程很有意思的地方在于在我分析案例的时候我会不断地回到我们自己的情况尚。通过作为第三者来分析别人的情况我能够更清晰地看到我们自己的案例。此外它为我提供了系统性地和理性地分析情况的构架和算法。
Chinese version
... the process of bringing a new, and generally unwelcome reality to an organization, group or society and helping her/him/it/them successfully adapt to it."
Thus was it written on the blackboard in the classroom. I was attending a 4-day-course at the Harvard Business School with the name "Governing for Nonprofit Excellence".
While I was preparing for the course and reading through the cases my doubt and unease increased slowly. Would this be the right investment the Wikimedia Foundation is making? Would we and I as the current board chair really get any benefit from this course?
The cases are all very interesting, but they seem all so far away from us, I agree, a very unique organization. So what can I learn from a hospital in Cambridge, Massachusetts, searching for a merge partner?
A lot.
The story is about a non-profit organization, that had until now lived in a very comfortable zone, and that means,
- serving the value it is supposed to provide,
- has support from its community
- has resources for its operation,
and is now facing a changing environment which moves it out of this comfortable zone, erupting its support base. The story is about a board that recognized this danger and must make an uncomfortable decision and lead its organization to move on.
It strikes me how similar this sounds to us.
As a high-tech based organization, we are living in a fast changing world. A lot of things change around and inside of us:
- almost all governments, western free ones as more restrictive ones, are changing their laissez faire politic to the Internet and imposing more rigid policies for the web.
- the perception of the public on our projects, especially Wikipedia, is changing. We are no more that freaky Internet site five years ago, but one of the most important information source of the world. And that changes our responsibility to the public.
- our content changed, comparing the most early version of the article Boston with its state of the art there is a tremendous difference. And that means we raised our bar for new participants tremendously. And that changes slowly the composition of our very own community. It changes how we work and how we debate.
- the web technique changed in the past ten years since Wikipedia started. Its landscape changed dramatically during the ten years. Who is a veteran and had his own (first?) website on Geocities?
A lot of things that the Foundation and its board did in the last years has to do with these changes. The BLP resolution is a direct response to our changing responsibility to the general public as well as to the affected person. The usability project is a direct response to the changing technology. The change of our licensing model is also related to public perception and demand, because the pure GFDL is awesome for the use for printings. The strategic planning engages all the challenges we are facing. And the ongoing controversial content discussion is a result of our strategic planning (development and adaption in the nonwestern cultures) and the response of the changes in public policy and in our responsibility.
Non of these changes are uncontroversial and non of the discussions is unpainful. But if we want to fulfill our mission there is no other way as to move on.
What is interesting about the HBS course for me, is that by analyzing the cases I unavoidably come back again and again to our own situation. By looking at the others as an uninvolved observer it makes me more clearer to our own cases. And it provides me some guidance by providing frameworks or algorithms to analyze the situation more calmly and systematically.
Führung ist ...
... das Prozess, eine neue, allgemein unwillkommene Realität einer Organisation, Gruppe oder Gesellschaft kundzutun und sie/ihn/es/ihnen helfen, sich erfolgreich daran anzupassen."
So stand es auf dem Schwarzen Brett im Klassenraum. Ich nahm gerade an einem viertägigen Kurs an der Harvard Business School mit dem Namen "Governing for Nonprofit Excellence" teil.
Als ich das Kurs vorbereitete und die Fallstudien las, wuchs in mir den Zweifel, ob die Investition der WikiMedia Foundation diesmal wirklich so sinnvoll ist. Wird die Organisation und ich als der momentane Boardvorsitzender wirklich von diesem Kurs profitieren?
Die Fallstudien sind alle sehr interessant, aber sie scheinen alle so weit von uns weg zu sein. Ich gebe zu, wir sind eine sehr ungewöhnliche Organisation. Was kann ich also von einem Krankenhaus in Cambridge, Massachusetts lernen, der gerade eine Fusionspartner sucht?
Viel.
Es ist die Geschichte einer Nonprofitorganisation, die bis dahin in eine sehr komfortable Zone gelebt hatte. Das bedeutet,
- dass es die Werte seiner Community bringt, für die sie gedacht wurde
- Unterstützung von seiner Community erhält
- Resourcen für seine Operation besitzt.
Angesichts der sich ändernden Umwelt droht sie aus ihre Komfortzone herauszurutschen. Die Basis seiner Unterstützung eruptiert. Die Geschichte ist über einem Board, das diesen Gefahr erkennt und unangenehme Entscheidung machen musste und seine Organisation weiterführt.
Es ist erstaunlich wie ähnlich dies zu unsere Situation klingt.
Als eine High-Tech basierende Organisation leben wir in eine sich schnell ändernden Umwelt. Viele Sachen ändern sich um uns herum und in uns hinein:
- fast alle Regierungen, die westlich freiheitliche wie die restriktiven, ändern ihren Laissez-faire-Politik gegenüber dem Internet und führen immer restriktiveren Regeln für das Netz ein.
- die Sicht der Nutzer zu unseren Projekten, besonders zu Wikipedia, ändern sich. Wir sind nicht mehr das Kuriosum im Internet von vor fünf Jahren, sondern ein der wichtigsten Informationsquelle der Welt. Und das ändert unsere Verantwortung zu unseren User.
- Unsere Inhalten ändern sich. Vergleicht man den Inhalt der ersten Version zu Boston mit seinem aktuellen Inhalt sieht man den riesigen Unterschied. Das bedeutet, dass wir die Anfangshürde für Anfänger erheblich angehoben haben. Diese Änderung ändert langsam die Zusammensetzung unserer eigenen Community, sie ändert auch wie wir arbeiten und wie Diskussionen geführt werden.
- Die Webtechnologie hat sich in den letzten zehn Jahren seit dem Start der Wikipedia geändert. Ihre Landschaft hat sich in den zehn Jahren dramatisch verändert. Gibt es hier Veteranen, die ihren (ersten?) Webseiten auf Geocities gebastelt haben?
Viele Sachen, die die Foundation und ihr Board in den letzten Jahren getan haben, haben mit diesen Änderungen zu tun. Die BLP-Resolution ist eine direkte Antwort auf die Änderung unserer Verantwortung zum allgemeinen Publikum wie auch zu den betroffenen Personen. Die Änderung unseres Lizenzmodells ist ebenfalls in Zusammenhang zur Publikumssicht und -anforderung zu sein, weil die reine GFDL für gedruckten Büchern einfach zu unpraktikabel ist. Mit der Strategischen Planung versuchen wir, eine Strategie gegen alle Herausforderungen zu entwickeln, die uns begegnen. Und das andauernde Diskussion zu umstrittenen Inhalten ist ein Ergebnis unserer Strategischen Planung (Entwicklung und Adaption in den nichtwestlichen Kulturen) und eine Antwort auf sich ändernden Politik und unserer Verantwortung.
Keine diese Änderungen sind nicht unumstritten und keine der Diskussionen schmerzlos. Aber um unsere Mission zu erfüllen gibt es keinen Weg vorbei.
Was für mich besonders interessant zum HBS Kurs ist, dass beim Analysieren der Fällen ich unvermeidbar immer wieder und wieder zu unsere Situation zurückkehre. Beim Studieren der anderen als ein unbeteiligter Beobachter wird es mir klarer zu unserem eigenen Fall. Und das Kurs liefert mir einigen Frameworks oder Algorithmen, um Situationen systematischer und mit einem kühleren Kopf zu analysieren.
