Category: Wikimedia

Expertise has been dying since the dawn of time

I recently finished reading the book “The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters” by Tom Nichols. If you’re an expert, or a layperson, this book helps provide context into how we have gotten into a situation, exacerbated by technology, where expertise is devalued and the general pubic is disinterested. It provides an interesting – if not perennially oft-repeated – concern for our ability to rationally think about our world.

tl:dr; Refine your ability of metacognition. As Nichols puts it, “the ability to know when you’re not good at something by stepping back, looking at what you’re doing, and then realizing that you’re doing it wrong.”1

I’m a little surprised I enjoyed this book as much as I did. I disagreed with parts of it, but on the whole found it to be a rather level-headed approach to the presented concerns. The book reiterates other sources going back decades – dare I say centuries – of shared concerns over the disinterest and disaffection toward expertise. Nothing exceptionally novel, but I enjoyed having it summarized and presented in a single tome. I appreciated that the author (a self-professed expert) didn’t decry any one corner of society at fault for our diminishing interest and respect for expertise – he even provides advice for experts and laypeople alike. Which is good. Civilization is a team sport after all. No one part alone can solve the problems of the whole. 

The original essay that prompted the book (in itself a pseudo-too-long-didn’t-read) is worth reading if the prospect of a full-length book bores you.2 The essay was originally published in the conservative-leaning Federalist website. Admittedly not a source of information I would normally frequent, which I hope speaks a little to my own ability to consider knowing what I don’t know. This humbly makes me a little hopeful that I’m not falling head first into the very concerns the book lays out. Maybe. 🙂

I wanted to share some notes I kept as I read. May they whet your whistle. I recommend the book.

p55, on conspiracy theories, “Conspiracy theorists manipulate all tangible evidence to fit their explanation, but worse, they will also point to the absence of evidence as an even stronger confirmation.” Which I think is an interesting and obvious explanation that buttresses with the axiom from George Carlin, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” 

p58, continuing on the kind of personalizes that attract conspiracy theories (or maybe it’s the other way around), “More important and more relevant to the death of expertise, however, is that conspiracy theories are deeply attractive to people who have a hard time making sense of a complicated world and who have no patience for less dramatic explanations. Such theories also appeal to a strong streak of narcissism: there are people who would choose to believe in complicated nonsense rather than accept that their own circumstances are incomprehensible, the result of issues beyond their intellectual capacity to understand, or even their own fault.”

p64, on the difficulties of conversation between experts and the general public, “That’s why one of the most important characteristics of an expert is the ability to remain dispassionate, even on the most controversial issues. Experts must treat everything from cancer to nuclear war as problems to be solved with detachment and objectivity. That their distance from the subject enables open debate and consideration of alternatives, in ways meant to defeat emotional temptations, inducing fear, that lead to bias. This is a tall order, but otherwise conversation is not only arduous but sometimes explosive.”

p99-100, on the difficulties universities have in providing a physically safe space, while allowing for intellectually challenging discourse, “…the protective, swaddling environment of the modern university infantilizes students and thus dissolves their ability to conduct a logical and informed argument. When feelings matter more than rationality or facts, education is a doomed enterprise. Emotion is an unassailable defense against expertise, a moat of anger and resentment in which reason and knowledge quickly drown. And when students learn that emotion trumps everything else, it is a lesson they will take with them for the rest of their lives.”

P109, on the Internet and its impact on expertise and dissemination of non-expertise, “The most obvious problem is that the freedom to post anything online floods the public square with bad information and half-baked thinking. The Internet lets a billion flowers bloom, and most of them stink, including everything from the idle thoughts of random bloggers and the conspiracy theories of cranks all the way to the sophisticated campaigns of disinformation conducted by groups and governments.”

p124, of course, no book about knowledge would be complete with out a mention of Wikipedia an prime example of non-experts coming together to share expertise on every topic. From Nichols, “Even with the best of intentions, crowd-sourced projects like Wikipedia suffer from an important but often unremarked distinction between laypeople and professionals: volunteers do what interests them at any given time, while professionals employ their expertise every day. A hobby is not the same thing as a career. As a saying attributed to the British writer Alastair Cooke goes, “Professionals are people who can do their best work when they don’t feel like it.” The enthusiasm of interested amateurs is not a consistent substitute for the judgment of experts.”

