[Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Yaroslav Blanter
Hi Jane,

I think Andres is completely right of this description, that the whole
exercise was designed by functionaries for functionaries, and nobody ever
thought that volunteers working on the projects could be involved.

It is indeed right that many of those do not care about the strategy
discussions and just edit in their projects (though even say a Wikipedia
editor from time to time confronts the situation that Commons and Wikidata
exist but do not necessarily have the same policies as their project). But
many do care. In the 2010 strategy discussions, we had the volunteer
editors providing the input, and this is why this was a success.
Apparently, this time there were a large number of applications from the
volunteer editors who are not functionaries.

Now, you can say that functionaries and staffers are sometimes editors as
well. Indeed, some of them are and are well respected in the communities
(Maggie Dennis is a great example). Some edited the projects before but
since then have gone inactive and have no idea what is going on in the
communities. Some are openly fighting with the communities and have no or
very little respect there. Some never edited. Well, you can of course make
a selection and hope that these selected people understand everything about
the variety of our projects. May be. Or may be not. We had in the past very
bad decisions which WMF, with varying degree of success, tried to impose on
the projects. I often had an impression that people making these decisions
had no understanding of what is actually going on the projects, and do not
even know whom to ask.

Now the whole process only convinces me that this would repeat more and
more often. Especially since in the first round much of the project
feedback was ignored.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting
> selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether
> the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think
> that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on
> the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who
> work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any
> mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers"
> tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit
> that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets
> proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally
> I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing
> they are useful - even on Wikidata.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> are
> > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > core contributes.
> >
> > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully
> > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> weakness,
> > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
> >
> > Facts
> >
> > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> >
> > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> >
> > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> (only)
> > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> candidates
> > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> company,
> > not the vibrant communities)
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said
> >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
> not
> >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend
> >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> >>
> >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have
> >> net
> >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Yaroslav
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/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/wik
> > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
That feels about right for most of the time.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jane Darnell
Sent: 25 July 2018 09:29
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think
that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects are
> not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> core contributes.
>
> This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully
> in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a weakness,
> as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
>
> Facts
>
> The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
>
> The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
>
> The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include (only)
> functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of candidates
> should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big company,
> not the vibrant communities)
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said
>> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
>> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not
>> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend
>> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
>>
>> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have
>> net
>> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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/wik
> i/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>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Frans Grijzenhout
In reply to this post by Yaroslav Blanter
Hi All, I cannot support the idea that the movement strategy is designed
for functionaries only. We encouraged editors and volunteers to meet and
discuss the strategy locally and also gave them (financial) support so that
they were able to attend the international conferences and take their part
in the discussions.
Frans (chair WMNL)



*Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
+31 6 5333 9499
--
*Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland*
Mariaplaats 3  -  3511 LH Utrecht
Kamer van Koophandel 17189036
http://www.wikimedia.nl/

2018-07-25 11:01 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Jane,
>
> I think Andres is completely right of this description, that the whole
> exercise was designed by functionaries for functionaries, and nobody ever
> thought that volunteers working on the projects could be involved.
>
> It is indeed right that many of those do not care about the strategy
> discussions and just edit in their projects (though even say a Wikipedia
> editor from time to time confronts the situation that Commons and Wikidata
> exist but do not necessarily have the same policies as their project). But
> many do care. In the 2010 strategy discussions, we had the volunteer
> editors providing the input, and this is why this was a success.
> Apparently, this time there were a large number of applications from the
> volunteer editors who are not functionaries.
>
> Now, you can say that functionaries and staffers are sometimes editors as
> well. Indeed, some of them are and are well respected in the communities
> (Maggie Dennis is a great example). Some edited the projects before but
> since then have gone inactive and have no idea what is going on in the
> communities. Some are openly fighting with the communities and have no or
> very little respect there. Some never edited. Well, you can of course make
> a selection and hope that these selected people understand everything about
> the variety of our projects. May be. Or may be not. We had in the past very
> bad decisions which WMF, with varying degree of success, tried to impose on
> the projects. I often had an impression that people making these decisions
> had no understanding of what is actually going on the projects, and do not
> even know whom to ask.
>
> Now the whole process only convinces me that this would repeat more and
> more often. Especially since in the first round much of the project
> feedback was ignored.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> interesting
> > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> whether
> > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I
> think
> > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
> on
> > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
> who
> > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
> any
> > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> workers"
> > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> submit
> > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> gets
> > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> personally
> > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> seeing
> > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> > are
> > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > > core contributes.
> > >
> > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> fully
> > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > weakness,
> > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> accepted.
> > >
> > > Facts
> > >
> > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > (only)
> > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > candidates
> > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > company,
> > > not the vibrant communities)
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
> said
> > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
> > not
> > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> attend
> > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > >>
> > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> have
> > >> net
> > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/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/wik
> > > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