领导是……
……把一个新的、一般来说不令人欢心的事实展现给一个组织、一群人或者一个社会，并帮助他们成功地适应这个新情况的过程。”
这句话写在教室的黑板上。我当时正在参加哈佛商学院提供的四天课程。课程的名称是《非营利精秀的管理》。
在我预习这个课程，阅读课程案例的时候我越来越怀疑这个课程对于维基媒体基金会来说是一个有效的投资吗？基金会和作为理事会主席的我能够从中获益什么呢？
所有的案例都很有意思，但是它们看上去离我们都很遥远。的确，我承认，维基媒体基金会是一个很不寻常的组织。那么我们可以从一个正在寻找合并伙伴的麻省医院里学到什么呢？
很多。
这个故事讲的是一个至此为止状况良好的一个非营利组织，这也就是说
-它提供它应该提供的服务
-获得社群的支持
-拥有足够的资源来运行。
但是它面临着一个正在变化的环境。这使得它的处境越来越不舒适了。它的基础被逐渐销毁。这个故事讲的是一个认识到这个危险的理事会，它必须做出不舒适的决定，来把它的组织领出险境。
这一切让我觉得它与维基媒体基金会有许多相似处。
作为一个以高技术为背景的组织我们生活在一个变化迅速的世界里。在我们的周围，在我们的内部，许多事情在变化：
-几乎所有的政府，不论是西方自由主义的还是比较封闭的政府，都在逐渐改变它们对互联网的随便政策，对网络施行更严格的政策
-公众对我们的项目，尤其是对维基百科，的看法在改变。我们已经不是五年前网络上的一个奇怪网站，而是世界上最重要的信息资源之一。这改变我们对公众的责任。
-我们的内容在变化。比较“波士顿”条目最早的版本和目前的版本我们可以看到变化有多么大。这个变化意味着我们对新手入门的门槛提高了许多。这慢慢地在改变我们社群的组成，以及改变我们的工作和讨论方法。
-网络技术在维基百科建立的十年来变化了。网络的组成在这十年中变化剧烈。我们这里有在Geocities上建立了他的（第一座）网站的老战友吗？
基金会和它的理事会在过去几年里做的许多事情与这些变化有关。在世人物传记决议是对我们对公众和被涉及人物的义务的直接反应。易用性项目是对技术变化的直接反应。对版权协议的更改也与对公众责任和需要有关，因为GFDL无法满足打印出版物的需要。我们的战略计划面对所有我们面临的变化。目前正在进行的有争议内容的讨论是战略计划（向非西方文化的发展）以及对政策变化和公众责任的反应
所有这些变化都是有争议的。没有任何这些讨论是不疼痛的。但是我们必须完成我们的使命，我们只能继续前进。
对我来说哈佛商学院的课程很有意思的地方在于在我分析案例的时候我会不断地回到我们自己的情况尚。通过作为第三者来分析别人的情况我能够更清晰地看到我们自己的案例。此外它为我提供了系统性地和理性地分析情况的构架和算法。
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wer in Wikipedia hat die Wahrheit gepachtet
English version
中文版本
(Wie immer äußere ich meine persönliche Meinung auf meinem Blog)
In der neuesten Ausgabe der Zeitschrift Der Spiegel wird ein Artikel über das „Hinterzimmer“ der Wikipedia veröffentlicht. Der Artikel beschreibt anhand des Beispiels des Streits, ob der Wiener Donauturm ein Fernsehturm ist, den oft erbitterten und unzivilisierten Kampf innerhalb der Wikipedia Community. Folgenden Aussagen sind in dem Artikel gefallen: „Wikipedia ist kein Projekt vieler, sondern ein Projekt weniger“, „Wer in Wikipedia die Wahrheit gepachtet hat, ist eine wichtige Frage“, „Der Soziologe Stegbauer kommt in seiner Studie zum Ergebnis, dass sich die Führungsschicht der Wikipedia immer stärker abschotte und neuen Teilnehmer den Zugang erschwere“, „Es gibt viele Grundsatzdebatte heute, zum Beispiel über die Frage nach der Relevanz“. Der Artikel zitiert Henriette: „Heute brauchst Du drei Tage, um alle Regeln zu lesen. Die Ansprüche an Artikel sind gestiegen, es herrscht Fußnotenpflicht. Viele Themen sind bereits weg. Es gibt Relevanzkriterien, die bestimmen, worüber man überhaupt noch schreiben darf“ und Elian: „Es ist der Umgangston in Wikipedia, der ihr nicht gefällt“ und „für Leser, die Informationen suchten, funktioniere Wikipedia noch sehr gut, menschlich aber nicht mehr so“. In Bezug auf NPOV schrieb der Autor „In der Realität haben die meisten Artikel nur wenige Hauptautoren, die ihre Werke oft adoptieren und gegen Änderungen anderer Nutzer verteidigen“.
Letztes Jahr im Zusammenhang mit der Strategischen Planung leitete die Wikimedia Foundation inc. eine „Former Contributors Survey“ unter den ehemaligen englischen Wikipedianer ein, die mittlerweile aufgehört haben, an dem Projekt mitzuarbeiten. Von den 10.000 ehemaligen Benutzer, an denen die Umfrageformular verschickt wurde, meldeten 1428 zurück und schilderten ihren Beweggründen, warum sie Wikipedia den Rücken zugekehrt haben. Außer technischen Schwierigkeiten wird Löschung oder Rückgängigmachen der Edits als der zweithäufigste Grund genannt.
Das Problem ist also kein deutsches, wie man oft denkt. Es ist ein globales, es ist ebenfalls ein Problem in der englischen Wikipedia genau so wie in der Spanischen oder Chinesischen. Nicht nur sind die Bereichen besetzt, wie Henriette sagt, sondern auch die Positionen und Ideologien. Die momentane Wikipedia Community ist erheblich konservativ geworden.
Dabei hatte Wikipedia als eine Innovation angefangen, und ein seiner fünf Grundprinzipien ist „Be Bold / Ignore all Rules“. Aus mir unverständlichem Grund ist gerade dieses Grundprinzip, ein der fünf Gleichwertigen, aus den Grundprinzipien bei der deutschen Wikipedia rausgefallen und nur noch als Referenz unter dem Abschnitt „Siehe auch“ aufgeführt.
Seid Mutig ist nicht ohne Grund ein Grundprinzip der Wikipedia. Er ist der Startpunkt von Wikipedia. Nupedia wurde zu Wikipedia, weil Jimmy Wales Mutig war, das Privileg, eine Enzyklopädie zu schreiben, allen Menschen zu öffnen. Wikipedia wurde so groß, weil ein Benuter Mutig war zu schreiben „Die Nordsee ist ein Mehr, ein teil der Atlant, zwischen Grossbritannien, Skandinavien und Friesland“, ohne Referenz, Fußnote und ohne Berücksichtigung auf Relevanzkriterien, mit vielen Schreibfehler, und weil viele Benutzer diesen mutigen Schritt folgten.
