Organization
In all non-profits there is the concept of a normal organization, from the leaders to the folks working on projects to others doing more administrative activities. In other words a hierarchy and a need for lots of money. There is the need to raise funds and make key strategic decisions and drive progress, largely in-house. In other words the management controls resources that are captive. This requires a large effort to raise funds, and when the opposition is out-raising you 1000 to 1, what do you do? What if there was another way, that included lots of people making small and large contributions of time? Skeptics all around want to fight the good fight but not alone. Can such an org be managed or even constructed? Clearly with 50 to 100 people working here and there, a lot can happen in a few months. It can certainly prove the concept and depending on how skilled and time dedicated, the org could accomplish a lot. if there is a structured goal that allows for people to sign up to goals however large or small. It could function in essence as crowd sourcing for time not money. Checkout the Peter Ridd crowd funding of his GoFundMe effort to achieve the funds needed for his defense. The organization can involve structure as needed and as enabled by the skills in the volunteers. It would be a structure somewhat like Google with flat mgmt. hierarchy, teams self-organized and so on. There could also be a Bd of Directors who function as enablers and quality assurance in the messages. Having a Chief Management Officer is about the only position that is needed, and that should change from time to time. No room for egos wanting control, just people wanting results.
There are precedents for such an org. The internet has enabled quite a few. One I am familiar with is the African Library Project, which enables largely youth in the US to gather gently used books and be matched with a school in Africa. ALP as an org has a structure of volunteers that change over time and yet with a simple structure have delivered 2800 libraries over a 12 year period. Parts interchange and some play large, multiple roles. It is amorphous, organic while dealing with 8 countries, shippers, and partners in Africa. There is not a lot of money involved, nor a benefactor who funds the fixes. It simply is driven by the needs of the kids in Africa. We are within openS driven by the future of kids all around the world including Africa.
In an organization suitable for this distributed activity there are a variety of roles manned by teams. Response teams have topical focus. Execution teams are about having a good set of websites and supporting materials. There are leaders that define themselves largely. Organizing what are literally volunteers is a challenging process. Most non-profits are more process driven. For this movement to be successful it must be objective driven. With detailed outlines on each topic and website, it should be possible to fill in the line items from various sources. Usually this would mean some person takes the lead and others offer suggestions or edits per page. Links can be added by all.
Some have asked if this is like Wikipedia in essence? The answer is not completely. It is collaborative in content generation, which is easily doable via Google docs. Folks can have a Google Meet and work on the documents in real time. Once the content is complete then the editorial process can begin, asking the questions is this page with the right voice, and is the content both correct and believable. So a little like Wikipedia with quality control. It will allow for content creation to be updated and more detailed articles and results to be added at the lower level as time progresses. When there is an issue then the topical response team leader can step in, or an expert content person to offer suggestions.
In other words a self-organizing system to generate the material using all sources. The familiar sources of information would all be capable of adding anything that added to the experience. Since the intent is to provide a discovery and educational process of value to the general public as well as to drill down into the complexity (again at the lower level in the flow), all can participate. Even suggesting questions is of value, for someone can then answer it in a systematic flow. It may be that adding comments at the bottom of every page during the construction phase is a good thing, or perhaps even in the end might be of value.
Given that this encourages chaos, there will need to be some guidance and even intervention from time to time. I suspect that also will occur with those good at this management rising to the occasion. A central small group can help make sure that some are empowered towards assuming this responsibility.
This all depends on the attractiveness to volunteer and add even a small amount of value. There will naturally be some who will rise to a higher level of commitment. The familiar 80-20 rule might become a 90-10 in effect. With any organization like this there will need to be good communication at the team and overall level. There will also need be cheerleaders pushing the group forward. These should be well known media heroes from within the stars of the skeptical movement.
As with anything entrepreneurial like this activity, there are concepts, explanations, and challenges. The early process if well managed can enable the momentum to build and the measured progress to build. If there was an effective and sustainable organization that can easily spur many activities like speaker group or social networking exchanges. The bottom line is to give skeptics a chance to fight back with an org that allows for that.
(title)