[Wikimedia-l] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Katherine Maher
Hi y'all!

*Summary: Cycle 2 has concluded, and we are sharing a revised plan for
Cycle 3 based on your feedback.*

Thank you to everyone that participated in Cycle 2![1] A quick overview of
participation:
- More than 50 Wikimedia groups, including:
-- Art+Feminism User Group
-- WikiDonne's User Group
-- Wikimedia Ghana User Group
-- Wikimedia Poland
- More than 1,000 individual participants
- Nearly 2,300 statements

In addition to the weekly summaries already available on Meta-Wiki,[2] we
will also be posting a final report in the coming weeks.

Over the past few weeks I’ve heard from many of you with feedback,
concerns, and excitement regarding the movement strategy. Thank you, truly,
to everyone that has reached out to share your thoughts. They have been so
helpful in understanding your perspectives and needs.

Some things I’ve heard:

- Curiosity around how the findings from the different tracks will come
together
- Request from affiliates for more time to engage more deeply in these
topics
- Passionate and divergent ideas from non-editors who support our vision
- A desire to get as many endorsements from around the movement on the
strategic direction as possible

I asked the strategy team for help in responding to this feedback, so we
could improve the process based on what you were telling us. After
discussions with the team and community advisors, we have decided to move
to a more flexible schedule, and change the timeline. This will provide
more time for discussions in your own communities. We also hope you will
use the time to deeply consider the research emerging from the New Voices
track,[3] and incorporate it into the way you are thinking about our future.

Here is the new proposed timeline:

-  July: Complete Cycle 3. Integrate insights from New Voices. Draft the
strategic direction.
-  August: Share the strategic direction. Wikimania! Finalize the direction.
-  September: Sign on! Confirm support from around the movement.

As July approaches, we will share more information about opportunities to
participate in drafting the strategic direction[4] and engage with New
Voices content.[3]

Thank you for your patience as we worked through these improvements, and
again, thank you for the feedback!

*On a related note*

As you have hopefully noticed, Wikimania is a part of the strategy process
and it is coming up soon! (I’m so excited!) A draft program schedule has
been posted[5]. The schedule includes five keynote sessions from great
speakers such as Esra'a Al Shafei [6] and Evan Prodromou,[7] more than 100
community-submitted talks, and two days of hackathon and pre-conference
activities. Early bird pricing for registration ends on July 10 and the
deadline for booking accommodations in the hotel is June 30, so if you have
not done so already - please register today![8]

Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”)
Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9]

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/Reach
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participate
[5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esra%27a_Al-Shafei
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Prodromou
[8] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration
[9]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process

--
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
[hidden email]
https://annual.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Pine W
Hi Katherine,

Thanks for the update.

My impression is that the strategy process is time intensive for the staff
and the consultants involved, and I am concerned that extending the
timeline like this will result in significant extra costs on top of what
was already understood to be an expensive process, and my impression from
your email is that the benefit from this extension will primarily go to the
relatively small number of users, staff, and other stakeholders who are
deeply involved in some affiliates.

How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source
are the funds being drawn?

Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who
are not involved with affiliates?

I am mindful of the many things that would be good to do in the Wikiverse
that aren't being done due to financial and HR constraints, and I am
concerned that this extension of the timeline will cost a lot of money (it
wouldn't surprise me if the number was five or six figures) that could
instead have been used for any number of other good projects.

Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?