Ist dieses Grundprinzip, Seid Mutig/Ignoriere allen Regeln, heute noch aktuell? Ja, es ist, und angesichts des versiegenden Neuzugangs um so dringlicher und wichtiger. Es verpflichtet allen Wikipedianer, den Mut jedes neuen Benutzers anzuerkennen und ihn bei seinen mutigen ersten Schritten zu unterstützen und Hilfe anzubieten. Es missbilligt jeden Tat, der einen Neuling in seinen unsicheren Anfangsversuche aus dem Projekt zu drängen. Es verpflichtet jeden Wikipedianer, allen Regeln immer wieder auf ihre Nützlichkeit zu überprüfen und eventuell zu korrigieren. Es missbilligt allen Versuchen, den Regeln als Heiligen Schriften zu behandeln und gegen jede Neuerung zu wehren. Es ist der Anfang unseres Projektes und ist, wie allen anderen vier Grundprinzipien, ein Garant dafür, dass unser Projekt ein gesundes Projekt bleibt und dass seine Community frisch bleibt und gedeiht.
Elian hat vollkommen recht, wer Neulinge, aber auch jeden anderen Community Mitglieder konstant unfreundlich und abweisend behandelt, ist ein Vandale. Er randaliert nicht gegen den Inhalt unseres Projektes, aber er randaliert gegen die Community. Er ist genau so zerstörerisch gegen unserem Projekt und gehört genau so wenig in unserem Community wie jemand, der die Inhalte mutwillig zerstört. Eigentlich viel schlimmer. Vandalismus gegen Inhalte können relativ schnell rückgängig gemacht werden. Zerstörte kollegiale Atmosphäre oder vergrätzte Gefühle sind, wenn überhaupt, nur sehr schwer zu reparieren.
Vor ziemlich genau fünf Jahren, auf dem ersten Wikimania Konferenz, hier in Deutschland im Haus der Jugend in Frankfurt am Main, rief Jimmy Wales die Community auf, Anstrengungen zu leisen, Qualität und Zuverlässigkeit von Wikipedia zu heben. Das war der Anfang einer Entwicklung, die dazu führte, dass heute Referenzen und Fußnoten in Artikel Pflicht wurde. Damals stand die Frage im Raum: Wie zuverlässig ist Wikipedia? Zu Wikimania brachte ZDF eine Sendung über Wikipedia, in der auch der Chefredakteur von Brockhaus zu Wort kam, der genau diese Frage stellte. Die Frage ist heute wie damals aktuell. Und sie steht mit der Offenheit des Projektes gewiss in Konflikt.
Dieser Konflikt zu lösen ist die Beständige Aufgabe unserer Community: Die Qualität von Wikipedia zu halten und zu verbessern, gleichzeitig offen für neue Community Mitglieder und für Erneuerung zu sein.
Bei vielen Regeln, die mit der Qualität der Wikipedia zu tun hat, wird auf einem anderen Grundprinzip hingewiesen: Wikipedia ist eine Enzyklopädie. Zum Beispiel die stark umstrittene Relevanzkriterien verweist auf den folgenden Satz: „Nur für Personen und Institutionen von enzyklopädischer Bedeutung sollten Artikel angelegt werden.“ Bei den Relevanzkriterien geht es also darum, was von enzyklopädischer Bedeutung ist. Laut Wikipedia ist eine Enzyklopädie eine durch Allgemeinwissenschaft nach Definition von Diderot und d'Alambert erfolgte Darstellung der Gesamtheit des Wissens. Was bedeutend genug ist, um zur Gesamtheit des Wissens zu gehören, gibt es gewiss nur subjektive Meinungen, und keine Definitionen. Für mich als IT Specialist gehört Entwurfsmuster gewiss zum alltäglichen Arbeitswerkzeug und deswegen sehr bedeutend, während sie für meinen Freund Kien, der ein Gärtner ist, gar nichts bedeutet, dafür kennt er mehreren zehn Kameliensorten und kann sie oft allein anhand ihres Blattwerks unterscheiden. In der deutschen Wikipedia wird oft an Brockhaus orientiert, wenn es um enzyklopädische Bedeutung geht. Dabei hat Wikipedia Brockhaus in Anzahl der Artikeln, der Wörtern, der Leser und der Nutzung längst hinter sich gelassen. Allein die Tatsache, dass Wikipedia täglich wahrscheinlich öfter benutzt wird als Brockhaus in seine gesamte Geschichte, ja, sogar von meinem Gärtnerfreund, zeigt, dass für Wikipedia die Bedeutung der Gesamtheit des Wissens anders definiert werden muss, als ein Werk, das sich hauptsächlich an Akademiker, Bibliotheken und wohlhabenden Liebhaber orientiert. Die Orientierung an Brockhaus ist also eindeutig rückwärtsorientiert und der Zeit und der Bedeutung von Wikipedia nicht mehr angemessen. Es ist eine selbst auferlegte Einschränkung, die das Projekt sich selbst eine Grenze setzt und eine Community Online-Enzyklopädie nicht gerecht wird.
Anhand der Definition von Enzyklopädie sieht man auch, dass es so etwas wie DIE Wahrheit nicht gibt, wie Henriette in ihrem Interview gesagt hat. Es gibt höchstens unterschiedlichen Wahrnehmungen und Meinungen. Das ist es, warum NPOV so wichtig in Wikipedia ist. In Wikipedia geht es nicht darum, was wahr ist. Was wahr ist, liegt oft außerhalb des Erkenntnishorizonts der einzelnen, oft auch außerhalb des Erkenntnishorizonts der Community. In Wikipedia geht es darum das Sein zu beschreiben. Wenn es zu eine Sache unterschiedlichen Meinungen gibt, dann ist nicht die eine wahr und die andere unwahr, sondern der Istzustand ist, dass es unterschiedlichen Meinungen gibt. Jemand, der glaubt, die Wahrheit zu vertreten und diese mit Inbrunst oder sogar mit unerlaubten Mitteln (Sockenpuppen) oder Unfreundlichkeit und Beleidigungen anderen Community Mitglieder gegenübertritt, ist kein Wikipedianer, sondern ein Fanatiker und Fundamentalist. Er gehört nicht zur Community, hat das Prinzip der NPOV nicht verstanden, und hat in Wikipedia nichts zu suchen.
Da es keine Die Wahrheit gibt, kann keiner sie pachten, besonders nicht in Wikipedia. Was bleibt, ist Respekt: Respekt für anderen Personen und Respekt vor unterschiedlichen Ansichten. Das soll In Wikipedia sein, besonders in seinem Hinterzimmer.
Who owns the truth in Wikipedia
(As always in my blog I express my personal opinion)
In the recent issue of the magazine “Der Spiegel” is an article about the “backrooms” of Wikipedia. The article describes with the example of the debate about if the Donauturm in Vienna is a TV tower how uncivilized and desperate such battles are fought inside of Wikipedia community. The article used following phrases: “Wikipedia is not a project of many, but a project of few”, “Who hold the truth in Wikipedia is an important question”, “The sociologist Stegbauer came to the result in his study that the leadership of Wikipedia more and more closes the door and makes new comers more and more difficult to get in”, “There are a lot of debates on principles, for example about the question of notability”. It cites Henriette from WMDE: “Today you need three days to read all the rules. The bar for quality had raised, references are a must. A lot of topics are already occupied. There are notability criteria that decides about what one can write at all”, and it cites Elian, a de-wiki editor: “She don't like how people treat each other on Wikipedia” and “for users who search for information Wikipedia still works very well, but between the humans no more.” In respect of NPOV the author wrote: “In the reality most articles are written by a few main contributors who keep the articles as their own and defend any changes by other users.”
