Translation requests/WQ/3/Pt

Página 1

Página 2

A missão da Wikimedia é dar ao mundo conhecimento para cada uma das pessoas neste planeta e na sua própria língua. Como parte desta missão, a Wikipédia é o primeiro e mais avançado esforço para criar e distribuir uma enciclopédia livre da maior qualidade possível. Perguntar se a comunidade vem antes ou depois deste objetivo é realmente perguntar a questão errada: o propósito total da comunidade é este.

Eu não sei de qualquer caso onde há uma verdadeira tensão entre estas duas coisas. Isto é o núcleo central da comunidade, as pessoas que estão fazendo realmente o trabalho, são todas apaixonadas sobre este ponto: que nós estamos criando algo de extrema alta qualidade, não apenas construindo uma comunidade online para sua própria existência.

A comunidade não vem antes de nossa tarefa, e sim em torno dela. A diferença é simplesmente que decisões devem ser tomadas, não nos grounds de expediency social ou credenciais populares da maioridade ou tradicionais, mas na luz dos requerimentos para a função que nos dedicamos.

Eu não apóio a visão de que a Wikipédia seja anti-elitista ou anti-experts de qualquer forma (uma visão, até onde eu sei, defendida por uma franca minoria). Pelo contrário, nós somos extremamente elitistas, porém, somos anti-credencialistas. Isto é, nós procuramos por pessoas inteligentes e cultas interessadas em fazer o trabalho duro de colaborar com outros em busca de precisão e equilíbrio, e não aceitamos nada menos que isto. Um doutor é uma evidência válida deste desejo, e atrair e manter acadêmicos e especialistas é um de nossos objetivos.

Entretanto, um diploma não é um substituto destas qualidades. São possíveis casos de doutores que pensam ninguém mais deveria editar seus artigos especializados, ou quem não consiga ver seu ponto de vista desafiado, ou não têm nenhuma paciência para discussão. Nestes casos, a experiência destas pessoas é de um valor limitado; se alguém não consegue trabalhar de uma forma amigável em um contexto social, e sente que suas credenciais habilitam-nas a serem a última palavra em algum assunto, isto é um problema para eles e para nós. Nós sempre teremos de promover julgamentos complexos sobre como lidar com tais situações.

Estou 100% comprometido com um objetivo de alcançar a qualidade de uma "enciclopédia tradicional ou melhor" para a Wikipédia e todas nossas regras sociais devem envolver-se em torno disso. Abertura e inclusão são indispensáveis para nós, mas estes são nossos meios radicais para nossos fins radicais.

It has been one year since Angela and I were elected to the board of directors; an exciting year, but also a difficult one. And, it was the first year of real operation of the Foundation and its board.

In June 2004, the Foundation's birth was, above all, a declaration of intent by Jimbo. Its aim was to create a legal structure to provide for the needs of the Wikimedia projects and to help these projects in their development, while promoting their free and open qualities. In short, it aimed to remove the commercial tinge of earlier times, such as, associations with wikipedia.com and bomis.com, and to fully assume a certain ideological stance.

One year ago, the Foundation existed on paper, but it had no real existence. Jimbo had a certain idea of what the board would be like. He imagined quaterly meetings and some agreements in principle. All things considered, not a demanding activity...

Quote : "The role of the board is *not* generally to get involved in the day-to-day operation of the website. The board is a legal entity entrusted with ultimate decision making for the Foundation. Website governance is a different matter altogether. I don't anticipate that the board will be a difficult or demanding position." -- Jimmy Wales

This was not exactly Angela's or my point of view; Angela and I had both planned to do a little more than "take part in some meetings"... and, I am afraid that we made a little bit more exciting position :-)

Whereas Jimbo took care of a good part of the technical and financial management, we slowly endeavoured to bring our conceptions of our roles to life: to relay to Jimbo the opinions of the editors; to organize the general operation of the Foundation; to announce decisions taken by the board; to support editor initiatives; and to gradually to help Jimbo in certain tasks, which he could not reasonably continue to become yet more involved in.

I often hear people ask But how do you operate? And, well... this evolved over the course of the year. During the summer of 2004, all three of us were relatively available, and could discuss issues all day on the IRC channels. The three of us had occasion to meet three times, in July, in November, and in December. Jimbo and Angela worked together with the BBC in London during the autumn...
For Angela and myself, the most difficult thing was to find our place and, yet, to avoid stepping on each others' toes. This was not always easy; we both had a very strong wish to be useful and to see our work appreciated.

Today, things are different. Angela and I are also very involved in our professional activities and our personal lives. Our hours of presence on IRC now coincide only partially. Jimbo is frequently gone during the week, as the worldwide success of our projects has led to ever-mounting requests for presentations about the project. And, he devotes his weekends to his personal life.

What could be a negative point, that is, less availability for Wikimedia, and increased stress due to tighter management of our time, has also, I think, become a positive point; we have devoted much time to the Foundation, yet we also have our own private existence. We do not depend entirely on the project.

Currently, we, therefore, function much more asynchronously, by mail and by one-on-one discussions on IRC. It happens more frequently that Angela or I let ourselves occupy a role previously managed by Jimbo, such as responding to local conflicts or following up on legal requests. Since the tasks are numerous, we try division of labour... at the risk of sometimes lacking information about some issue already being handled by another member of the board.

Some board activities are visible to editors. Among the most conspicuous are the signing of a partnership with Yahoo! or the participation in a Wikipedia meeting. But, more generally, its actions are visible neither on the wiki, nor on the most-known discussion lists. Our daily activities may consist of managing innumerable emails, drawing up a budget, contributing to the organization of events, taking part in the development and the diffusion of the Quarto and press releases, updating the Foundation Website, promoting the creation of new departments and their discussion lists, following the proceedings of legal accusations of slander or copyright violations, considering the legalities of logo use, mediating conflicts on the individual projects, tapping developers for information, organizing grant meetings, signing petitions, presenting the projects at conferences, responding to interviews and the press, ordering hardware, inquiring after not-profit status, organizing income tax returns and fundraising, analyzing and commenting on contracts with partners, following and supporting the creation of local chapters, relaying requests from editors, etc....

As all this could not be managed by one tiny group alone, which is sometimes badly informed on the grounds for and the outcomes of each decision -- for example, none of us has legal training. Therefore, it is necessary to weave a permanent fabric of collaborators and hope that all turns out for best.

And generally, THAT WORKS! Unfortunately, the multitude of daily tasks also pushes back significant decisions concerning the proper evolution of the Foundation.

The Foundation has functioned this year on the model described above -- with failures, partial successes, and successes. Its role has been created day by day, according to changing needs, by striving for a constant but reasoned growth: through striving for decision-making by consensus, not by vote; and through supporting the suggestions of many people and listening as much as we could. I hope that it will continue to grow according to this model, gradually and continuously building the solid basis of operation, which it needs.

Florence Nibart-Devouard, "Anthere" 17:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC) [reply ]