Thank you,

Pine


On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Katherine Maher <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi y'all!
>
> *Summary: Cycle 2 has concluded, and we are sharing a revised plan for
> Cycle 3 based on your feedback.*
>
> Thank you to everyone that participated in Cycle 2![1] A quick overview of
> participation:
> - More than 50 Wikimedia groups, including:
> -- Art+Feminism User Group
> -- WikiDonne's User Group
> -- Wikimedia Ghana User Group
> -- Wikimedia Poland
> - More than 1,000 individual participants
> - Nearly 2,300 statements
>
> In addition to the weekly summaries already available on Meta-Wiki,[2] we
> will also be posting a final report in the coming weeks.
>
> Over the past few weeks I’ve heard from many of you with feedback,
> concerns, and excitement regarding the movement strategy. Thank you, truly,
> to everyone that has reached out to share your thoughts. They have been so
> helpful in understanding your perspectives and needs.
>
> Some things I’ve heard:
>
> - Curiosity around how the findings from the different tracks will come
> together
> - Request from affiliates for more time to engage more deeply in these
> topics
> - Passionate and divergent ideas from non-editors who support our vision
> - A desire to get as many endorsements from around the movement on the
> strategic direction as possible
>
> I asked the strategy team for help in responding to this feedback, so we
> could improve the process based on what you were telling us. After
> discussions with the team and community advisors, we have decided to move
> to a more flexible schedule, and change the timeline. This will provide
> more time for discussions in your own communities. We also hope you will
> use the time to deeply consider the research emerging from the New Voices
> track,[3] and incorporate it into the way you are thinking about our future.
>
> Here is the new proposed timeline:
>
> -  July: Complete Cycle 3. Integrate insights from New Voices. Draft the
> strategic direction.
> -  August: Share the strategic direction. Wikimania! Finalize the
> direction.
> -  September: Sign on! Confirm support from around the movement.
>
> As July approaches, we will share more information about opportunities to
> participate in drafting the strategic direction[4] and engage with New
> Voices content.[3]
>
> Thank you for your patience as we worked through these improvements, and
> again, thank you for the feedback!
>
> *On a related note*
>
> As you have hopefully noticed, Wikimania is a part of the strategy process
> and it is coming up soon! (I’m so excited!) A draft program schedule has
> been posted[5]. The schedule includes five keynote sessions from great
> speakers such as Esra'a Al Shafei [6] and Evan Prodromou,[7] more than 100
> community-submitted talks, and two days of hackathon and pre-conference
> activities. Early bird pricing for registration ends on July 10 and the
> deadline for booking accommodations in the hotel is June 30, so if you have
> not done so already - please register today![8]
>
> Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”)
> Katherine
>
> PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9]
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Cycle_2
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Sources
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Cycle_2/Reach
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Participate
> [5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esra%27a_Al-Shafei
> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Prodromou
> [8] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration
> [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_
> movement_strategy_process
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 149 New Montgomery Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885>
> +1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873>
> [hidden email]
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Affiliates mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Strainu
2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who
> are not involved with affiliates?

Hi Pine,

I would like to give my view on this since extending the deadlines was
the main feedback that I gave after the last phase of the
consultation. I think it is extremely important that as many people as
possible can weigh in on the process, so that they can, hopefully,
identify with and support the output of the consultation, even if it
might not fully reflect their own opinions.

Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
available in the strategy process.

By asking different members of the strategy team it became obvious
that the delay was caused by organizational tasks, which should have
been done before Cycle 2 begins, but the time was insufficient.
Therefore, I believe that extending the timeline is a good idea - a
cycle should only begin after it's been thoroughly prepared and
outreach can begin from day 1. If the WMF team is efficient enough is
a totally different question, on which I don't have an opinion.

Strainu

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Yaroslav Blanter
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> who
> > are not involved with affiliates?
>
>
>
> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> available in the strategy process.
>
>
> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round
2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have
not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May
be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.

Cheers
Yaroslav
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
otherwise it will not get published [2].

A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects
other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and
there is no research into its value.

The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.

Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so
far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message
and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.

Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
Thanks,
       GerardM


[1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
traffic.
[2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
Wikipedia..

On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> > who
> > > are not involved with affiliates?
> >
> >
> >
> > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > available in the strategy process.
> >
> >
> > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round
> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have
> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May
> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Leinonen Teemu
Hej,

Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-) is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons, but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that large majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be great.

-Teemu

> Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello 13.00:
>
> Hoi,
> The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
> can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
> effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> otherwise it will not get published [2].
>
> A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects
> other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and
> there is no research into its value.
>
> The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
>
> Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so
> far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message
> and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
>
> Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
> [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> traffic.
> [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> Wikipedia..
>
>> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
>>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>>> who
>>>> are not involved with affiliates?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
>>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
>>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
>>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
>>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
>>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
>>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
>>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
>>> available in the strategy process.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
>> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
>> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
>> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round
>> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
>> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
>> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
>> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have
>> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May
>> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
>> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
>> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
>> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
>> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
>> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Rogol Domedonfors
This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hej,
>
> Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-)
> is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that large
> majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> great.
>
> -Teemu
>
> > Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> 13.00:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> bias
> > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> educational
> > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> >
> > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> projects
> > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> and
> > there is no research into its value.
> >
> > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> >
> > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> so
> > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> message
> > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> >
> > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > traffic.
> > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > Wikipedia..
> >
> >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >>> who
> >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> >>> available in the strategy process.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> None
> >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> Round
> >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on
> 3
> >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> have
> >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> May
> >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Yaroslav
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we going
to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
seriously.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hej,
> >
> > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> :-)
> > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> large
> > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> > great.
> >
> > -Teemu
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> > 13.00:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > bias
> > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > educational
> > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> viable
> > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > >
> > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > projects
> > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> readers
> > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> > and
> > > there is no research into its value.
> > >
> > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> collaboration
> > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> habitually
> > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> served
> > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> in
> > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> > so
> > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > message
> > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > >
> > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > traffic.
> > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > Wikipedia..
> > >
> > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who
> > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > None
> > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > Round
> > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i
> n
> > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> on
> > 3
> > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> > have
> > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> > May
> > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> be
> > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> next
> > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Gnangarra
I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would
see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no
global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy
process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects

On 25 June 2017 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
> where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we going
> to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
> seriously.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hej,
> > >
> > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> > :-)
> > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> reasons,
> > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > large
> > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia.
> If
> > > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> > > great.
> > >
> > > -Teemu
> > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> kello
> > > 13.00:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikipedia
> > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > > bias
> > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > educational
> > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> developed,
> > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > viable
> > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > >
> > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > projects
> > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > readers
> > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> projects
> > > and
> > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > >
> > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > collaboration
> > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > habitually
> > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > served
> > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> driven
> > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> > in
> > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> process
> > > so
> > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > message
> > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >       GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > > traffic.
> > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > > Wikipedia..
> > > >
> > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > people
> > > >>> who
> > > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> the
> > > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> carefully,
> > > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> weeks
> > > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> was
> > > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > > None
> > > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> time.
> > > Round
> > > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> i
> > n
> > > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> > on
> > > 3
> > > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> but I
> > > have
> > > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> 1.
> > > May
> > > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> completely
> > > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> to
> > be
> > > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > next
> > > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Yaroslav
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
You do not provide arguments so it is an opinion. Having said that, I did
not say that the attention for the English Wikipedia did not serve English
Wikipedia well. It did. Your opinion can be easily translated in "we do not
care and do not need to care".

What I am saying is that English Wikipedia is less than half our traffic
and it serves some 30% of our potential public. Given that there is a bias
in research and interest, we did not even give a thought on how to grow the
bottom 250 Wikipedias to be more useful for their public. For most of them
we do not need university level articles, we need to start with good enough
articles and start probably on a college level or the level of the last
year of primary school.

We do not have the content relevant for many cultures in English Wikipedia
so even the thought of translating what exists in English Wikipedia is too
much of a good thing. We do not have the data in Wikidata so we cannot even
suggest what to write in English.

The notion that thanks to English Wikipedia we have the standing the
funding is correct. Now lets do our job for the other 70%. If this is not a
diversity issue what is?
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 25 June 2017 at 12:42, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would
> see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no
> global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy
> process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects
>
> On 25 June 2017 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
> > where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we
> going
> > to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
> > seriously.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> >
> > On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> > > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hej,
> > > >
> > > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an
> opinion
> > > :-)
> > > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south
> are
> > > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> > reasons,
> > > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > > large
> > > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the
> en-Wikipedia.
> > If
> > > > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would
> be
> > > > great.
> > > >
> > > > -Teemu
> > > >
> > > > > Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> > kello
> > > > 13.00:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1].
> This
> > > > bias
> > > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > > educational
> > > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> > developed,
> > > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > > viable
> > > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia
> because
> > > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > > projects
> > > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > > readers
> > > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> > projects
> > > > and
> > > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > > >
> > > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > > collaboration
> > > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > > habitually
> > > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > > served
> > > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> > driven
> > > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global
> south
> > > in
> > > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> > process
> > > > so
> > > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > > message
> > > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >       GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the
> WMF
> > > > > traffic.
> > > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies
> on
> > > > > Wikipedia..
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > > people
> > > > >>> who
> > > > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> > the
> > > > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real
> life
> > > > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> > carefully,
> > > > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my
> particular
> > > > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> > weeks
> > > > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time
> to
> > > > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> > was
> > > > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite
> some
> > > > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially
> ignored.
> > > > None
> > > > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> > time.
> > > > Round
> > > > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions
> opened
> > i
> > > n
> > > > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really
> discuss
> > > > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding
> pages
> > > on
> > > > 3
> > > > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> > but I
> > > > have
> > > > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in
> Round
> > 1.
> > > > May
> > > > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not
> really
> > > > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> > completely
> > > > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form
> a
> > > > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> > to
> > > be
> > > > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > > next
> > > > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers
> > > > >> Yaroslav
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> > unsubscribe>
> > > > >>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard,

Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.