Last year within the Strategic Plan the Wikimedia Foundation conducted a “Former Contributors Survey”. Questionnaires are sent to 10,000 editors who had stopped their engagement on Wikipedia. 1428 sent their answer back and told us the reason of their depart. Beside difficulties with the technique of the software the second largest reason was deletion or revert of their edits.
The problem is not a German one, as one often thinks. It is a global problem, it is also a problem in the English Wikipedia or in Spanish or Chinese one. Not only are many topics occupied like Henriette said, but also positions and ideologies. The actual Wikipedia community is getting quite conservative.
It is sad because Wikipedia started as an innovation. One of its five pillars is “Be bold / Ignore all Rules”. I don't know why exactly this pillar was removed from the German Wikipedia and only listed in the “See also” section of the pillars.
Be Bold is not without reason one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It is the begin of Wikipedia. Nupedia became Wikipedia because Jimmy Wales was Bold to open the privilege of writing an encyclopedia to all people. Wikipedia is today so big because a user was Bold to write “Die Nordsee ist ein Mehr, ein teil der Atlant, zwischen Grossbritannien, Skandinavien und Friesland” (The North See is a see, part of the Atlant, between Greatbrittian, Scandinavia and Frisia), without references, footnote and check against notability criteria, with quite some spell errors for a single sentence, and because a lot of editors are Bold enough to follow him.
Is this pillar still up to date now? Yes it is. Especially in the light of declining number of new comers is it even more important. It urges every Wikipedian to respect the Boldness of the new comers and to give them helps and guides during their first bold steps in Wikipedia. It condemns every deed that pushs a new comer out of the project in their testing beginning. It urges every Wikipedian to check again and again if a rule is still up to date and apt correctly for the situation. It condemns every try to handle the rules as a holy book and to oppose every renewal. It is the begin of our project and is, like the other four pillars, the guarantee that our project remains healthy, that our community keeps its dynamic and growth.
Elian is totally right. Someone who is constantly aggressive against new comers or other community members is a vandal. He doesn't vandalize against the content of our projects, but he is vandalizing against the community. He is as devastating as someone who deteriorates the content of articles. Actually he is even worse. Vandalism against content can be reversed easily, but destroyed collaboration or injured feeling can only be repaired, if at all, slowly.
Quite exactly five years ago on the first Wikimania conference in the Haus der Jugend in Frankfurt am Main, Germany Jimmy Wales calls the community to strengthen its endeavor to improve the quality and reliability of Wikipedia. This was the begin of the development which leads to the rules that today an article must have references and footnotes. At that time we are often asked: How reliable is Wikipedia? During Wikimania ZDF broadcasted a report about Wikipedia, in which the chief editor of Brockhaus exactly raised this question. The question is up to date today like back at that time. And it does pose some conflict with the openness of the project.
This is a constant challenge for our community: To keep and improve the quality of Wikipedia and at the same time to open it for new members and for renewals.
A lot of rules related to quality in Wikipedia refers to one of the other pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In German Wikipedia for example the strongly battled notability criteria refers to the following sentence: “Only person and institutions that is important for an encyclopedia can have an article.” So the notability criteria results in the question, what is important enough for an encyclopedia. According to Wikipedia an encyclopedia is a type of reference work, a compendium holding information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. But what is important enough to be counted as knowledge is quite subjective, there is no definition for it. For me as an IT specialist design patterns are surely very important, it is my daily tool. But for my boyfriend Kien, a gardener, it has no meaning at all. But he knows a few dozen of camellia and can often distinct them alone by their leaves. In German Wikipedia Brockhaus is often used as a reference when trying to answer the question if something is of value of human knowledge. Meanwhile Wikipedia exceeded Brockhaus in the count of articles, words, readers and editors by far. The fact, that the number of users on Wikipedia everyday is maybe more than Brockhaus in its entire history, that even my gardener boyfriend uses Wikipedia, is evident enough that the definition of knowledge for Wikipedia cannot be the same as for an encyclopedia which is mostly targeted to academics, libraries and rich buyers. Take Brockhaus as standard for definition of knowledge is definitively backward oriented. It is out dated and doesn't fit the scale of Wikipedia. It is an unnecessary limit set to the project that constraints the possibility of a community created online encyclopedia.
