Wikimedia Conference 2015/Programme/23

23: Chapters Dialogue: Persistent and most burning questions

How to move forward

Nicole (WMDE) presenting

What was this session about?

It provided the context of the six tough questions of the Chapters Dialogue and space for conversations around possible answers/next steps.

What are the next steps to be taken?

Assess and publish the group work. Prioritise the questions. Initiate an ongoing dialogue, facilitated, and outcome driven in a structured approach, where voices of all involved parties are heard and that leads to answers. Draft a definition of what steps we will use to build these new insights into our practice. Continue conversations in smaller groups and during Wikimania. Create and discuss an outline for a sequel project.

Who is the person to reach out to?

Nicole Ebber (WMDE), Adviser International Relations

Photos

see the Commons category

Slides

Useful links for your preparation

Chapters Dialogue report
Chapter Dialogue – The Movie on Wikimedia Commons and Vimeo
Video: Nicole Ebber presenting the Chapters Dialogue at Wikimania 2014 in London (starting at 56:00)
The Chapters Dialogue sessions at the Wikimedia Conference 2014: 8 + 8b

This session documentation was approved by the speaker.

Session Documentation

Original Description

The Chapters Dialogue has revealed dysfunctions and perceptions within the movement. The movement is revolving around itself and power structures keep us from striving for free knowledge at full potential, from properly defining and achieving impact. Furthermore, organisations build local redundancies and are change averse rather than to think out of the box or concentrate on their own and unique competencies or local givens. Movement entities are not really connected to one another, and not consequently learning from each others mistakes and experiences.

Since its publication, the “tough questions” presented in the conclusion of the Chapters Dialogue have not been addressed thoroughly. This again reflects the unresolved situation in terms of responsibilities, development paths, the fear of change and the gap in leadership. To prove that a movement model with decentral organisations itself is still the best way to go, we have to start moving. In this session, I would like to initiate conversations around questions like:

Does the current model allow us to achieve the impact that we are asked to achieve?
How do we initiate and advance conversation around movement roles strategy?
What is it that we can do better with joint forces than having each organisation do individually?
How can we mutually strengthen each other and overcome isolation regarding cross national topics?

Desired Outcome: An ongoing dialogue, facilitated, and outcome driven in a structured approach, where voices of all involved parties are heard and that leads to a clarity of roles, responsibilities and structures of the Wikimedia movement. A definition of what steps we will use to build these new insights into our practice.
Audience: All conference participants
Session Format: Presentation and discussion in groups; 60 min
Speaker: Nicole Ebber (WMDE)

Summary of the session, from presenter’s notes

Nicole presented the summary and conclusion of the Chapters Dialogue project, which was run by Wikimedia Deutschland in 2013-14. Its conclusion: “The global footprint of the Wikimedia projects is huge; we can change the world. We can be proud of the things that work. But at the moment we are not striving for free knowledge at full potential. The common mission is at serious risk if the movement does not tackle the causes of its problems.”

Nicole pointed out that she still considers it highly irresponsible to recommend simple patches but prefers to find answers to the 6 tough questions. These questions still remain unsolved. Not much has happened in the last year. There has been no structured and resourced approach. Nicole referred to several talks and conversations that happened in the course of WMCON that revolve around these questions. She gave the audience some context for each question, and then asked them to split into six groups to discuss the state of these questions and possible ways for coming closer to answering them.

Tough Questions

1. What do we as a movement want to achieve? Do we run a website or foster Free Knowledge?

Context given by Nicole: We lack a movement strategy. We have this common vision, that we want everyone to share in the sum of all knowledge. The strategy process is ongoing; what do affiliates want to contribute to it? How do we define “the movement”; e.g. does “supporting the movement” mean only the work that directly affects the projects? Or is our overall goal to create change in society?

Group work: The group said there were no answers to concrete questions. The group agreed that there is no clear pattern what and when to do, movement-wide. Generally, participants agreed that there is a huge amount of information in every local chapter and/or community, but a lack of human resources hampers to share it. People agreed that information should be better shared to multiply their use.

2. How do we define impact? And how do we measure success?

Context given by Nicole: The Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland, other movement organisations claim to be impact driven entities. But what we lack is a common definition of what impact actually means for the movement. Chapters struggle with proving that their activities are worth investing in.

That’s the elephant in the room: Is impact more than just editors and content? How can we think long-term, include innovation in our activities, be bold. Try to change things on the big scale. Metrics for that will look different. Start with defining the vision, not with the metrics. (Also see session no. 19).