I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
"beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.

Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to
mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
quickly as they can coherently write it up.

There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
contextual search and natural language processing to support better
translation).

Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
support some other end(s).

You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your
peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are
constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our
biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.

I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have
voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
everyone is listening.

Warmly,
/a

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias
> can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational
> effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> otherwise it will not get published [2].
>
> A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects
> other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and
> there is no research into its value.
>
> The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
>
> Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so
> far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message
> and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
>
> Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
>
> [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> traffic.
> [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> Wikipedia..
>
> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> > > who
> > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > available in the strategy process.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None
> > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> Round
> > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3
> > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> have
> > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> May
> > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be
> > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution. When you look at the
team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support
in standards.

The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small
language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia. When we do
not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not
even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I
described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].

The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in
its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
interlinked content.

We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people. This
can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state of a
language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.

We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have
written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make
search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links
and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
articles on the same subject share similar links.

Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential
treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
English Wikipedia vision. This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position is
not welcomed by most if at all.
Thanks,
        GerardM

[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-wikipedia-using-local-news.html
[2]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
[3]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-sister-projects-in-search.html




On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
>
> I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
> "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
>
> Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to
> mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
> They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> quickly as they can coherently write it up.
>
> There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> translation).
>
> Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> support some other end(s).
>
> You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your
> peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are
> constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our
> biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
> New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
>
> I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have
> voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> everyone is listening.
>
> Warmly,
> /a
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> bias
> > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> educational
> > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable
> > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> >
> > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> projects
> > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers
> > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> and
> > there is no research into its value.
> >
> > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration
> > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually
> > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served
> > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in
> > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> >
> > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> so
> > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> message
> > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> >
> > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > traffic.
> > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > Wikipedia..
> >
> > On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > > > who
> > > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > available in the strategy process.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> None
> > > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > Round
> > > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n
> > > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> on 3
> > > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> > have
> > > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> > May
> > > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> be
> > > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next
> > > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
Rogol,

The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it
on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.

There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:

   - organized groups
   - on-wiki
   - experts
   - new voices

I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team.

   - Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know
   previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia Deutschland.
   She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover of
   craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based.

New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in
different markets.

   - *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in
   Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now.  Adele has grown
   from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through her
   innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission.


   - *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised,
   and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical
   doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll
   need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world.


   - *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is
   born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global
   Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his group.
   Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities.


   - I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I
   believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in
   MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it could
   be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the Middle
   East.


   - And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap
   from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been involved
   in all of this as well.  He has served the foundation well over a number of
   years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment. Perdoname,
   Jorge.

These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene
them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen.

One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is
because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all
need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing
community discussions.

For the on-wiki team:

   - We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this
   process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between
   Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain.

Just to clarify the record.
/a

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hej,
> >
> > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> :-)
> > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons,
> > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> large
> > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If
> > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> > great.
> >
> > -Teemu
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello
> > 13.00:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > bias
> > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > educational
> > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> viable
> > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > >
> > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > projects
> > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> readers
> > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> > and
> > > there is no research into its value.
> > >
> > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> collaboration
> > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> habitually
> > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> served
> > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> in
> > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> > so
> > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > message
> > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > >
> > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > traffic.
> > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > Wikipedia..
> > >
> > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who
> > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the
> > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully,
> > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks
> > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was
> > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > None
> > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > Round
> > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i
> n
> > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> on
> > 3
> > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I
> > have
> > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1.
> > May
> > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> be
> > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> next
> > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Anna Stillwell
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Gerard,

In line.

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.


Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we
explore the problem.


> When you look at the
> team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support
> in standards.
>

I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
that view.


> The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small
> language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
> bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.


You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that
is what you’re saying, I agree.


> When we do
> not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not
> even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
> write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I
> described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
>

Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other
languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far
more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.

But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you
saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make
the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering
whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is
best addressed by other movement players.


> The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
> pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
> be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in
> its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
> requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
> interlinked content.
>

Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there
is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are
pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I
also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would
agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how
to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that
this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.

I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it
was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is
non-existent.