By the definition of encyclopedia one can also see that there is no THE truth, like Henriette said in her interview. There are different views and opinions. This is why NPOV is so important for Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to decide what is the truth. What is the truth is often beyond the horizon of a person, or even of the community. In Wikipedia we describe the being. If there are different opinions, then there is no one true and the others false. The is-status in this case is there are different opinions. A person who thinks he knows what the truth is and defends his self declared truth with vigor or even illegal methods like sock puppet or aggression or even insult against other community members is not a Wikipedian, but a fanatic and fundamentalist. He doesn't belong to the community, he has no understanding for NPOV and has nothing to do in Wikipedia.
Since there is no THE truth no one can own the truth, especially not in Wikipedia. What remains is respect: Respect for other person and respect for other opinions. This should be In Wikipedia, especially in its backrooms.
谁拥有维基百科里的真理
（在我的部落格上我仅表达我的个人意见）
《明镜周报》在本周刊登了一篇关于维基百科的“后屋”的文章。文章就德语维基中关于维也纳的多瑙塔是否是电视塔为例描述了维基百科社群里往往极端激烈和不文明的争执。文章里出现了下面这样的描写：“维基百科全书不是一个许多人的项目，而是一个少数人的项目”、“谁在维基百科里拥有真理，是一个重要的问题”、“社会学家施戴格鲍尔的研究结果是维基百科的领导阶层越来越封闭，新人进入的难度越来越大”、“（项目内）有许多斗争，比如关于知名度的问题”。文章引用德国维基协会职员Henriette说：“今天你需要三天的时间来读所有的规则。对文章的要求大大地提高了，文章里必须有参考资料。许多内容已经被占据了。知名度规则决定什么文章可以写，什么不可以写”。它还引用长年用户Elian：“我不喜欢维基百科内的语气”和“对于搜索信息的用户来说维基百科还运行得很好，但是人际关系不怎么样了”。就中立立场作者说：“实际上大多数文章是有少数主作者写的，他们往往把这些文章视为己有，防止其他作者进行改动”。
去年在进行战略计划的时候维基媒体基金会进行了一次《前贡献者调查》，来询问不再参与维基百科项目的前贡献者离开项目的原因。基金会共向近万前贡献者传送了问卷，并获得了1428回答。除技术问题外自己的贡献被删除或者回退是离开维基百科第二多的原因。
不像许多人想象的那样这不是一个德语维基百科的问题。这同样也是英语维基百科、西班牙语维基百科、中文维基百科或者许多其它语言版本的问题。不但像Henriette所说的那样许多领域被占据了，许多职位和理念也已经被占据了。今天的维基百科社群变得非常保守了。
但是实际上维基百科是个创新。它的五个支柱之一是“勇于参与/不墨守成规”。我不知道为什么德语维基百科偏偏把这个支柱删除掉了，把它放到支柱的“参见”节中去了。
勇于参与是维基百科的支柱之一不是没有原因的。它是维基百科的开始。吉米·威尔士勇于让所有的人都享受写百科全书的权利，这是维基百科的开始。维基百科成为今天的样子，因为九年多前有用户勇于写上“Die Nordsee ist ein Mehr, ein teil der Atlant, zwischen Grossbritannien, Skandinavien und Friesland”（北海是一座还，是大西的一部分，位于大不列殿、斯堪的纳维亚和弗里士兰之间），没有任何注释，没有任何参考资料，没有考虑文章是否符合知名度，带着许多笔误，以及因为后来有许多其他用户勇于追随他的榜样。
勇于参与/不墨守成规这个规则今天还有效吗？有，尤其鉴于在一些项目中新参与者减少它的重要性有增无减。它要求所有维基人认同每个新人的勇气，在他们勇敢的实验阶段提供帮助和指引，它反对任何把还处于探索阶段的新人逼出项目的行为；它鼓励所有维基人不断审查所有的规则是否还符合当前的情况，并在必要的情况下对它们进行修改，它反对把规则当作圣经，排斥所有创新的做法。它是我们项目的开始，和其它四个支柱一样是保持我们项目健康和保证社群发展和年轻的保障。
Elian说得对，始终不友好地对待新人或其他社群成员的人是破坏者。他虽然没有破坏文章的内容，但是他破坏社群。他对我们的项目造成的破坏同样大，他不是我们社群的成员。实际上他造成的破坏还要大，因为对内容的破坏很容易就可以回退了，但是要修复合作的气氛或者被伤害的感情（假如可能的话）需要很长的时间。
五年前在在法兰克福的青年旅社举行的首次维基年会上吉米·威尔士呼吁社群努力提高维基百科的质量和可靠性。这是今天文章必须有参考资料等要求的开始。当时有许多人对维基百科的质量提出质疑。在维基年会召开的同时德国第二电视台播放了一个关于维基百科的节目，其中布罗克豪斯百科全书的总编辑就提出了这个问题。这个问题今天依然存在，而且它与项目的开放性有一定的冲突。
不断保持和提高维基百科的质量，同时保持社群的开放性和创新精神，是我们的社群不断面临的挑战。
许多与维基百科的质量有关的规则来于另一个支柱：维基百科是一部百科全书。比如争议最激烈的知名度规则在德语百科中直接引述以下这句话：“只有符合百科全书重要性的人物和机构才能有自己的文章。”按照维基百科百科全书是对人类过去积累的全部知识或某一类知识的书面摘要。哪些知识重要到值得收录入人类积累的全部知识只有主观的意见，没有定论。比如作为一名IT Specialist对于我来说设计模式是我每天都要使用的工具，是非常重要的，但是对于我的花匠男朋友志坚来说它一点意义也没有。但是他认识几十种茶花，而且往往能够仅仅通过它们的叶子区别它们。在德语维基百科中布罗克豪斯往往被用来作为区别一篇文章的内容是否值得收录的参照。但是在此期间德语维基百科的条目数目、字数、编辑者数目、使用者数目均远远超过了布罗克豪斯。每天使用德语维基百科的人数可能超过布罗克豪斯在其整个历史上的使用人数，即使我的花匠朋友也会查询维基百科。这一切说明一部主要写给学者、图书馆和富有市民阶层的百科全书对于知识的定义远远无法满足维基百科的需要了。用布罗克豪斯作为百科全书应该收纳的内容的参照是一种过时的做法。它无义地限制了一部社群创造的、网上百科全书的范围。
从百科全书的定义我们就可以看出，如同Henriette在她的采访中说的，世界上没有真理，顶多有不同的观点和意见。这是NPOV对维基百科来说这么重要的原因。维基百科写的不是真理，什么是真理往往超出一个人的知识范围，往往超出整个社群的知识范围。维基百科只描述现状。假如对于一个事物有不同的见解的话那么不是这个见解是正确的，别的是错误的，而是这个见解不一就是现状。假如有人认为他的见解是真理，并不容其它见解，甚至使用违规的手段（比如马甲）或者不友好的和侮辱他人的语气来一意固执自己的见解的话，那么他不是社群的一部分，没有理解NPOV的意义，在维基百科没有立足之地。
既然没有真理，那么也没有人拥有真理，尤其在维基百科里没有人拥有真理。剩下的只有尊重，对其他人和他们不同的意见的尊重。这应该在维基百科里，尤其是在它的后屋里。
Monday, January 18, 2010
My speech on the opening ceremony of the 2. Chinese Wikipedia Conference
女士们先生们，各位贵宾们，朋友们，你们好
我首先想感谢澳门和香港维基协会的朋友们和义工们为组织这次会议付出的心血和劳动。我知道组织这样的聚会不容易，许多一开始意想不到的问题会半途出现，许多烦心的事情需要有人管理和做，虽然如此还是会有许多人不满意，批评，怀疑。要坚持下来，真的使得年会举办，使得它举办得好是一件非常不容易的事情。因此我想在这个时刻，在会议开始的时候，向各位表示我的万分感谢。谢谢你们的心血和劳动。
维基百科有五个支柱。我们所有的规则和工作都是在这五个支柱的基础上发展出来的。我们所有其它的规则都可以改变或者被放弃，但是这五个支柱，我们可以说是维基百科的基本法是不可改变的。请问各位贵宾朋友中有谁能够立刻说出这是哪五个支柱？
维基百科的五个支柱是维基百科是百科全书，中立，开放，互重和勇于创新。
维基百科是一部百科全书。这是我们的第一个支柱，是我们基础的基础，因为它定义了我们工作的范围和目标。但是什么是百科全书？哪些内容是百科全书的内容，哪些内容不是百科全书的内容？当维基百科刚刚开始的时候，我们没有想到过它会发展成今天的样子。我们当中有许多人把经典的百科全书如大英百科全书当作榜样。那个时候我们觉得不论从数量上还是质量上能够发展到大英百科全书的地步都会是一个非常艰巨的任务。当时还有人列了表，大英百科全书有哪些词条，我们还缺乏哪些词条。今天我们在词条的数量上已经远远超过了大英百科全书。我们的使用者远远超过了大英百科全书在其整个历史上的用户人数。我们的条目中有这些词条，它们是大英百科全书里没有，也永远不会有的。这些词条是百科全书的内容吗？按照经典百科全书的定义它们显然不是，但是我们的社群，你们，决定这些词条是百科全书内容。这说明什么？这说明我们的社群扩展了百科全书的含义。我们创造了一个新的百科全书的定义，它超越了经典百科全书的内容。
维基百科的第二个支柱是中立的观点。智慧是人的本性。人类没有锋利的爪牙，没有出色的嗅觉，没有翅膀飞翔，没有厚厚的皮毛，但是人类有探求万物的本性，有把知识有效地收集和传播给他们的后代和其他人的特殊本领。我们生活在一个复杂的，多元化的，全球化的世界里。不论在工作、学习、日常生活中，我们每天都要做出决定和选择。要做出理智的决定，我们需要尽量全面地领会这个决定的前提和环境。我们需要全面的和中立的知识。40年前，红卫兵为中国带来了巨大的灾害。不是因为他们邪恶，而是因为他们无知，而且他们所拥有的那些知识也只是片面的，是别人经过过滤后告诉他们的，因此他们无法正确地估价他们破坏的文物，无法正确地认识他们摧残的生命的价值，无法分别哪些决定和言语是正确的，哪些是错误的。我们的任务不是告诉别人什么是对的什么是错的，我们没有为别人判断对错的能力和权利。假如我们开始为别人决定什么是对的什么是错的的话我们很快就自己会成为把这些人错导到造成巨大破坏的道路上去的人。我们的任务是提供全面的、中立的知识，来让我们的用户自己做出决定，什么是对的，什么是错的。从山海经到河南血祸，从毕达哥拉斯到哈利·波特，在传说中、文学中，还是历史中或者现实中，我们总是会碰到一些人觉得某些知识特别危险而企图把这些知识封锁起来的故事或者事情，但是事实最后总是证明无知比有知危险，片面的知识导致的危害远远比全面的知识导致的危害大。
只有一个开放的社群才能保证我们收集的知识的中立性。我们每个人有自己的信仰、自己的偏见，有我们自己知识上的不足，因此一个封闭的社群的知识也只是有限的。开放对于我们来说有两重意义。我们的社群是开放的，我们收集的知识是开放的，但是这也意味着我们必须对我们的用户负责。许多人不理解我们为什么这样注重他人的著作权。我们经常听到别人职责说：网上就是大家互相抄，为什么维基百科偏偏不允许。我们注重著作权有许多原因，但是其中最重要的是因为我们需要保证我们收集的知识可以为全人类自由使用。假如我们不注重他人的著作权，其他用户在使用我们的知识的时候就会冒风险。其他的人可以来说，你们收集的知识实际上是不自由的，这威胁我们的使命，威胁我们的声誉，威胁我们收集的知识的价值。不开放的知识很可能是不中立的，因为它的主人可以决定谁可以利用这些知识，他可以过滤这些知识。
维基是一个社群合作的工具。我们在编辑维基百科的时候不能忘记这一点。社会合作也是人类的本性。和朋友们一起玩比一个人玩开心，这个经验我们都有过。合作的基础是互重。我们社群设计了许多不同的方法来促进社群内的合作：我们有维基星章、欢迎模板、有小天使、有动员令。我们的许多规则，比如不要伤害新手，比如不要人身攻击，比如讨论的时候针对事，而不要针对人，都是从这个支柱中引导出来的。互重是我们社群结合的胶水。自从维基百科出现以来网上出现了许多以社群提供内容和互动为主题的网站。但是维基百科是唯一由一个开放的社群有一个明确的目标共同建设的项目。对于一个开放的社群，对于一个依靠合作建设的项目来说，社群各个成员之间的互重是项目发展的基础。朋友们，在讨论非常激烈的时候，在年复一年、一次又一次不断地讨论和解释同一规则之后，一个人往往会觉得非常不耐烦。互重是我们最容易忘记的支柱，因此也是我们最应该铭记的支柱。