David Cuenca Tudela
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jane Darnell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others.
>

I can subscribe to the sentiment. All the criticism that I might have about
another person, or about some procedure, it is due to me not being aware of
the difficulties being experienced. This is why I am very careful when
expressing criticism because that lack of understanding is reciprocal, and
the other person might not know what is going on in me either, and might
even not realized of what from my perspective looks like an issue.

The way I describe the current governance system of the organized part of
the global movement is an "unintended oligarchy". I don't think anyone ever
wanted to have an oligarchy, but to take decisions, to be in the loop,
requires that someone must have time to spend on it, and that they are
given the trust to be in the decision-making processes. On one hand we have
a group of people who can spend time following issues (or are even paid for
it), participating in committees, going to conferences, and building
in-person trust that later on they can capitalize with easier access to
power roles. And on the other hand we have people that, as Yaroslav said,
do not participate in real-life activities and therefore they are simply
ignored and not considered for relevant roles, because they didn't build
the in-person trust or the curriculum that people in the organized part of
the movement think that it is important.

I consider impossible for any organization to escape the "iron law of
oligarchy", and that in itself is liberating, because instead of wasting
time pretending "openness" and "inclusiveness" we can focus our energies in
having the best kind of oligarchy. To guarantee some renewal and to
safeguard the trust in the movement, an effort should be made to allow
rank-and-file members both to influence decision-making (as Franz
mentioned, by giving them support and by opening discussions), and to have
a path for them to join the "ruling class" if they have some basic skills
and they are inclined to it. The first point is easier to attain than the
second, because power is self-perpetuating and people tend to give
preference to those that think like them or have a particular background or
career.

There is an interesting anecdote that happened to the economist Kenneth E.
Boulding. After graduating in Oxford he applied for a fellowship for Christ
Church, and by mistake he received the recommendation letters that he asked
from several of his economy professors. They agreed that he was brilliant
and very intelligent, but all of them concluded that "he is not one of us".
Diversity of thought is not always appreciated.

A certain homogeneity of values is necessary, because that is the basic
tenet of a cultural identity, which is required to attract and retain
volunteers with belongingness, and to inspire others with our values. Of
course those values should be reflected in everything we do, not just in
writing, but having a code in writing about governance, decision-making
procedures, dissent, diversity, etc would help to know what to expect and
it would reduce the frustration.

Cheers,
Micru
_______________________________________________
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Frans Grijzenhout
This is true,

but it's true also that the discussion is now restricted to few members
and groups.

I can personally say that the communities (and when I speak about
communities I speak about people not being able to speak english or not
following the international mailing list) are ignoring partially what is
happening, after the initial involvement in the colletion of the inputs.

Surely the Wikipedia's communities are not obliged to adopt what is
discussed in this strategy mainly because "Wikipedia has /no central
editorial board/"[1] and secondly because Wikipedia has not firm rules
(5th pillar)[2] but a larger involvement of different members from the
communities would have helped more, at least to address to the biggest
communities some inputs coming from the strategy which is under discussion.

I agree with Karel that "/With regards to Diversity, the parameters for
the diversity considerations//are outlined here, and do include voices
that are not yet included in//strategic discussions/" and I like this
sentence, but unfortunately I see the same faces in any step of this
strategy and if the diversity is something important because the
diversity assures also a rich and etherogeneous difference of opinions,
I think that this is not happening and don't see a "diversity of
opinion" represented here.

An example is the steering committee that, in my opinion should have
been excluded from the working groups to bring "new blood in this
process" and not to limit the discussion always to the same people and
to the same actors.

What Micru reports is an important point and I personally have his same
feeling not as wikimedian, but as wikipedian and as volunteer.