p132, on the difficulty of having an equal and civil conversation on the internet,  “The anonymity of social media tempts users into arguing as though every participant is the same, a group of peers starting from the same level of background and education. This is a rule very few people would use in real life, but on the Internet, the intellectual narcissism of the random commenter displaces the norms that usually govern face-to-face interactions.”

p145, on journalism, modern media, and the decline of trust, “This doesn’t explain, however, why Americans erroneously end up thinking they’re better informed than the experts on the myriad issues flooding across their screens. For this, we have to look a little more closely at how the public’s relationship with the media developed after the 1970s. The decade of Watergate, “stagflation,” and defeat in Vietnam is the benchmark not only because it was on the cusp of the addition of new technologies like cable, but also because those developments coincided with an accelerating collapse of trust in government and other institutions in American life. The growth of new kinds of media and the decline of trust are both intimately related to the death of expertise.”

p159,  journalism continued. I don’t 100% agree with this, perhaps because I’m skeptical of anything posted on the internet, but many folks are not and I think this is at least a little thought provoking, “This shallowness is not because journalism attracts unintelligent people, but because in an age when everything is journalism, and everyone is a journalist, standards inevitably fall. A profession that once had at least some barriers to entry is now wide open, with the same results we might expect if medicine, law enforcement, aviation, or archaeology were suddenly do-it-yourself projects.”

p162, on hoaxes and exploiting laziness in journalism, “Sometimes the errors are trivial and amusing. In the great “chocolate helps you lose weight” hoax, for example, the hoaxers never thought they’d get as far as they did; they assumed that “reporters who don’t have science chops” would discover the whole faked study was “laughably flimsy” once they reached out to a real scientist. They were wrong: nobody actually tried to vet the story with actual scientists. “The key,” as the hoaxers later said, “is to exploit journalists’ incredible laziness. If you lay out the information just right, you can shape the story that emerges in the media almost like you were writing those stories yourself. In fact, that’s literally what you’re doing, since many reporters just copied and pasted our text.”

Oof.

p167, on admonishing experts and giving advice, “To experts, I will say, know when to say no. Some of the worst mistakes I ever made were when I was young and I could not resist giving an opinion. Most of the time, I was right to think I knew more than the reporter or the readers, but that’s not the point: I also found myself out on a few limbs I should have avoided. In fairness to journalists, I have found that they will respect and report your views accurately—only on a few occasions did I ever feel ambushed or misquoted—but they will also respect your principled refusal to go too far out of your lane. It is your obligation, not theirs, to identify that moment.”

This was quickly followed by four recommendations for consumers of news which I’m denoting here for future reference and import as a whole. 

“Be humble. That is, at least begin by assuming that the people writing the story, whatever their shortcomings, know more about the subject than you do. At the least, try to remember that in most cases, the person writing the story has spent more time with the issue than you have. If you approach any story in the media, or any source of information already assuming you know as much as anyone else on the subject, the entire exercise of following the news is going to be a waste of your time.”

“Be ecumenical. Vary your diet. You wouldn’t eat the same thing all day, so don’t consume the same sources of media all day. When I worked in national politics, I subscribed to a half-dozen journals at any given time, across the political spectrum. Don’t be provincial: try media from other countries, as they often report stories or have a view of which Americans are completely unaware. And don’t say you “don’t have the time.” You do.”

“Be less cynical—or don’t be so cynical. It’s extremely rare that anyone is setting out intentionally to lie to you. Yes, the people writing the stories often have an agenda, and there will always be another Sabrina Erdeley out there. And yes, the journalists you’re reading or watching will get some things wrong, often with an astonishing lack of self-awareness. None of them have a monopoly on the truth, but they’re not all liars. They’re doing the best they can, by their lights, and most of them would be glad to know you’re keeping tabs by reading other sources of news and information.”

“Be more discriminating. If you see something in a major media outlet that doesn’t seem right to you, finding some half-baked website isn’t the answer. Websites that are outlets for political movements, or other, even worse enterprises that cater specifically to zealots or fools, will do more harm than good in the search for accurate information. Instead, ask yourself questions when consuming media. Who are these writers? Do they have editors? Is this a journal or newspaper that stands by its reporting, or is it part of a political operation? Are their claims checkable, or have other media tried to verify or disprove their stories?”