维基百科快要九岁了，九年在网上是一个漫长的时间。许多今天在网上名列前茅的网站在九年前还不存在。一些九年前在网上名列前茅的网站今天已经鲜为人知，甚至已经消失。九年前维基百科是一个创新。在九年的时间里我们从一无所有建立了一个非常受欢迎的、有相当权威的百科全书。我们为网上百科全书做了一个新的定义。我们为中立性开创了一个新的定义，我们开放性的合作至今是其它网站无法达到的，为了保证我们的开放性和合作我们设立了许多规则。但是我们不能因此停留下来，不能因为我们达到的就却步不前了。我们现有的规则不是天经地义，假如有新的方法和规则能够更好地促进社群之间的合作，能够更好地促进维基百科的发展，我们需要像在维基百科依然处于婴儿时期一样勇于讨论和采纳它们。
女士们、先生们、各位贵宾们、朋友们，今天能够与各位在澳门相会我感到非常荣幸，我祝愿我们的年会能够促进大家之间的友情，消除过去的误会，探讨未来的发展，开发新的主意，为维基百科带来新的动力。
谢谢大家。
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear guests, friends, hello
At first I want to thank the volunteers and friends from Wikimedia Macau and Wikimedia Hongkong for their organization, for their hard work. I know organizing such a meeting is not easy. A lot of unexpected things can happen, a lot of details and things must be done. Despite all these works a lot of people would be unhappy, would criticize the organizers or even suspect them. To keep on and make the meeting happen, make it a good meeting, is a very hard work. Because of this I want to express my very much thanks. Thank you very much for your work.
Wikipedia has five pillars. All our rules, all our work, should be based on these five pillars. All other rules can be changed or outdated, but these five pillars, we can say the constitution of Wikipedia, cannot be changed. I would like to ask if any of the friends here can tell me which five pillars they are?
The five pillars are: Encyclopedia, Neutral Point of View, Free Content, Respect To Each Other and Be Bold.
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, this is our first pillar, is the basis of our basis. This pillar defines the scope and goal of our work. But what is an encyclopedia? Which content belong to an encyclopedia, which not? When Wikipedia started no one of us could imaging that it would develop to what it is today. At that time we took the classic encyclopedia, like Britanica, as our example. Back at that time we thought that it would take eons to match the quality and quantity of Britanica. Back then people even listed out which articles Britanica has and we still not have. Today the number of our articles had exceeded by far Britanica. And the number of our users also exceeds by far of all users that had ever used Britanica. We have articles that Britanica doesn't have and would never have, like stations of the Hongkong Underground, or bus lines in Hongkong. Are these content of encyclopedia? According to the definition of classic encyclopedia obviously not. But our community, you, decided that they are. What does that mean? It means that we had expanded the definition of encyclopedia. We created a new definition of encyclopedia, which exceeds the content of the classic encyclopedia.
The second pillar of Wikipedia ist the Neutral Point of View. Wisdom is a human nature. The human being has no sharp claws, no sensitive nose, no wings to fly, no thick hide. But the to explore the world is the nature of the human being. The mankind can very effectively collect knowledge and pass it to their peer. We live in a complicated, multicultural and global world. When we learn, work or in our daily life we must make decisions and choices everyday. We can only make wise decisions if we can have the most thorough information. We need neutral knowledges to make decisions. 40 years ago the Red Guard brought China tremendous destruction. They did it not because they are evil, but because they don't have the knowledge, and the few knowledge that they have are filtered by other people. Because of this they are not able to evaluate the things they destroyed and they cannot evaluate the lives they destroyed. They are not able to select between right and wrong. Our goal is not to tell other people what is right and what is wrong. We don't have the ability and the right for that. If we begin to filter informations as good or bad, we are doing the same wrong thing like those people, who disguised the young people to do the destructions. Our goal is to provide thorough, neutral knowledge, so that our user can decide by themselves what is right and what is wrong. From Shan Hai Jing to the AIDS catastrophe in Henan, from Pythagoras to Harry Potter, in stories, history, literacy or now a day we can always meet people, who feels that some knowledge is too dangerous to be known by all the mankind, so that they must try to seal these knowledge to protect the society. But indeed the history had showed that no knowledge is always more peril than have knowledge, that filtered knowledge always do more harm than thorough transparent knowledge.
Only an open community can ensure that the knowledges we collected is neutral. Everyone of us has his own belief and his partial knowledge, no one knows everything. So the knowledge of a closed society is limited. Open has two meanings for us. Our community is open, and the knowledge we collected is also open. And that means that we have responsibility to our users. A lot of people don't understand why we take so many effort to respect the copyright of other people. We often hear people criticize us: In the Internet everyone copies everyone, why only Wikipedia don't allow this. There are a lot of good reasons why we respect copyright. The most important one is that we want to ensure that everyone can freely use the knowledge we collected. If we don't take care about copyright, our user would take risk if they use the content we collected. Other people can say: the content you collected is indeed not free. This would threat our mission, threat our reputation and threat the value of the knowledge we collected. Beside of this. Unfree knowledge is lightly not neutral, because its owner can decide who may use these knowledges and he can filter the knowledge.