>
> We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
> Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
> number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people.
> This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state
> of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
>

I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have
to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the
movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half
like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in
between that keeps me up at night.

Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I
agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people
well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most
spoken language in the world [citation needed].

>
> We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
> This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have
> written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make
> search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links
> and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
> articles on the same subject share similar links.
>
> Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential
> treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
>

I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English
Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do,
but that does not preclude me from listening to your view.

In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks
like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global
movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not
integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are
the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that
emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care
about.


> Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
> English Wikipedia vision.


No argument from me. I agree.


> This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
> understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position
> is not welcomed by most if at all.
>

I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it
appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates.
I welcome your position.


> Thanks,
>         GerardM
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-
> wikipedia-using-local-news.html
> [2]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-
> lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
> [3]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-
> sister-projects-in-search.html
>
>
>
>
> On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
> >
> > I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
> > "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> > encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> > multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
> >
> > Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> > deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have
> to
> > mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
> > They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> > quickly as they can coherently write it up.
> >
> > There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> > subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> > contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> > translation).
> >
> > Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> > movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> > technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> > support some other end(s).
> >
> > You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by
> your
> > peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there
> are
> > constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for
> our
> > biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
> > New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
> >
> > I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers
> have
> > voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> > everyone is listening.
> >
> > Warmly,
> > /a
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > [hidden email]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia
> > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > bias
> > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > educational
> > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,
> > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> viable
> > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > >
> > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > projects
> > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> readers
> > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects
> > and
> > > there is no research into its value.
> > >
> > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> collaboration
> > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> habitually
> > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> served
> > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven
> > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> in
> > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > >
> > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process
> > so
> > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > message
> > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > >
> > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > Thanks,
> > >        GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > traffic.
> > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > Wikipedia..
> > >
> > > On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > people
> > > > > who
> > > > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> the
> > > > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> carefully,
> > > > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> weeks
> > > > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > > available in the strategy process.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> was
> > > > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > None
> > > > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time.
> > > Round
> > > > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> i n
> > > > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> > on 3
> > > > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but
> I
> > > have
> > > > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> 1.
> > > May
> > > > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely
> > > > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to
> > be
> > > > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> next
> > > > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Amir E. Aharoni
> When you look at the
> team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
support
> in standards.
>

I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
that view.


Thank you both, but... The devil is in the details. Some details that are
really, really relevant to this discussion.

First, credit: This particular Collation work was almost completely done by
Brian Wolff and not by the Language team (brilliant work; thank you,
Brian). I only helped a little bit with code review and deployment.

Even more importantly, this work was not on the roadmap for either of us as
WMF staffers. We did as a pet project.

So while I'm happy that people have noticed this work and found it useful,
it must be remembered that it was executed despite the Foundation's
planning, not thanks to it. In all the planning discussions I am repeating
that that much more resources need to go to to our software
internationalization infrastructure, but it's not really happening. It's
quite wrong that much of the Web's most multilingual site's
internationalization infrastructure is done so slowly and in pet projects.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Pine W
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
conversation.

If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):

* How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)

* Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
perspective.

* Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?

Thanks,

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Anna Stillwell
Hello Pine,

Good evening. In line.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> conversation.
>
> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would
> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
>

First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We
had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn
to refine or course correct based on what we hear.

We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen
all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
it")... so that is the background reasoning.


> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>

We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.


> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> perspective.
>

The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).

We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
say it.

>
> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
> the strategy process?
>

We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.