“Conspiracy theorists and adherents of quack medicine will never believe anything that challenges their views, but most of us can do better. And remember: reading and following the news is a skill like any other at which we get better by repetition. The best way to become a good consumer of news is to be a regular consumer of news.”

p200, on experts and predicting the future. I won’t quote this entire section, but I liked that the author admitted the difficulties of experts in not offering predictions of the future as that is one thing people do refer to experts for – advice on what to do based upon knowledge of the past. The foxes and hedgehog metaphor is one I have heard before and find to reoccur in life.

p205, There is some great advice on how experts can work to repair the relationship with the general public. Encouraged reading.

p207, the author complains that we have too many sources as a cause of our problems, but I’m reminded of Shirky’s writing that it’s not “information overload” (there’s always been more books/movies/news than single person could digest) but “filter failure” (the access to so much with little effort causes a sense of overwhelming urgency) that is our biggest struggle as individuals. Quick advice: Turn off your notifications friend.

p222, on advice to experts and giving advice, “Experts need to own their advice and to hold each other accountable. For any number of reasons—the glut of academic degrees, the lack of interest on the part of the public, the inability to keep up with the production of knowledge in the Information Age—they have not lived up to this duty as conscientiously as their privileged position in society requires. They can do better, even if those efforts might, in the main, go unnoticed.”

p226, Americans, remember we are a republic not a democracy. An interesting take I had not considered as important in the context of expertise, but I can see that if individuals lack a basic understanding of how our government work (like this delineation), then we are speaking from ignorance – which is an equal part of the death of expertise. 

Some better written reviews of the book:

How to be a man in the Wikimedia movement

Photo by Me. Licensed CC BY-SA 2.0

This is meant as a way for me to get some ideas out of my head, to remind myself when even my own best judgement falters, and to inspire those with narrow experiences to see that often the better path is the harder path; to be the better person.1

Inspiration for this post comes from Reem and Netha’s talk from Wikimania 2018. Original draft written while listening to Asaf’s presentation at the same event. Both are recommended and influential. Thank you.

From a practical perspective I try to give examples and links to learn more. The goal is not to make you feel bad if you do some of these things. It’s to make you aware and give you a chance to reflect and, if you think it’s important, which I hope you do, improve yourself. We’re all on a path.

