Comments (1 - 20 of 77)
|
|
@ Riversong: Sorry to hear you are thinking of leaving. The impetus for the change (incorporating For-profits and Govt Agencies in the organizational database) comes from the belief that all sectors of society (non-profit, for-profit and government) must step-up and contribute to solve the big issues that we face. From the very beginning WiserEarth was going to include a WiserBusiness and WiserGovernment angle - so there is really no change in direction except to combine them all on one site. The request for including for-profits was very much community driven - there are numerous big groups on WiserEarth that work with for-profits in an effort to make them more sustainable. WiserEarth is not serving the for-profit master - WE will not be taking money from for-profits for listings. Hope that explains where I think WiserEarth is going.
|
|
I just composed a lengthy response to this issue, but it failed to post.
Suffice it to say that I am sufficiently concerned both about the nature of this change and about the decision-making process that led to it that I am leaving this "community".
There will not be a sustainable world until we determine to focus our effort on serving community rather than on profit, which is unearned income that concentrates wealth into the few at the expense of the many and of the web of life.
It is not possible to simultaneously do well and do good. One cannot serve two masters.
|
|
|
Here is some initial feedback / suggestions for improvement on the recent launch of this feature: · Suggest changing the pie chart icon used for for-profits for something else – such as a $ in a circle · Suggest changing the recycle sign used for ngos for something else – the recycle sign has a very specific meaning, we should be able to come up with something less specific such as a bunch of people with a green. · Make the icons seem like part of a group / consistent – start with the govt agency icon (which is great) – a icon in a red circle and do the same with the others (e.g. a $ sign in a yellow circle, a bunch of people in a green circle etc). The icons should be clearly part of a group. · Suggest moving the icon and type (e.g. Government Agency) down a line in the layout under the name – or up a line. Right now there is too much to read and with orgs with long names and akas it’s a problem · Add ability to browse orgs by type |
|
|
Here is a link to my fundraising (and more) idea: Market/ Outreach/ Youth: Wiser*** +6.684billion
Note that I originally came up with the wiserbusiness certification idea = in an attempt to reach a middle ground on this issue and give the members of the community who are not participating financially an oppurtunity to participate in the decision making process.
That evolved into a more sophisticated Wiser*** idea; see the link above.
Here is a link to a wiki that mentions some confusion with regard to the vision for wiserearth: |
|
|
This is the declarative sentence which describes the process that this wiki outlines:
The funding participants and their personal network decided:
For Profit Entities will be included on WE to meet resource/ funding needs.
And they decided that the community's opinion is not relevant: You made it clear you are operating from an ideological perspective.... that is the most obvious weakness/ inconsistency of the system, that is what discourages thinking/ participation etc., that is why this resource is under-utilized and not as effective as it could be.
I did get some clarification with regard to NCI not suggesting a specific payment model... thanks. Corruption is inevitable regardless... unless the decision making process is decoupled from financial participation; active WE users have an oppurtunity to take ownership over this website as is consistent with the language that markets this website.
Hopefully that, along with the previous post, explains the perspective better... |
|
|
My question was not answered: There was no question. And I don't know where to start...
The thing is a textbook ideology, a textbook ism. It is inarguable. Jon you are speaking from the ideological perspective, I am not = that is the difference. Until you choose to go back and start answering some of Bowo etc.'s questions; I feel my posts more consistently reflect the questions and perspective of the non-NCI community than yours.
: a survey, 20 page pdf document etc. would have been a start.
I could go on: but I feel you refuse to listen so it is an exercise in futility...
Jon, you mentioned that you would be willing to help raise funds: I too have thought about this; please take the time to see my wiser*** idea = it solves all of these issues and a million more.
|
|
Thank you Jon for answering JT's question. We are keenly aware of not having for-profit entities oveshadow the work of non-profits, and this is particularly why WiserEarth does not support advertising and has not accepted any sort of payment model from for-profits.