Wiki is a social collaboration tool. When we are editing Wikipedia, we should never forget this. Social collaboration is another human nature. We have all the experience that gaming with friends makes more fun than gaming alone. The very basics of collaboration is mutual respect. Our community had devised deferent rules to encourage the collaboration inside of the community: We have barn stars, welcome template, Welcoming Committee, Contests. We have a lot of rules that are based on this pillar, like don't bite newbies, don't make personal insults, when discussing talk about fact, don't about person. Mutual respect is the glue of our community. Since the advent of Wikipedia a lot of new social content building and collaboration sites emerged, but none of them has such an open community, which is dedicated to a common goal like by Wikipedia. For an open community, which is collaborating to build up a project, the mutual respect of the community member between each other is the most important thing at all. Dear friends, if the discussion is tough, if we have to explain the same rules year after years, we get tired. But please let us never never never forget this most easily forgotten pillar.
Soon Wikipedia would be nine years old. Nine years is a long time on the net. Nine years ago most of the most visited sites didn't exist yet. Some of the sites that were very popular nine years ago are scarcely known today, or vanished. Nine years ago Wikipedia was an innovation. In these nine years we started with nothing and built up an extremely popular encyclopedia with increasing reputation. We defined encyclopedia new on the net, we introduced a new meaning of neutrality, our open collaboration is unchallenged by other sites. We have established a lot of rules to ensure the openness and collaboration on Wikipedia. But we cannot be content with this. We cannot stop with what was achieved. Our rules now are not unchangeable. If there are better means to encourage the collaboration inside of the community, to improve the growth of Wikipedia, we should be bold to discuss and adopt them, just as if Wikipedia is still in the time of its enfancy.
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear guests, friends. I am very happy and honored to meet you all today in Macau. I hope we can increase our friendship during the conference, can resolve our conflicts in the past, can discuss the future, develop new ideas and give new impulses to Wikipedia.
Thank you very much.
我首先想感谢澳门和香港维基协会的朋友们和义工们为组织这次会议付出的心血和劳动。我知道组织这样的聚会不容易，许多一开始意想不到的问题会半途出现，许多烦心的事情需要有人管理和做，虽然如此还是会有许多人不满意，批评，怀疑。要坚持下来，真的使得年会举办，使得它举办得好是一件非常不容易的事情。因此我想在这个时刻，在会议开始的时候，向各位表示我的万分感谢。谢谢你们的心血和劳动。
维基百科有五个支柱。我们所有的规则和工作都是在这五个支柱的基础上发展出来的。我们所有其它的规则都可以改变或者被放弃，但是这五个支柱，我们可以说是维基百科的基本法是不可改变的。请问各位贵宾朋友中有谁能够立刻说出这是哪五个支柱？
维基百科的五个支柱是维基百科是百科全书，中立，开放，互重和勇于创新。
维基百科是一部百科全书。这是我们的第一个支柱，是我们基础的基础，因为它定义了我们工作的范围和目标。但是什么是百科全书？哪些内容是百科全书的内容，哪些内容不是百科全书的内容？当维基百科刚刚开始的时候，我们没有想到过它会发展成今天的样子。我们当中有许多人把经典的百科全书如大英百科全书当作榜样。那个时候我们觉得不论从数量上还是质量上能够发展到大英百科全书的地步都会是一个非常艰巨的任务。当时还有人列了表，大英百科全书有哪些词条，我们还缺乏哪些词条。今天我们在词条的数量上已经远远超过了大英百科全书。我们的使用者远远超过了大英百科全书在其整个历史上的用户人数。我们的条目中有这些词条，它们是大英百科全书里没有，也永远不会有的。这些词条是百科全书的内容吗？按照经典百科全书的定义它们显然不是，但是我们的社群，你们，决定这些词条是百科全书内容。这说明什么？这说明我们的社群扩展了百科全书的含义。我们创造了一个新的百科全书的定义，它超越了经典百科全书的内容。
维基百科的第二个支柱是中立的观点。智慧是人的本性。人类没有锋利的爪牙，没有出色的嗅觉，没有翅膀飞翔，没有厚厚的皮毛，但是人类有探求万物的本性，有把知识有效地收集和传播给他们的后代和其他人的特殊本领。我们生活在一个复杂的，多元化的，全球化的世界里。不论在工作、学习、日常生活中，我们每天都要做出决定和选择。要做出理智的决定，我们需要尽量全面地领会这个决定的前提和环境。我们需要全面的和中立的知识。40年前，红卫兵为中国带来了巨大的灾害。不是因为他们邪恶，而是因为他们无知，而且他们所拥有的那些知识也只是片面的，是别人经过过滤后告诉他们的，因此他们无法正确地估价他们破坏的文物，无法正确地认识他们摧残的生命的价值，无法分别哪些决定和言语是正确的，哪些是错误的。我们的任务不是告诉别人什么是对的什么是错的，我们没有为别人判断对错的能力和权利。假如我们开始为别人决定什么是对的什么是错的的话我们很快就自己会成为把这些人错导到造成巨大破坏的道路上去的人。我们的任务是提供全面的、中立的知识，来让我们的用户自己做出决定，什么是对的，什么是错的。从山海经到河南血祸，从毕达哥拉斯到哈利·波特，在传说中、文学中，还是历史中或者现实中，我们总是会碰到一些人觉得某些知识特别危险而企图把这些知识封锁起来的故事或者事情，但是事实最后总是证明无知比有知危险，片面的知识导致的危害远远比全面的知识导致的危害大。
只有一个开放的社群才能保证我们收集的知识的中立性。我们每个人有自己的信仰、自己的偏见，有我们自己知识上的不足，因此一个封闭的社群的知识也只是有限的。开放对于我们来说有两重意义。我们的社群是开放的，我们收集的知识是开放的，但是这也意味着我们必须对我们的用户负责。许多人不理解我们为什么这样注重他人的著作权。我们经常听到别人职责说：网上就是大家互相抄，为什么维基百科偏偏不允许。我们注重著作权有许多原因，但是其中最重要的是因为我们需要保证我们收集的知识可以为全人类自由使用。假如我们不注重他人的著作权，其他用户在使用我们的知识的时候就会冒风险。其他的人可以来说，你们收集的知识实际上是不自由的，这威胁我们的使命，威胁我们的声誉，威胁我们收集的知识的价值。不开放的知识很可能是不中立的，因为它的主人可以决定谁可以利用这些知识，他可以过滤这些知识。
维基是一个社群合作的工具。我们在编辑维基百科的时候不能忘记这一点。社会合作也是人类的本性。和朋友们一起玩比一个人玩开心，这个经验我们都有过。合作的基础是互重。我们社群设计了许多不同的方法来促进社群内的合作：我们有维基星章、欢迎模板、有小天使、有动员令。我们的许多规则，比如不要伤害新手，比如不要人身攻击，比如讨论的时候针对事，而不要针对人，都是从这个支柱中引导出来的。互重是我们社群结合的胶水。自从维基百科出现以来网上出现了许多以社群提供内容和互动为主题的网站。但是维基百科是唯一由一个开放的社群有一个明确的目标共同建设的项目。对于一个开放的社群，对于一个依靠合作建设的项目来说，社群各个成员之间的互重是项目发展的基础。朋友们，在讨论非常激烈的时候，在年复一年、一次又一次不断地讨论和解释同一规则之后，一个人往往会觉得非常不耐烦。互重是我们最容易忘记的支柱，因此也是我们最应该铭记的支柱。
维基百科快要九岁了，九年在网上是一个漫长的时间。许多今天在网上名列前茅的网站在九年前还不存在。一些九年前在网上名列前茅的网站今天已经鲜为人知，甚至已经消失。九年前维基百科是一个创新。在九年的时间里我们从一无所有建立了一个非常受欢迎的、有相当权威的百科全书。我们为网上百科全书做了一个新的定义。我们为中立性开创了一个新的定义，我们开放性的合作至今是其它网站无法达到的，为了保证我们的开放性和合作我们设立了许多规则。但是我们不能因此停留下来，不能因为我们达到的就却步不前了。我们现有的规则不是天经地义，假如有新的方法和规则能够更好地促进社群之间的合作，能够更好地促进维基百科的发展，我们需要像在维基百科依然处于婴儿时期一样勇于讨论和采纳它们。
女士们、先生们、各位贵宾们、朋友们，今天能够与各位在澳门相会我感到非常荣幸，我祝愿我们的年会能够促进大家之间的友情，消除过去的误会，探讨未来的发展，开发新的主意，为维基百科带来新的动力。
谢谢大家。
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear guests, friends, hello
At first I want to thank the volunteers and friends from Wikimedia Macau and Wikimedia Hongkong for their organization, for their hard work. I know organizing such a meeting is not easy. A lot of unexpected things can happen, a lot of details and things must be done. Despite all these works a lot of people would be unhappy, would criticize the organizers or even suspect them. To keep on and make the meeting happen, make it a good meeting, is a very hard work. Because of this I want to express my very much thanks. Thank you very much for your work.