Group work: The group agreed that this depends on question #1. Two different kinds of impact: Impact on Wikimedia projects (editors, articles, pictures), which, at moment, are mainly measured with Global Metrics. The other kind of impact people discussed was impact on society and environment in which the Wikimedia projects operate, like public opinion, laws. etc. Before measuring the success there needs to be an answer to the impact question.

3. What is the role of the Wikimedia Foundation?

Context given by Nicole: One of the most controversial topics throughout the project has been the question about leadership in the movement: How can leadership in the Wikimedia movement look like? Who should take leadership? How can an organisation be a leader without being too bossy. Is this actually possible?

Adopting the narrowed focus, the WMF clearly stated that it does not see the development of movement entities as their duty. But many Affiliates see the WMF as the leader due to its power and unique role. They consider the WMF being responsible for affiliates development, while the WMF expects affiliates to be more proactive.

Lila’s talk gave more clarity around different roles, although the allocation of global and local responsibilities could be defined more flexible. For example, affiliates can lead or initiate projects with a global scale. The lack of standardised procedures or grant programmes that fund these projects with a movement wide scope should be part of the greater community consultation around grants programmes.

Group work: Participants expressed the idea that the WMF should help affiliates to grow and encourage affiliate-to-affiliate work, especially those that have same approach or work in the same language area. For the latter, people discussed, that even if affiliates don’t have the resources to do so, the WMF should encourage and assist them.

4. How do we want to communicate with each other? How can we build the necessary empathy and learn from each other? How can we overcome the old narrative and perceptions?

Context given by Nicole: There is a lack of empathy and understanding for other views, opinions, culture and behaviour. Many conflicts that people talk about were based on their perspectives and feelings. Old narratives are told over and over again, there is no room for taking a step forward.

The lack of empathy and the persistence of old narratives has been mentioned several times at this conference. What we are lacking here is trust. People are trying to read the tea leaves behind every single announcement and email that the WMF is sending. They assume there is an evil master plan behind all that, instead of assuming good faith.

How can we have ongoing, open conversations, that are decision oriented. How can we for example use this conference to enhance this situation? How can we address the three main conference themes in the best possible way: Movement strategy and roles; capacity building and sharing is caring; social aspects, trust and empathy?

Group work: One aspect here was the communication between the affiliates and each community, as people pointed out how important its is to know the needs of each community or communities. Participants discussed the idea of having a contact person in each Wikimedia organisation who could be contacted, as it was really difficult to communicate between the affiliates. Regarding the question which information should be shared people agreed on sharing reports (despite them being published on Meta), but people also express the wish to share and read more “background information”, which is not shared to the public very often.

5. Where does the money come from and where should it go?

Context given by Nicole: This includes topics like diversification of funding sources and partnerships, the dissemination of funds via the WMF grants programmes and the role of the WMF as a movement leader AND grantmaker at the same time. It also involves the issue of being independent from the WMF grants programmes versus being independent from external sources and influences. Group work: Participants discussed the tension field between global (aka centralised) fundraising and local fundraising. Most of the participants agreed that Chapters should be able to do local (own) fundraising. The discussion also touched donations from individuals vs. donations from companies, as the latter could have influence on the organisations. Another aspect was the difficulty to spend money on ad-hoc projects that resulted from the fixed grant structures.

6. What movement framework is best suited to fulfil the Wikimedia mission?

Context given by Nicole: Organisational structures grew organically and the creation of the first Chapter was used as a template for younger entities. There was no official agreement on the best organisational form and Chapters’ roles. In Lila’s talk, she reassured the current model.

Furthermore, many organisations build local redundancies and are change averse rather than to think out of the box or concentrate on their own and unique competencies or local givens. Movement entities are not really connected to one another, and not consequently learning from each others mistakes and experiences.

Questions that complement the overall framework question:

How do we initiate and advance conversation around movement roles strategy? (See documentation on Saturday’s reflection session)
What is it that we can do better with joint forces than having each organisation do individually?
How can we mutually strengthen each other and overcome isolation regarding cross national topics?
What can local organisations bring to the movement (see session no. 36 from Friday)? How do we divide local and global tasks between the orgs? How can these experiences make it to the overall movement strategy?

Group work: No participant chose to work on this question.

Excursion: Collective Impact

“Collective Impact is the commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem, using a structured form of collaboration.”

The concept of Collective Impact (see documentation of Nikki Zeuner’s session) fits quite well to the findings of the Chapters Dialogue. There is a lot of research going on in this field in the nonprofit world, and this concept can probably help us move forward with finding the answers.

For further reading see: The five conditions of Collective Impact and the Chapters Dialogue and Collective Impact.