|
|
@JTHESSERT
I don't even know where to start. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that we are speaking for ourselves. I don't believe you are speaking for the community nor am I speaking for community. WE is open to anyone to join. WE doesn't restrict people by race or religion. We don't restrict people by affiliation. In other words we don't say that someone can't join WE because they work for a for-profit company, or because they work for government agency. All are welcome to join. I suspect that most people think this is a good approach. I know I do. The challenge is that if you're working on making just and lasting change happen in communities then the directory of participants should include those organizations that are working for that change. The directory functions as a way to describe and discover those organizations. This becomes most apparent when you set up group and you want to invite everyone in was working in your group. And if you want to list all the organizations that are affiliated with the people in that group what do you tell the people that are working at for-profit companies and government agencies? It just so happens that I was involved with WE before it was released to the public. I am proud to say that I contributed in some very small way to making this resource available. I offer you the historical reference that it was always intended that the directory be expanded to include naming those for-profit companies and government agencies that share our values and commitment to a just and sustainable world. If you look at the projects I'm involved with as the Executive Director of the Interra project you will see that they are multi-stakeholder processes, e.g. the Roots of Change. In other words they include nonprofits, for profits, and supportive government agencies. That is why I made the suggestion to include them. There are challenges to raise the funds to maintain a resource such as this. But I know of no payment plan for including anyone in wiserearth. Wiserearth is noncommercial, open source, and I hope it stays that way. I know that I would be willing to help raise funds for it to avoid charging people to participate. |
|
|
Flow Chart
Funders make decisions I= For Profit entities are allowed to fund WE I= For Profit entities are allowed to make decisions I= Funders employ administrators who decide whether or not to listen to concerns/ ideas of community. I= For Profit employ admin who decide whether or not to listen to concerns/ ideas of community I= For Profit decide whether or not to listen to community ideas/ concerns I= Concerns/ ideas of the community do not matter, on the topics where they have greatest importance. I= Conclusion: Corruption/ commercialization of network is inevitable (it is already happening): clearly the current system is in direct contradiction to "purpose" of NCI with regard to bridging the gap between those within, and those not within, the 'loci of power..' new system of collaboration etc.. This system makes it impossible for someone to participate in the decision making process unless they participate financially; which is inconsistent to many of the words on the NCI website. By operating with this ideology-rooted system: you "discourage thinking and get bad results" (Bill Clinton); you fail to capitilize on the creativity and problem solving skills of your user-base... the same failure is evident in the real world on a much grander scale. In other words: "you already got your mind made up, you know all the answers, and that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time, so you tend to govern by assertion"(bill clinton) By operating with this imbalanced ideology-rooted system that favors the affluent/ elite you set yourselves -- and us all -- up to fail, rather than to truly collaborate... and succeed. A solution would be to democratize the system, create a way for active WE members to be able to participate in the decision making process: regardless of financial contribution. I think ... wiser*** would work to do this on many levels... both in the real world(on a global society level), and on this website .... and it would honor all the current language of NCI / wiserearth. I believe it deserves implementation. |
|
|
Thank you for your reply,
The question is: What are the specifics of the payment plan/ accepting funding from for-profits with the recent change in the principles etc.: will they be required to pay? Will they be invited to pay under a certain model? Whose decision was this? Why did Jon / NCI staff not directly communicate this over the course of this wiki (I realize he did it initially; he said the partners already made the decision)... Why did he continue to reframe / mislead during our disscusion: when Angus Parker/ Bowo/ Myself and others sought clarification... Why was he able to do this/ and slight individuals/ brush off their comments : when their comments were right on the mark: I clearly identified the fact he was reframing, I clearly identified the fact that the community of users did not support allowing for-profits in the directory if that decision aligned with a payment plan / donations/ invitations to donate etc..... I asked repeatedly for him to separate his "suggestion" from melinda's comment : so that the community could clearly understand what was occuring for the sake of our values... He did not do this: because they were one and the same: for profits are able to pay with the new model; commercialization is inevitable: the partners make the decisions : they fund the website: a for profit organization/ individual partners with NCI; they make the decisions as a product of funding the website. technically = it is an ideaology/ and an ism... etc. thanks |
|
JTHESSERT,
Thank you for bringing forward your concern. In terms of our process, WiserEarth administrators currently review on a regular basis all the suggestions from the WiserEarth Community. We identify the ones that get more interest from the community and evaluate the cost of implementing those along with insuring that those suggestions fit the mission and vision of WiserEarth. The final decision to implement a new feature is made by the administrators and staff of WiserEarth. Once a decision is made, the paid staff write the technical requirements along with the technical implementation. There are currently a lot of partnerships between businesses, non profits, and public agencies to create creative solutions to social and environmental challenges. WISER, which stands for World Index for Social and Environmental Responsibility, attempts to serve the people who are transforming the world. Just like the community that has been expressing the importance of cross collaboration across sectors, we felt that WiserEarth could be a perfect space for all those initiatives to be more visible and therefore help to move us towards a sustainable world. Not listing for-profit organizations leaves out a big part of the picture. We're relying on the community to ensure that the proper organizations, non-profit, for-profit, or otherwise are listed in the directory. |
|
|
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
------ President Abraham Lincoln ------ 
|
|
|
I think a public apology from NCI and Jon Ramer to the community is in order. Take ownership on the mess you created and initiate some basic communication and leadership. Thanks.
|
|
|
It teaches people to expect little -- when we should have the RIGHT to expect the best.