Always good to hear from you,
/a


>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Anna Stillwell
Hoi,

Anna I have one question for you. You say that "you would not frame the
challenge as I do". How would you characterise the inherent diversity issue
of the WMF that is centred around how it spends its money and where its
attention goes?
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 26 June 2017 at 01:57, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> In line.
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> > that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> > serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
>
>
> Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we
> explore the problem.
>
>
> > When you look at the
> > team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> > effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
> support
> > in standards.
> >
>
> I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
> that view.
>
>
> > The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a
> small
> > language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the
> > bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.
>
>
> You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that
> is what you’re saying, I agree.
>
>
> > When we do
> > not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do
> not
> > even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and
> > write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs
> as I
> > described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
> >
>
> Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other
> languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far
> more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.
>
> But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you
> saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make
> the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering
> whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is
> best addressed by other movement players.
>
>
> > The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the
> > pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may
> > be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project
> in
> > its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary
> > requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place,
> > interlinked content.
> >
>
> Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there
> is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are
> pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I
> also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would
> agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how
> to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that
> this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.
>
> I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it
> was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is
> non-existent.
>
>
> >
> > We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the
> > Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a
> > number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people.
> > This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state
> > of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
> >
>
> I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have
> to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the
> movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half
> like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in
> between that keeps me up at night.
>
> Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I
> agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people
> well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most
> spoken language in the world [citation needed].
>
> >
> > We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links.
> > This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I
> have
> > written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will
> make
> > search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between
> links
> > and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because
> > articles on the same subject share similar links.
> >
> > Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given
> preferential
> > treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
> >
>
> I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English
> Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do,
> but that does not preclude me from listening to your view.
>
> In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks
> like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global
> movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not
> integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are
> the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that
> emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care
> about.
>
>
> > Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an
> > English Wikipedia vision.
>
>
> No argument from me. I agree.
>
>
> > This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor
> > understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position
> > is not welcomed by most if at all.
> >
>
> I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it
> appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates.
> I welcome your position.
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >         GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-
> > wikipedia-using-local-news.html
> > [2]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-
> > lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
> > [3]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-
> > sister-projects-in-search.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
> > >
> > > I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions
> is
> > > "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
> > > encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
> > > multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
> > >
> > > Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
> > > deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to
> have
> > to
> > > mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New
> Voices.
> > > They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
> > > quickly as they can coherently write it up.
> > >
> > > There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
> > > subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
> > > contextual search and natural language processing to support better
> > > translation).
> > >
> > > Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
> > > movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
> > > technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
> > > support some other end(s).
> > >
> > > You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by
> > your
> > > peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there
> > are
> > > constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for
> > our
> > > biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of
> work:
> > > New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
> > >
> > > I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers
> > have
> > > voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
> > > everyone is listening.
> > >
> > > Warmly,
> > > /a
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikipedia
> > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > > bias
> > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > educational
> > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> developed,
> > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > viable
> > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > >
> > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > projects
> > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > readers
> > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> projects
> > > and
> > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > >
> > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > collaboration
> > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > habitually
> > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > served
> > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> driven
> > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> > in
> > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> process
> > > so
> > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > message
> > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >        GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > > traffic.
> > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > > Wikipedia..
> > > >
> > > > On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> for
> > > > people
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > are not involved with affiliates?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> > the
> > > > > > most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real
> life
> > > > > > commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> > carefully,
> > > > > > it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > > > > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my
> particular
> > > > > > geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> > weeks
> > > > > > prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time
> to
> > > > > > read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > > > > available in the strategy process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> > was
> > > > > pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite
> some
> > > > > feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially
> ignored.
> > > None
> > > > > of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> time.
> > > > Round
> > > > > 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> > i n
> > > > > different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > > > anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding
> pages
> > > on 3
> > > > > projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> but
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> > 1.
> > > > May
> > > > > be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not
> really
> > > > > looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> completely
> > > > > failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > > > considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> to
> > > be
> > > > > heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > next
> > > > > process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Fæ
In reply to this post by Anna Stillwell
On 27 June 2017 at 04:33, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
...

>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>
> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
>> the strategy process?
>>
>
> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> Always good to hear from you,
> /a

Anna,

I'd love to examine the more detailed monthly or quarterly financial
reports that demonstrate your assurance, and can be both examined and
understood by volunteers like us. Could you provide a link to them
please? No doubt the WMF wrote transparency and accountability right
into the contracts, so that being transparent and accountable is not
considered a "waste of the strategy budget" but instead is an activity
absolutely critical to its success.

Thanks,
Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Pine W
In reply to this post by Anna Stillwell
Hi Anna,

>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>
>
>We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
>of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.

Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
cost,
and from what source are the funds being drawn?


>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
>> perspective.
>>

> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).

> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
> say it.

OK, that makes sense.

>
> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
> the strategy process?
>

> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.

I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.

Pine


On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello Pine,
>
> Good evening. In line.
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > conversation.
> >
> > If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> would
> > like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> >
>
> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We
> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn
> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
>
> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen
> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
>
>
> > * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> > source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
> > decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> > funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >
>
> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
>
> > * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
> > who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > perspective.
> >
>
> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups
> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
> say it.
>
> >
> > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> > the strategy process?
> >
>
> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> Always good to hear from you,
> /a
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12