  • Make a concerted effort to make space for other voices. Don’t consume the conversation. Know when to be quiet and listen. It’s hard when you’re excited about a topic. It’s hard when you have concerns and want to express them. It’s hard when you know the answer and want to share it first, but; give some space. You’ll have your chance.
  • Learn how to listen. Not how to wait until your turn to speak or how to formulate a response while someone else is talking, but how to actively listen to others. Listen to understand. Listen to give others an opportunity to express. Listen to give space for more voices than your own. 2
  • Learn how to give constructive feedback. Feedback should be a two-way street where you’re engaged with another person trying to improve a situation, not to hurt (intentionally or not) another. 3
  • Criticism and kindness are not opposites. The former is more constructive to positive change when the latter is included. You can give actionable criticism without being unkind. In fact, my experiences have shown this to be far more productive for all parties when care is given.
  • Be open to criticism. Don’t double down on your mistakes. Take it into consideration and listen. Admitting you made a mistake speaks more to your character than being closed off, brutish, argumentative.
  • Learn how to have a genuine conversation. 4
  • Seek to learn more and be patient. Don’t speak with certainty on things you don’t fully know. Choose your words carefully. Workshop ideas with close friends before presenting them to acquaintances or the public.
  • Ask questions. 
  • Take care of yourself. 5
  • Don’t blame the victim. 6
  • You don’t have to know, or be an expert on, everything. No one is expecting that of you. Defer to those with experience. Listen and internalize what they are saying. Reflect. Improve yourself.
  • Don’t talk over people.
  • Give credit.
  • Be vulnerable. 7
  • Show empathy.
    • “Empathize with their experience, knowing that offering empathy doesn’t mean that you’re taking on the blame for their experience”8
  • You don’t always have to lave the last word.
  • The words you do pick matter. 9
  • Be patient.
  • Don’t dismiss folks who don’t want to participate in a space because they aren’t “tough enough”, don’t have a ‘thick skin’, or don’t operate with harsh with rule-bound logic. 
    • If you think you can put up with it (or have), that’s not healthy. You can deny it, or ignore it. Maybe you’re not even aware that it’s an unhealthy thing. Maybe it speaks to a privilege you might not even be aware of. Maybe you lack the emotional intelligence. I’m not saying this to be disparaging. It’s an opportunity to reflect. Because you can tolerate something does not mean others should have to, or can.
  • Be honest with yourself.
  • Be honest with others. This doesn’t mean be a blunt jerk, but don’t be a liar. 
    • When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging. Don’t backpedal, you just pull more dirt into the hole.
    • Don’t gaslight people. Find yourself regretting something? Don’t give a lame excuse. Own the mistake, apologize, and make an honest effort to do better next time.
    • Wikimedia values transparency as form of honesty. We value a shared truth as a means to equity. We value openness as vulnerability. That’s the only way we’re going to get to the sum of all knowledge.
  • OSM has the ‘Map what’s on the ground‘ practice around knowledge. In Wikimedia I like to think that plays out similarly in the representation in who we are writing about and who is participating. If we don’t respect this “on the ground” knowledge people bring to the movement, we will fossilize and miss our goal.
  • Be humble.
  • Use your privilege for good. Be an advocate for others. There’s plenty of room at the Wikimedia table. The real threats are from known bad-actors (vandals, POV-pushers, paid editing) not from more diverse good-faith contributors. 
  • See an opportunity to improve behavior? Remind folks we don’t do that here.
  • Speak up and encourage reporting of actions that aren’t what we expect from one another. Reporting helps give a voice to underrepresented people and is the only way we can be aware of problems early. There are hundreds of reasons people won’t advocate for themselves. As a man, you can do this. Need some resources? 
  • Don’t pry with personal questions when someone tells a story about something that happened to them. You’re not a detective. It happened. Trust them unless they-as-an-individual give you a reason not to.
  • Commenting on someone’s appearance is a bad look. Unless it’s something that they can fix in 10 seconds; like a string hanging off their shirt or a bit of fuzz in their hair, don’t mention it.
  • Avoid unhealthy reinforcement of male-dominated culture. Sexual gratuity, punching-down, outrage culture bullshit, most of reddit. These are forms of extremism. Nothing good comes from extremism. Be like buddha, take the middle path.10 11
  • Get off the Internet. Go outside. Be with people. 12

Thanks to my wife Jackie for reading this over for me. For my dad for being an example of a good man. For my friends, family, and co-workers that listen and give feedback. 

A Wikimedia social network is a bad idea, but I still want it

I am of two minds.

A large part of the problem with social media of any kind is the interests and agendas of the organizations who fund the service are often opaque and definitely not innocent. Also the fact that as a user of a service that makes their money from selling advertising against the data you provide – you are not the customer. 1

The bigger issue, at least in my opinion, is that social media is not a healthy thing for any individual to consume.2 The psychological impact of seeing the perpetual “highlight reel” of everyone you remotely know – and comparing it to the “behind the scenes” of your individual daily life – is not healthy. These companies have built features to be addictive. The dopamine drip of notifications, updates, chat, ads, video, etc. all lead to an entire populace of people inundated with distractions from much more important things.3

Distraction is good, I enjoy playing video games as an example, but building something to purposefully prey on human behavior is the worst.

I’m not saying the Wikimedia moment couldn’t do it better, with more transparency and with the users as the customers. What I question is, should they?

But, to have a space to talk to like-minded Wikimedians that isn’t controlled by a terrible silicon-valley douchemobile would be very welcome. Something that would foster a healthy, ongoing community to talk to other contributors. A place to discuss the meta-work of Wikimedia projects in a space removed from the content. Not a talk page on-wiki, where the talk still feels like talking about the work, but in a separate venue. 4 There are Facebook groups already, but that’s not ideal. Not every is on Facebook and we’re giving more eyeballs – and predatory data collection practices – to a for-profit company. We do have in-person events which fulfill some of this need. But I feel our movement largely relies too much on these rare, expensive, and often inadvertently exclusionary in-person events.

A man can dream.