Wikipedia has five pillars. All our rules, all our work, should be based on these five pillars. All other rules can be changed or outdated, but these five pillars, we can say the constitution of Wikipedia, cannot be changed. I would like to ask if any of the friends here can tell me which five pillars they are?
The five pillars are: Encyclopedia, Neutral Point of View, Free Content, Respect To Each Other and Be Bold.
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, this is our first pillar, is the basis of our basis. This pillar defines the scope and goal of our work. But what is an encyclopedia? Which content belong to an encyclopedia, which not? When Wikipedia started no one of us could imaging that it would develop to what it is today. At that time we took the classic encyclopedia, like Britanica, as our example. Back at that time we thought that it would take eons to match the quality and quantity of Britanica. Back then people even listed out which articles Britanica has and we still not have. Today the number of our articles had exceeded by far Britanica. And the number of our users also exceeds by far of all users that had ever used Britanica. We have articles that Britanica doesn't have and would never have, like stations of the Hongkong Underground, or bus lines in Hongkong. Are these content of encyclopedia? According to the definition of classic encyclopedia obviously not. But our community, you, decided that they are. What does that mean? It means that we had expanded the definition of encyclopedia. We created a new definition of encyclopedia, which exceeds the content of the classic encyclopedia.
The second pillar of Wikipedia ist the Neutral Point of View. Wisdom is a human nature. The human being has no sharp claws, no sensitive nose, no wings to fly, no thick hide. But the to explore the world is the nature of the human being. The mankind can very effectively collect knowledge and pass it to their peer. We live in a complicated, multicultural and global world. When we learn, work or in our daily life we must make decisions and choices everyday. We can only make wise decisions if we can have the most thorough information. We need neutral knowledges to make decisions. 40 years ago the Red Guard brought China tremendous destruction. They did it not because they are evil, but because they don't have the knowledge, and the few knowledge that they have are filtered by other people. Because of this they are not able to evaluate the things they destroyed and they cannot evaluate the lives they destroyed. They are not able to select between right and wrong. Our goal is not to tell other people what is right and what is wrong. We don't have the ability and the right for that. If we begin to filter informations as good or bad, we are doing the same wrong thing like those people, who disguised the young people to do the destructions. Our goal is to provide thorough, neutral knowledge, so that our user can decide by themselves what is right and what is wrong. From Shan Hai Jing to the AIDS catastrophe in Henan, from Pythagoras to Harry Potter, in stories, history, literacy or now a day we can always meet people, who feels that some knowledge is too dangerous to be known by all the mankind, so that they must try to seal these knowledge to protect the society. But indeed the history had showed that no knowledge is always more peril than have knowledge, that filtered knowledge always do more harm than thorough transparent knowledge.
Only an open community can ensure that the knowledges we collected is neutral. Everyone of us has his own belief and his partial knowledge, no one knows everything. So the knowledge of a closed society is limited. Open has two meanings for us. Our community is open, and the knowledge we collected is also open. And that means that we have responsibility to our users. A lot of people don't understand why we take so many effort to respect the copyright of other people. We often hear people criticize us: In the Internet everyone copies everyone, why only Wikipedia don't allow this. There are a lot of good reasons why we respect copyright. The most important one is that we want to ensure that everyone can freely use the knowledge we collected. If we don't take care about copyright, our user would take risk if they use the content we collected. Other people can say: the content you collected is indeed not free. This would threat our mission, threat our reputation and threat the value of the knowledge we collected. Beside of this. Unfree knowledge is lightly not neutral, because its owner can decide who may use these knowledges and he can filter the knowledge.
Wiki is a social collaboration tool. When we are editing Wikipedia, we should never forget this. Social collaboration is another human nature. We have all the experience that gaming with friends makes more fun than gaming alone. The very basics of collaboration is mutual respect. Our community had devised deferent rules to encourage the collaboration inside of the community: We have barn stars, welcome template, Welcoming Committee, Contests. We have a lot of rules that are based on this pillar, like don't bite newbies, don't make personal insults, when discussing talk about fact, don't about person. Mutual respect is the glue of our community. Since the advent of Wikipedia a lot of new social content building and collaboration sites emerged, but none of them has such an open community, which is dedicated to a common goal like by Wikipedia. For an open community, which is collaborating to build up a project, the mutual respect of the community member between each other is the most important thing at all. Dear friends, if the discussion is tough, if we have to explain the same rules year after years, we get tired. But please let us never never never forget this most easily forgotten pillar.
Soon Wikipedia would be nine years old. Nine years is a long time on the net. Nine years ago most of the most visited sites didn't exist yet. Some of the sites that were very popular nine years ago are scarcely known today, or vanished. Nine years ago Wikipedia was an innovation. In these nine years we started with nothing and built up an extremely popular encyclopedia with increasing reputation. We defined encyclopedia new on the net, we introduced a new meaning of neutrality, our open collaboration is unchallenged by other sites. We have established a lot of rules to ensure the openness and collaboration on Wikipedia. But we cannot be content with this. We cannot stop with what was achieved. Our rules now are not unchangeable. If there are better means to encourage the collaboration inside of the community, to improve the growth of Wikipedia, we should be bold to discuss and adopt them, just as if Wikipedia is still in the time of its enfancy.
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear guests, friends. I am very happy and honored to meet you all today in Macau. I hope we can increase our friendship during the conference, can resolve our conflicts in the past, can discuss the future, develop new ideas and give new impulses to Wikipedia.
Thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