Kind regards

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars


On 25/07/2018 11:32, Frans Grijzenhout wrote:

> Hi All, I cannot support the idea that the movement strategy is designed
> for functionaries only. We encouraged editors and volunteers to meet and
> discuss the strategy locally and also gave them (financial) support so that
> they were able to attend the international conferences and take their part
> in the discussions.
> Frans (chair WMNL)
>
>
>
> *Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair
> +31 6 5333 9499



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Jane Darnell
Hello Jane,

>

I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
offline".

​I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
all. We are split by languages since ​the Babel Tower was embargoed by God,
but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
"some languages are better than others".

All the best,

Paulo


2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:

> Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting
> selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether
> the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> ​​
> I think
> that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on
> the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who
> work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any
> mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers"
> tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit
> that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets
> proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally
> I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing
> they are useful - even on Wikidata.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> are
> > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > core contributes.
> >
> > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully
> > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> weakness,
> > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
> >
> > Facts
> >
> > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> >
> > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> >
> > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> (only)
> > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> candidates
> > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> company,
> > not the vibrant communities)
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said
> >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
> not
> >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend
> >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> >>
> >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have
> >> net
> >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Yaroslav
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/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/wik
> > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I have. I have heard a very senior person in the WMF state that English is
the only relevant language..

PS We did not agree on that one ..

Thanks,
       GerardM

On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello Jane,
>
> >
> ​
> I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
>
> ​I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> all. We are split by languages since ​the Babel Tower was embargoed by God,
> but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> "some languages are better than others".
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> interesting
> > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> whether
> > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > ​​
> > I think
> > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
> on
> > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
> who
> > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
> any
> > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> workers"
> > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> submit
> > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> gets
> > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> personally
> > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> seeing
> > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> > are
> > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > > core contributes.
> > >
> > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> fully
> > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > weakness,
> > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> accepted.
> > >
> > > Facts
> > >
> > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > (only)
> > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > candidates
> > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > company,
> > > not the vibrant communities)
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
> said
> > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
> > not
> > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> attend
> > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > >>
> > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> have
> > >> net
> > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/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/wik
> > > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Balázs Viczián
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Hi All,

as someone around for 10+ years I must say never really felt reached out to
by these initiatives.

As the years passed I saw smaller and smaller chance to "get in" anywhere
without building some sort of a(n) (international) wiki career first, what
means years of stepping up on a corporate-esque ladder, spending the
appropriate time on each level, before becoming eligible to step up.

Note, we talk about an advisory board here, not decision making.

This pretty much kills volunteerism in the wikimedia movement.

If one suggestion can be shouted in from the sideline, I'd suggest to think
about excluding all who currently has or had in the past 12 months any
formal position in the movement (board members, committee members,
employees and all equivalent).

If anyone is interested in new voices.

Regards,
Balazs

Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]> ezt írta (2018. július 27.,
péntek):

> Hello Jane,
>
> >
> ​
> I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
>
> ​I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> all. We are split by languages since ​the Babel Tower was embargoed by God,
> but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> "some languages are better than others".
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> interesting
> > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> whether
> > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > ​​
> > I think
> > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
> on
> > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
> who
> > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
> any
> > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> workers"
> > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> submit
> > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> gets
> > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> personally
> > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> seeing
> > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> > are
> > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > > core contributes.
> > >
> > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> fully
> > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > weakness,
> > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> accepted.
> > >
> > > Facts
> > >
> > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > (only)
> > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > candidates
> > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > company,
> > > not the vibrant communities)
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
> said
> > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
> > not
> > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> attend
> > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > >>
> > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> have
> > >> net
> > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/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/wik
> > > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is
often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I
think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and
any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their
own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't
come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Jane,
>
> >
> ​
> I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
>
> ​I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> all. We are split by languages since ​the Babel Tower was embargoed by God,
> but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> "some languages are better than others".
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> interesting
> > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> whether
> > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > ​​
> > I think
> > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
> > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
> on
> > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
> > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
> who
> > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
> > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
> any
> > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
> > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> workers"
> > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> submit
> > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
> > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> gets
> > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> personally
> > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> seeing
> > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
> > are
> > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> > > core contributes.
> > >
> > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> fully
> > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > weakness,
> > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> accepted.
> > >
> > > Facts
> > >
> > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > >
> > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > (only)
> > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > candidates
> > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > company,
> > > not the vibrant communities)
> > >
> > > Anders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
> said
> > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
> > not
> > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> attend
> > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > >>
> > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> have
> > >> net
> > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >> Yaroslav
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > >> i/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/wik
> > > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
Hello Jane,

Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the point
that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used to
have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should use
the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness and
knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
order to participate.

Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and Galician
wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.

I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit of
everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
over there, often in the same thread).

I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere "split
down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.


All the best,


Paulo


2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:

> Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is
> often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I
> think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and
> any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their
> own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't
> come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jane,
> >
> > >
> >
> > I think that we are in fact
> split down the middle into parties that believe
> > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> > offline".
> >
> > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> God,
> > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> > "some languages are better than others".
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > interesting
> > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > whether
> > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > >
> > > I think
> > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> "some
> > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> languages
> > on
> > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
> Then
> > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
> > who
> > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> topic
> > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
> > any
> > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> workers
> > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > workers"
> > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> > submit
> > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
> have
> > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> > gets
> > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> > > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> > > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> > personally
> > > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> > seeing
> > > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
> projects
> > > are
> > > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
> running
> > > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the
> hard
> > > > core contributes.
> > > >
> > > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> > fully
> > > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > > weakness,
> > > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> > accepted.
> > > >
> > > > Facts
> > > >
> > > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > >
> > > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > >
> > > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > > (only)
> > > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > > candidates
> > > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was
> not
> > > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > > company,
> > > > not the vibrant communities)
> > > >
> > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
> > said
> > > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> > > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but
> are
> > > not
> > > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> > attend
> > > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > > >>
> > > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> > have
> > > >> net
> > > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Yaroslav
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > >> i/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/wik
> > > > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
How about Portuguese from Africa?
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello Jane,
>
> Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the point
> that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
> can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used to
> have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
> declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should use
> the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
> Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness and
> knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
> order to participate.
>
> Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and Galician
> wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
>
> I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit of
> everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
> languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
> over there, often in the same thread).
>
> I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
> different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere "split
> down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is
> > often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> > cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I
> > think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> > certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and
> > any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their
> > own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't
> > come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Jane,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that we are in fact
> > split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> > > offline".
> > >
> > > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> > > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> > God,
> > > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> > > "some languages are better than others".
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > > interesting
> > > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
> at
> > > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > > whether
> > > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > >
> > > > I think
> > > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> > "some
> > > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > languages
> > > on
> > > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
> > Then
> > > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
> folks
> > > who
> > > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> > topic
> > > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
> to
> > > any
> > > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
> groups
> > > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> > workers
> > > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > > workers"
> > > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> > > submit
> > > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
> > have
> > > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> > > gets
> > > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
> was
> > > > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
> being
> > > > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> > > personally
> > > > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> > > seeing
> > > > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in
> the
> > > > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
> > projects
> > > > are
> > > > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
> > running
> > > > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the
> > hard
> > > > > core contributes.
> > > > >
> > > > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> > > fully
> > > > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > > > weakness,
> > > > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in
> our
> > > > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> > > accepted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Facts
> > > > >
> > > > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > > >
> > > > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > > >
> > > > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > > > (only)
> > > > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > > > candidates
> > > > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was
> > not
> > > > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > > > company,
> > > > > not the vibrant communities)
> > > > >
> > > > > Anders
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has
> been
> > > said
> > > > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for
> the
> > > > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> > > attend
> > > > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> > > have
> > > > >> net
> > > > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers
> > > > >> Yaroslav
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > >> i/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/wik
> > > > > i/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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Lucas Teles-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
What are the steps now?

It is clear to me and others that this strategy initiative could not reach
new faces, especially those more engaged with editing. Or they were
reached, but not selected for some reason.

In case it is desired, whoever is in charge of this process should start
thinking on ways of reaching them or invite others to think with and  find
a solution.

In case it is not desired, it should be clarified to broad community.

I see very good names on the groups and I don’t mean to discredit the work,
good faith, and the value of the whole process, but I just don’t think it
is the right path when editorial community is set aside intentionally or
not.

Best regards.