Inception for this post via: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/87bupa/imagine_that_jimmy_wales_and_the_other_good/

Be sure to read the linked article for more context. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-kuttner-facebook-regulation_us_5ab7ec8be4b054d118e41c76

Ad-hoc is Not Enough at Scale

There’s been a few recent conversations regarding social behavior and how to improve things within the Wikimedia movement that have caught my attention. I think these are important conversations to have, difficult and rife with misinterpretation and misunderstandings. They are, again in my opinion, the single most important thing our movement needs to figure out to succeed in increasing the diversity and representation within our movement. In both the content of our projects and those that choose to share their time in participation. We don’t need better software, we need better soft skills.

There needs to be a systemic rethinking of how we make it easier for folks to report behavioral issues – in the interface of things like WP:ANI, the handling of the case (private vs public) – but more importantly in the advocacy of “This is a place where we don’t tolerate harassment across the community – full stop. We want you to feel safe in coming forward with a report”.

We can’t continue to grow as a movement if we solely rely on individual admins and editors working in good faith in an ad-hoc manner. We can’t rely on people being strong enough in the face of adversity to have the energy to submit a report in public (with rather explicit instructions and requirements to boot).

It’s too inconsistent, fractured and obscure for mere mortals. 🙂 We need a critical rethinking of processes like ANI. We need research, design, and opportunities for admins to feel empowered to do this work.

Related: These shared experiences of a non-male community member in a male-dominated community. Like Wikimedia. Granted this is from another community outside of Wikimedia, but within the same society. There are very observable similarities.

https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/8t0wpb/are_you_gonna_play_the_victim_all_life_long_my/

Year One at the Wikimedia Foundation

Hairy, scary, and quite contrary.

What a year. When I published my two month reflection we had our Executive Director recently leave the organization after concern and frustration over their leadership, a sizable number of co-workers left related to the internal difficulties, and a sizable chunk of our bigger communities were rightfully antagonistic toward the foundation. It’s amazing we got anything done. 🙂

But we did, in spite of it all. I look back at just the teams I work with and can see a marked improvement in the trust in leadership, community relationships, and the actual products we develop and deliver to help folks around the projects.

I’m also encouraged by the formalization of the support community liaisons offer communities and product teams. We’re learning from our mistakes – not all the time, not everywhere – but we’ve built up some intrinsic knowledge on what to do, what not to do, and how to succeed when working with volunteers in the movement.

This is another reflection – mostly a ramble – to help me see what has happened and prepare for what is next. Enjoy, if that’s your sort of thing.

Scope

One of the complexities of the Wikimedia movement has recently dawned on me. The movement is vast, like ALL OF HUMANITY-level vast. Anyone with Internet access can be part of it. That’s a lot of voices.

Within the movement there are groups, some tightly affiliated like chapters and user groups, other loosely affiliated around a subject or interests (like maps or COI concerns), and then the multitude of affiliations any individual can muster in their contributions. From wiki gnomes to adopters of typos, to uploads of freely licensed cultural artifacts, to folks to take thousands of photos of video game paraphernalia.

A lot of time these are not separate groups. They overlap and intermingle. There are also editors that are not self-defined members of any group(s).

Then there’s the Wikimedia Foundation. About 285 people trying to understand and respond to the needs of all the above. And prioritize, and accomplish constantly progressing goals.

The scope of needs from the community is inherently diverse – we are a diverse movement and richer for it! 3D files, maps, better vandal tools, anti-harassment, GLAM, reading, mobile, editing, translation…the list goes on.

I sometimes worry that we (the foundation) are small, making it hard to focus on what to take care of next. I grapple with my own agency in the organization and the responsibilities to the teams I support. There’s so much to be done.

To compound that there is a feeling that we have hired volunteers from the community to work on things that interest them, further exacerbating the disconnect between what the communities wants and what we can deliver. What individual engineers like may be different that what the community wants. I’d like to think that the overwhelming majority of the work we do is a direct result of what the community needs and wants, but every once in a while I hear of something that doesn’t make sense to me – I fully admit this could be due to a simple lack of understating on my part.

What the community wants might even be, dare I say, boring and hard to rally the troops around. That can be tough to take on when there are so many shiny and interesting things just in arms reach.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we’re maturing in many ways and initiatives like the Community Tech team are a marked improvement. This is just a little thing in the back of my mind I’m bringing forward here.

An aside, I sometimes worry about us shying away from work that appears to be impossibly challenging – like say a single responsive design for MediaWiki. I also worry, as I myself have discovered, that once we hire volunteers it is rather hard to keep being a volunteer! I know my own participation in the MediaWiki Stakeholders’ group has waned in the last year, with the only significant contribution being attending and presenting at a few conferences.