Also notice that the disscusion "rights of WiserEarthlings" is marked for removal. Deleting history in a flurry? as all the values documents are casually edited.... ? ties into this : http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/731ca7b5f7e72fbe498d8cc06ab07c3a |
|
|
Maybe at this point -- since the inclusion process has begun -- . Jon and Melinda and the NCI Team might chose to explain
- why organizations exist as people on wiserearth - why the language of the principles reflects melinda's suggestion to invite for-profit entities to pay for their space on wiserearth.org.: WiserEarth does not charge fees or accept advertising. /> Jon, your argument seems to have completely lost its credibility....? Or am I missing something? NCIism |
|
|
I think this disscusion is relevant: How to attract a greater diversity of people on WiserEarth
http://www.wiserearth.org/forum/view/8f001e495fbbb964289934e7e5510ab6 |
|
|
GENTLE SUGGESTION: (YOU SHOULD START OVER): that the NCI Team communicate with the WiserEarth Partners and collectively decide to take responsibility for what they have created and marketed and respect the global community of people who have logged on to wiserearth.org with user profiles by:
Send a message to all 15000 + users including:
a 20 + page minimum PDF document that comprehensively covers/ addresses all the issues the community has brought forward on this wiki and the main discussion forum. Explain why this is a solution, what it solves and how that fits into the bigger picture of website dynamics, funding, original vs evolving 'vision'. Complete with sources/ links to other relevant documents, for example: http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/d0c746b6d270bc2d0efb9cf57ef11cc1 and
http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/77eb5dc2698468bf40533f14334a6f82
a 20 -40 question survey that includes questions which should encourage users to think about this issue from all angles.
A feedback / comment area for users to voice their thoughts/ concerns/ ideas. You never know = there is a chance one of the 15000 + people might actually have something to add that you might not have thought of yourselves. It is a possibility. Maybe it will meet your needs and also address the concerns of other people at the same time... maybe it will meet the needs of your regional multi stakeholder groups, and also meet the needs of wiserearth.org multi-lingual international users? maybe it will meet the selfish needs of For Profits while making WE more sustainable? Also site links to this discussion and the discussion on the main forum.
This might help some of the people who seem to be having difficulty understanding the concerns with the current implementation "suggestion", understand that their are in fact other WiserEarth users with valuable perspectives.
The Principles and the Community Guidelines were exhaustively violated by NCI and NCI affiliates on this wiki:
including for profits on we is a MANDATE not a suggestion. maybe there should be a MANDATE area on WiserEarth? Can we have a rule where Mandates within the suggestion group are earmarked as Mandates that way their is no confusion by users so they dont waste their time trying to collaborate? that way people would not be confused = It would be clear that you want co-operation not collaboration. you want to be respected but you dont want to give respect. you want your personal interests -- the needs of your geographic network's community -- serviced by this website in the shorterm, you dont want to involve a global community in building something meaningful for the long term.
The Wiser Earth "principles" of transparency/ respect/ community/ networking/ collaboration/ visibility -- were all broken with regard to this wiki. I still cannot believe the message / survey was not sent to all users prior to the partners decision coming down from on high. If the partners made the decision = they ought to be here on this wiki comment section defending their decision. If that job is delegated to the staff = the staff should do that job. Or a lot of the language/ rules should be changed and the NCIism approach should be made clear. maybe before they made the decision they could have involved/ delegated to the community the survey development, sent the question/ survey to the 15000+ user emails and recieved some valuable feedback that would position them to make a more sustainable initial solution? The process was not just, the solution is not sustainable and it was not created by community.
If you choose not to do the above= We feel you are obligated to drop the pretense about global social justice / environmental restoration and mapping etc., and admit that personal/ regional needs/ exposure take a priority. |
|
|
Relevant comment from Editorial Review of Don't think of an Elephant =
"This is a pocket manifesto for those who still wonder how a small group of rich, powerful oligarchs tied together the shoelaces of the progressive movement. Read it once, and know why we are losing. Read it twice, and we can restore sanity to the world." ph |
|
|
@Bowo: Great comments. I think these would be useful additions to the guidelines.
|
@ Angus. I outlined the wiservid idea more clearly here: