en.WP should not contain literary criticism. Not that it is good or bad, but it is not encyclopaedic.

The title [[If on a winter's night a traveler]] is a good indicator of this novel which is reminiscent of Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy. The book commences on a hypothesis of novelistic elements ("If...") on a when, a someone...would do what? According to this book, the entire novel, even its plot, is an open trajectory where even the author himself questions his motives of the writing process. This theme — a writer's objectivity — is also explored in Calvino's novel Mr. Palomar, which explores if absolute objectivity is possible, or even agreeable. Other themes include the subjectivity of meaning (associated with post-structuralism), the relationship between fiction and life, what makes an ideal reader and author, and authorial originality.

Communication to and from the Wikimedia Foundation is strictly controlled. This includes all communication to the various communities, and from them. It is impossible to tell just how completely this practice of filtering and manipulation of communications streams is happening within the Foundation, controlling what either the left or right hands know or believe to be true[1]. A fair assumption is: probably most of it.

No one I have spoken to was able to name a single member of the Communication Committee who is primarily a Sister's Project community member. Let me restate that: there is no official communications link from the Foundation to any non-Wikipedia project. Full stop.

Listening in on various communications tools one is struck by the silence. Comproj seems to have had exactly one real application in about a year: an attempt to organize PR materials in one, central location. Of course the Communications Committee list is restricted to members.

An interesting - and telling, imo - symptom of the balkanization of the Foundation is the Wikimedia-Boston mailing list: Social list for Boston-area Wikimedia gatherings. "This is a list of Boston-area Wikipedians and other Wikimedia supporters."[2] - after all, some projects are more equal than others.[3]

However, speaking of Wikimedia-lists, there are plenty of them. Ostensibly the naming convention suggests they are to be used by/for Wikimedia Chapter formation/internal communications; few seem to actually be actively used for such. A relatively high percentage of the lists restrict archive access to members, so it's impossible to generalize accurately, but of those countries which do have a Wikimedia chapter few have any appreciable use; several have never had a single message posted. A very tiny sampling of lists in English show almost no Foundation<->Chapter community communications, with the noteworthy exception of WMUK.

So how is the Foundation communicating with its contributors, especially its niche communities?

• Secret communications
  

  By far this is the most common channel for dispersion of information. Via restricted-access Wikis, restricted mailing lists, restricted IRC channels, private e-mails and discussions. In the recent Fundraiser dozens of individuals - site bureaucrats and community leaders - were quietly threatened via back channels to prevent any site modifying the centralNotice Banner Advertisements even though these ads were often offensive to the local contributing editors. This highly-successful intimidation campaign is only one example of the coordination of WMF communications out of sight.
  

  
  


• Official communications:
  

  
  Board resolutions, press releases on [[Foundation wiki]] plus pronouncements on Meta or en.Wikipedia are probably the second largest channel for "communicating with the masses." These extremely impersonal messages dehumanize the Foundation; it becomes the corporate machine dictating to the projects, with no chance of response.
  
  The Mediawiki techs are a hugely important element of the Foundation, and they use [[bugzilla]] and [[wiki]] as their formal communications routes, [[supplemented]] with [IRC] and [[mailing lists]]. However, the reality is the bugzilla is ignored in favour of internal/personal communications networks in determining tech priorities. Even though the developers tell you the best way to get an issue addressed is to define the problem, develop a solution for the problem, and submit it this is not true: the best way is to throw a hissy fit involving dozens of well-placed people and make a public-relations headache - at which point your issue will magically develop priority and may actually get attention. (no guarantee it will actually be resolved, however: examples include Wiktionary's [[Extension:Transliterator]], community approved in August 2009, committed in October after languishing for months, never reviewed or approved by WMF devs as of this writing.)
  

  
  


• Semi-official communications:
  

  
  This is the human face of the Foundation: staff members like [[Bastique]] and [[Philippe Baudette]] who every day work in contact with various contributor communities, and serve as channels to bring issues into the Foundation staff meetings, and give depth and interpretation to the Foundation's less personal messages.
  
  These individuals have both an inappropriate stress and authority due to the public perception they are speaking in a semi-official capacity for the Foundation, which is increasingly remote from its average contributor.
  

  
  


• Informal communications:
  

  
  This is the way work actually gets done, no matter how carefully communications channels are monitored and prescribed. A phone call from the right person, an SMS heads up to someone who should be aware - these are the real networks which need to be recognized and - where appropriate - encouraged. They are prone to abuse, and to causing as many problems as they solve, where impediments to constant sharing of information are put in place.
  
  There are occasions where communication must not take place in public; they are the rare exception. There are occasions where communication is one-way - an instruction or announcement - but more commonly it should be a discussion with mutual agreement as to what was said, what compromises reached.
  
  Unfortunately, this channel is the least accepted or exploited by the Wikimedia Foundation, and in fact it appears the Foundation is actively campaigning to restrict informal communications between itself and the contributing community for whom it exists.
  

  
  

Well, there've been a few months of frenetic activity involved with the WMF which should be blogged about, so I'm working on three articles atm.

• Wikimedia Foundation Strategy: Excellent goodwill and good faith.
• On Mediawiki Bots: Mote, motivation, métier.
• Communication Corps
  

I simply am incapable of keeping up with what, for me, is empty process - the [[Strategic Planning]] matters not a [[jot]] or [[tittle]].

Here's why: this is a [[top-down]] imposition on the wikipedia community. If it is successful it will only be so by fundamentally destroying the character of that community, which develops organically from the bottom up. If it is unsuccessful, then it won't have mattered.

Like a substantial percentage of the wikipedia community, I do not respect our benevolent overlords. So long as they stay out of the way of our ongoing creation, they can do whatever they want and I'll support their equally vital efforts. If they decide to channel our creativity outside our mission statement (and, incidentally, [[theirs]]), well, then I have issues.

One of the first things I asked, when I was finally able to find a platform where I could ask anyone anything, was "What is your authority?"[1] I was trying to find out who had authorized the strategy initiative, and who was managing it. It was authorized by the Board of Trustees in April 2009, directing Ms Gardner to develop and implement the strategy.

This is really important. The board gave responsibility for creating a future plan to an employee. Not the community.

And Ms Gardner is doing the right thing - using outside advice and community-derived staff she is trying to create a strategy which is at least community-involved. But it isn't community-driven.

Maybe this is the best that can be hoped for. Maybe the Wikimedia communities are simply too insular, or too inter-antagonistic, to develop cooperative efforts for defining visions of the future. But, maybe, this is leaving the community feeling outside looking in, even according to some of the organizers.

I think particularly with the English wikipedia people feel significantly removed and want someone to "translate" the process for them. - Philippe

Different communities within what is sometimes called the "Wikimedia Movement" have occasionally been informed of the existence of this effort - which has been ongoing since at least April 2009 - and reacted quite defensively at what they feel is an encroachment on their sphere of influence.

But from my armchair there is little or no awareness or involvement in the process even among the more active members of the communities. So a minority will be making decisions for the whole, [[disenfranchising]] the majority.

Bah. I'm being asked to do more formal volunteering at WMF again.

I can't decide if this is a good or a bad thing, or whether I'll actually get involved in doing stuff or not. Indecision is potentially its own decision.