It’s like anything you enjoy becoming your work, at the end of a long day you sometimes just want to put that aside and do something else.

Transparency

I think the way the grant information (and project in general) around Structured Data on Commons is an exemplary case of openness, proper early communication, and quick honest reply to community inquiry regarding details of the grant and otherwise. I think since our new ED has settled in we’re starting to be a little more open and less “gun-shy” in how we operate. I’m encouraged daily by particular staff and community members that keep us honest and remind us of the value of transparency. Many of the folks I work with know how to push on this facet of our movement in a constructive and collegiate way that makes taking that step into the open possible.

Toward a Healthier Community

I still am worried about folks who closely identify their sense of identity/self-worth/value with their contributions to the movement. I think we have many folks who are less than satisfied in other areas of life – or solely find satisfaction in the movement – who persist in our projects. I feel no ill will toward these folks, but genuine concern for their well-being. 1

Sometimes conversations can be frustrating. People on both sides can feel like they’re explaining something to a teenager – lots of talk, trying to make a convincing argument, but sometimes they listen and sometimes they just have to experience the situation themselves before learning.

I think we value too strongly contributions over behavior. While the traditional ‘workplace’ analogies have many flaws in an open and expansive movement like Wikimedia, I do think that if you’re not someone I can work with, I don’t want to work with you. Regardless of how smart, capable, experienced, etc. Life’s too short.

I think about my own experiences as a volunteer in other capacities. I’ve been part of a few communities for only a short time not because I wasn’t interested in the cause, but because the individuals participating were not kind to others – new comers in particular. That removes any emotional energy I could be using elsewhere.

However, I’m often commended by community and staff for remaining level-headed even in some of the challenging conversations that have ensued in the last year. That’s not to brag, but to say that even after a year I’m not yet a cynical husk of my former self. 🙂

The nice folks that I can get along with outnumber any grumps. I’ve even been surprised by how ‘the brightest burn fastest’ – that folks who skew toward extremes often burn out faster than those who follow the slow and steady.

My involvement in the Code of Conduct has been small, but sometimes frustrating. Some folks don’t like it. A lot more do. I recently caught this video from Raph Koster as he talked about the responsibilities involved in hosting online communities. It’s pretty much exactly why I think the behavioral side of our movement is so important.

Diversity

It’s interesting to me, as a college-educated, straight, white, dude in the mid-west, how often I find myself in conversations with folks not like me. It’s incredibly refreshing. I grew up in a poor, rural, very white county. The diversity in backgrounds, experiences, and voices is amazing. I’m using the meaning of that word in the literal sense – “Fill with astonishment”. It makes my own work better, the output of my team more nuanced, and the impact we have shows more care.

We need more of it and I’m happy to see that not only is my employer committed to it, but many efforts across the movement are as well.

Strategy

In the last year (and in particular the last few months) I’ve tried to be more aware and involved in discussions about strategy. From our quarterly goals, to annual planning, to strategy-wide discussions on the future of the movement. I have what I think is a decent understanding of what strategy is and why it is important, but never fully felt involved in how strategy is developed in any of the past organizations I worked for.

It’s not my strong suit. I feel like I’m very much a tactical “keep things running smoothly” kind of person, so expanding my knowledge on strategy and annual planning has been challenging. We have an internal study group and one of the suggestions was to read a book called the Starfish and the Spider. I thought it was a good read and helpful to understand the conundrums of being part of a spider organization that supports a starfish organization. 2

Work is Weird

I still struggle with understanding the norms of professionalism in the organization. I’m encouraged by the organization’s support of allowing employees to contribute to participate as volunteers – even when that means expressing options tha counter staff-lead initiatives or work. There are still occasions when I am pleasantly shocked that a co-worker responds in such a public matter. In my experiences at more traditionally organized ‘top-down’ organizations folks wouldn’t even consider speaking so openly and with the fear that the result would not be kind. I’m happy, but still baffled sometimes, that folks speak up regardless of hierarchy.

The diversity of initiatives and voices can make things seem a little like a cacophony. There is a lot of agency, if you’re willing to put in the effort, of defining the work to be done and how to approach it.

Working remotely from home has its ups-and-downs. I’ve started not going out as much with the cold weather over the last few months. I’m hoping to change that as the prospect of leaving my cozy little hole increases with the change in seasons. My wife is currently involved in about a dozen different operations, most of which afford her the ability to work from home as well. Having my family in arms reach can be helpful when having a stressful day. Hugs from a two-year-old a few feet away is a must in any future work arrangement.

I also need to start bugging friends to get out for lunch. I haven’t been very good about that as of late.3

Travel is something I’ve always enjoyed – especially when I have the privilege of doing so for work. I really enjoy meeting new people, listening to their interests and frustrations and learning more about how things work. It’s exhausting, tough work to be “on” for many hours in a day (and many days in a row!) as a representative of the foundation. I don’t take the responsibility lightly and try to get as much out of any event as possible. But I will be honest, I really love it.

I still struggle with confidence in my work. I work for a well-respected organization, with many smart people with impressive professional experience – and that applies equally to the folks I work with in our communities! I’m much more confident now a year later in knowing how to get stuff done, what to pay attention to, who to include, and how to organize discussions, but I’m still very much the “Gee golly, I’m sure glad to be here!” kind of guy.  I’ve been a little more bold in asking for help and leading conversations when I think necessary. So far? No one has complained. 4

Things they don’t tell you when you join the foundation

As a small aside, I was recently asked what sort of items would I include in our existing on boarding materials. I found out after the fact that many of my thoughts here are already shared in our documentation, but I must have missed them! Here’s my short list:

  1. Understanding the relationship between the foundation and communities. It’s different from other open-source/knowledge organizations. The communities came first, then the foundation. That might be different for folks use to a more ‘traditional’ model of org first then volunteers. Especially around decision-making and when and where the WMF becomes involved (or purposefully does not).
  2. Be okay with asking for help and proactively reaching out to folks with questions. We’re a good-sized organization, with a larger volunteer base that a single person could not be fully be aware of all the things all the time. We are also very remote friendly. These two things can lead to feeling a little lost – especially when new.
  3. I think this is understood as a certain level of professionalism regardless of your employ, but the movement has a low tolerance of BS. I don’t mean outright lying – which is inexcusable pretty much anywhere – but in over-promising with good intent. Just state the facts, don’t make assumptions (again, even with good intents), and make sure any claims can be backed up with data, experiences, community discussion, etc.
  4. Many folks are drawn to participate in the movement by ideological goals set forth in our mission and values. These are good, inspiring goals to aim toward. We also live in a world limited by time and space. 🙂 I think it’s prudent to help newcomers understand that the way forward is a balance between the two. Some community members (like any member of society at large) are strongly ideological, others more pragmatic. Being able to understand the two and how to navigate the conversations between is the only way this all works.
  5. Change is a constant. Sometimes it’s slowly, sometimes quickly. Being OK with that and having a healthy balance in the gaps in between is important. Perhaps not specific to foundation work, but remote work, with multiple responsibilities and efforts (spinning plates) you can sometimes start your day feeling underwhelmed/overwhelmed and end the day with the exact opposite. Ok, maybe it’s not that dramatic, but the fluctuation is noticeably more present here than in past experiences. I think that the fact that our movement is so global, or products/technology so diverse (mobile, to data analytics, to editing, to search to…), and our projects so active that it can be a little jarring.

Projects

Wow, I somehow ended up supporting more than just Discovery over the course of this year, and successfully at that! I’ve been helping the Reading department with a few of their products. It’s interesting to see the differences in style between the teams and how they approach organizing their work. So far my plate is full, but manageable.

The search team is almost ready to share some of the really impactful work around search engine results page. Bringing in content from sister projects to the results and showing richer metadata around the results I think will really help folks trying to find information “on-wiki”.

Reading has a new feature that we’re slowly rolling out called Page Previews. It’s currently the most popular beta feature on the English Wikipedia (and pretty popular elsewhere) and will soon be available for all folks as a default setting. While not revolutionary, it’s an evolutionary approach to quickly surfacing more information to folks who visit the site. 5

Something Like a Conclusion

I like the folks I work with. They are some of the most compassionate and supportive folks I’ve been thrown together with. I’m impressed with the leadership folks I work with in trying to keep things organized and well understood across teams and departments. We’re not perfect, but we try to assume good faith at every turn and are genuinely caring in how we work with one another.

I think I’ll stick around.