Teles

Em sáb, 28 de jul de 2018 às 18:11, Gerard Meijssen <
[hidden email]> escreveu:

> Hoi,
> I have. I have heard a very senior person in the WMF state that English is
> the only relevant language..
>
> PS We did not agree on that one ..
>
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jane,
> >
> > >
> > ​
> > I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that
> believe
> > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> > offline".
> >
> > ​I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> > all. We are split by languages since ​the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> God,
> > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> > "some languages are better than others".
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > interesting
> > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
> > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > whether
> > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > ​​
> > > I think
> > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> "some
> > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> languages
> > on
> > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
> Then
> > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
> > who
> > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> topic
> > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
> > any
> > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
> > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> workers
> > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > workers"
> > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> > submit
> > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
> have
> > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> > gets
> > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> > > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> > > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> > personally
> > > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> > seeing
> > > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> > > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
> projects
> > > are
> > > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
> running
> > > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the
> hard
> > > > core contributes.
> > > >
> > > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
> > fully
> > > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > > weakness,
> > > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> > > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> > accepted.
> > > >
> > > > Facts
> > > >
> > > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > >
> > > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > >
> > > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
> > > (only)
> > > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > > candidates
> > > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was
> not
> > > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> > > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > > company,
> > > > not the vibrant communities)
> > > >
> > > > Anders
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
> > said
> > > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> > > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but
> are
> > > not
> > > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
> > attend
> > > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > > >>
> > > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
> > have
> > > >> net
> > > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Yaroslav
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > >> i/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/wik
> > > > i/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>

--
Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and
Wikimedia Commons.
Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.

+55 (71) 99707 6409
_______________________________________________
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Info WorldUniversity
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
And perhaps with a further focus on specific African countries that speak
Portuguese?

Scott_WUaS

On 5:46AM, Tue, Jul 31, 2018 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> How about Portuguese from Africa?
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jane,
> >
> > Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> > despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> > strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the
> point
> > that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
> > can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used
> to
> > have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
> > declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should
> use
> > the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
> > Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness
> and
> > knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
> > order to participate.
> >
> > Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and
> Galician
> > wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
> >
> > I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit
> of
> > everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
> > languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
> > over there, often in the same thread).
> >
> > I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
> > different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere
> "split
> > down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there
> is
> > > often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> > > cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles.
> I
> > > think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> > > certain their country and by association, their language is the best,
> and
> > > any other speakers of their language should either conform or start
> their
> > > own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you
> haven't
> > > come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Jane,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that we are in fact
> > > split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on-
> and
> > > > offline".
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression,
> at
> > > > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> > > God,
> > > > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting
> that
> > > > "some languages are better than others".
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > >
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > > > interesting
> > > > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed
> into
> > > > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
> > at
> > > > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > > > whether
> > > > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think
> > > > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > "some
> > > > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > languages
> > > > on
> > > > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
> > > Then
> > > > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
> > folks
> > > > who
> > > > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> > > topic
> > > > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
> > to
> > > > any
> > > > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
> > groups
> > > > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> > > workers
> > > > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > > > workers"
> > > > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I
> respectfully
> > > > submit
> > > > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we
> all
> > > have
> > > > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really
> wrong
> > > > gets
> > > > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
> > was
> > > > > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
> > being
> > > > > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> > > > personally
> > > > > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> > > > seeing
> > > > > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in
> > the
> > > > > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
> > > projects
> > > > > are
> > > > > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
> > > running
> > > > > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not
> the
> > > hard
> > > > > > core contributes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment
> leaders,
> > > > fully
> > > > > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > > > > weakness,
> > > > > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in
> > our
> > > > > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> > > > accepted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Facts
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to
> include
> > > > > (only)
> > > > > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > > > > candidates
> > > > > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection
> was
> > > not
> > > > > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by
> "boss"
> > > > > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > > > > company,
> > > > > > not the vibrant communities)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anders
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has
> > been
> > > > said
> > > > > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for
> > the
> > > > > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects
> but
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do
> not
> > > > attend
> > > > > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So
> far I
> > > > have
> > > > > >> net
> > > > > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Cheers
> > > > > >> Yaroslav
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > > >> i/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/wik
> > > > > > i/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>
_______________________________________________
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Hello Gerard,

AFAIK officially the PALOPs (Portuguese speaking African countries) use
European Portuguese. I'm quite used to reading news articles, laws, and
books from all those countries, and apart some local vocabulary, my
impression is that it's basically European Portuguese indeed. And at the
time we had Wikipedia Zero in Angola, one of the things that newbies & IPs
from there used to do was "correcting" Brazilian Portuguese to European
Portuguese in the articles.

They also speak creoule in many of those countries, but it doesn't count as
"Portuguese". I've no idea about the state of the local languages there, as
we hardly have any regular editors from those countries (I can only think
about 3, from Angola, at this point - one of them a sysop). But it
certainly is something that could develop, once a community is established.

All the best,

Paulo


2018-07-30 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>:

> Hoi,
> How about Portuguese from Africa?
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jane,
> >
> > Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> > despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> > strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the
> point
> > that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
> > can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used
> to
> > have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
> > declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should
> use
> > the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
> > Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness
> and
> > knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
> > order to participate.
> >
> > Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and
> Galician
> > wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
> >
> > I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit
> of
> > everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
> > languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
> > over there, often in the same thread).
> >
> > I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
> > different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere
> "split
> > down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there
> is
> > > often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> > > cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles.
> I
> > > think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> > > certain their country and by association, their language is the best,
> and
> > > any other speakers of their language should either conform or start
> their
> > > own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you
> haven't
> > > come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Jane,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that we are in fact
> > > split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on-
> and
> > > > offline".
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression,
> at
> > > > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> > > God,
> > > > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting
> that
> > > > "some languages are better than others".
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > >
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > > > interesting
> > > > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed
> into
> > > > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
> > at
> > > > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > > > whether
> > > > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think
> > > > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > "some
> > > > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > languages
> > > > on
> > > > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
> > > Then
> > > > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
> > folks
> > > > who
> > > > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> > > topic
> > > > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
> > to
> > > > any
> > > > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
> > groups
> > > > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> > > workers
> > > > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > > > workers"
> > > > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I
> respectfully
> > > > submit
> > > > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we
> all
> > > have
> > > > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really
> wrong
> > > > gets
> > > > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
> > was
> > > > > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
> > being
> > > > > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> > > > personally
> > > > > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> > > > seeing
> > > > > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in
> > the
> > > > > > movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
> > > projects
> > > > > are
> > > > > > not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
> > > running
> > > > > > worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not
> the
> > > hard
> > > > > > core contributes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment
> leaders,
> > > > fully
> > > > > > in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
> > > > > weakness,
> > > > > > as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in
> > our
> > > > > > communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
> > > > accepted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Facts
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to
> include
> > > > > (only)
> > > > > > functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
> > > > > candidates
> > > > > > should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection
> was
> > > not
> > > > > > done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by
> "boss"
> > > > > > selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
> > > > > company,
> > > > > > not the vibrant communities)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anders
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has
> > been
> > > > said
> > > > > >> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for
> > the
> > > > > >> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects
> but
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do
> not
> > > > attend
> > > > > >> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So
> far I
> > > > have
> > > > > >> net
> > > > > >> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Cheers
> > > > > >> Yaroslav
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > > > >> i/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/wik
> > > > > > i/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>
>
_______________________________________________
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

metasj
In reply to this post by David Cuenca Tudela
Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.

I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication*
to/from/about the current groups.  But I would be especially interested in
ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process)
could organize similar visions and proposals and priorities for the future,
in parallel.  Sometimes it is easier to develop crisp ideas as
contrast/critique of an existing process, than from scratch.  In which case
quirks of a process, like incomplete sections of articles, can serve as
helpful inspiration.

SJ


On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
>
> "The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the
> whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It
> is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global
> movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not
> organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being
> organised, yet they might want to participate.
> I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new
> ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do
> the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the
> status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more
> inclusive, approaches.
>
> > We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
> people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have
> ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> Ideas:
> - Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
> - Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent
> updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
> - Blog posts every 3-6 months
> - Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
> participants and community members
> - Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG
> participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language
> and participation barriers
> - Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
>
> > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities.
>
> I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of
> applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were
> not fulfilling.
>
> > As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
> published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts
> regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
>
> "Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the
> participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the
> motivation letters of the participants?
> I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know
> the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to
> format/structure it, I can help there.
>
> I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
> working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
> they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the
> value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and
> there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity
> within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is
> that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement,
> because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
>
> Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place,
> and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have
> been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the
> resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply
> once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also
> forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania.
>
> Have a nice day!
> Micru
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Micru,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
> > the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> > offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> > different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> > current status of the process.
> >
> > >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> are
> > not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from
> > our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource,
> Wiktionary...?
> > It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that
> to
> > have members chosen by those communities.
> > >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
> do
> > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> >
> > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> > distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
> focus
> > was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
> the
> > Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> > those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We
> would
> > like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
> > interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> > would be really interested in hearing them.
> >
> > The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> > engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> > collective process.
> >
> > >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> > that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> > aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> >
> > With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity
> considerations
> > are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> > strategic discussions.
> >
> > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> > communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups
> helps
> > us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
> >
> > We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> > Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on
> filling
> > these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> > also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> > thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> > letter.
> >
> > >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> movement
> > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > members?
> >
> > In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we
> accept
> > further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> > expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these
> proportions
> > will change
> >
> > Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up
> in a
> > more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> > interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
> > the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in
> the
> > strategy process.
> >
> > Have a great weekend!
> > Kaarel
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
> > >
> > > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> > are
> > > not directly represented.
> > > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
> > like
> > > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to
> have
> > > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
> > > those communities.
> > > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
> Groups
> > do
> > > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
> having
> > > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> > >
> > > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> > that
> > > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> aspect
> > is
> > > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition
> of
> > > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> > >
> > > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> > movement
> > > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > > members?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Micru
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> > > > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> > > > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> > > > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> > > > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
> > > >
> > > > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> > > > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> > > > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> > > > outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
> > > >
> > > > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> > > > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> > > > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> > > > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> > > > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> > > > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
> > > >
> > > > == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> > > > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> > > > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> > > > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> > > > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the
> detailed
> > > > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> > > > forward to seeing many of you.
> > > >
> > > > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date,
> as
> > > > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> > > > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> > > > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> > > > hearing from you during future consultations.
> > > >
> > > > In the name of the Core Team
> > > > Kaarel & Nicole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> > > > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nicole Ebber
> > > > Adviser International Relations
> > > > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > > http://wikimedia.de
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > > > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > > > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > > > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Kaarel Vaidla*
> > Process Architect for
> > Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > 2030.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>
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> _______________________________________________
> 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>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

David Cuenca Tudela
SJ, other groups can meet and discuss, but they only have relevance if they
are given some legitimacy.
If the output of paralel groups is ignored, the only inspiration they can
give is about how to waste community good faith (and resources).
Having discussion groups only makes sense if there is a community to
interact with, and if the output of that interaction serves some purpose.

I also think that it wouldn't be fair to take community attention bandwidth
away with paralel groups until the official groups have had some chance to
perform.
Considering all the feedback that has been given here, I trust that it will
be used to improve the blindspots.

Micru

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:31 PM Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.
>
> I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication*
> to/from/about the current groups.  But I would be especially interested in
> ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process)
> could organize similar visions and proposals and priorities for the future,
> in parallel.  Sometimes it is easier to develop crisp ideas as
> contrast/critique of an existing process, than from scratch.  In which case
> quirks of a process, like incomplete sections of articles, can serve as
> helpful inspiration.
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> > distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
> focus
> > was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
> the
> > Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> > those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
> >
> > "The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the
> > whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1].
> It
> > is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global
> > movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not
> > organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being
> > organised, yet they might want to participate.
> > I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new
> > ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted)
> do
> > the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the
> > status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps
> more
> > inclusive, approaches.
> >
> > > We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
> > people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have
> > ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
> >
> > Ideas:
> > - Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
> > - Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less
> frequent
> > updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
> > - Blog posts every 3-6 months
> > - Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
> > participants and community members
> > - Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing
> WG
> > participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language
> > and participation barriers
> > - Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
> >
> > > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer
> project
> > communities.
> >
> > I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of
> > applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they
> were
> > not fulfilling.
> >
> > > As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
> > published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> thoughts
> > regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
> >
> > "Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the
> > participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the
> > motivation letters of the participants?
> > I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to
> know
> > the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to
> > format/structure it, I can help there.
> >
> > I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
> > working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
> > they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the
> > value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement,
> and
> > there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity
> > within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is
> > that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement,
> > because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
> >
> > Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take
> place,
> > and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have
> > been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the
> > resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply
> > once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also
> > forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in
> Wikimania.
> >
> > Have a nice day!
> > Micru
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Dear Micru,
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition
> of
> > > the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> > > offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> > > different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> > > current status of the process.
> > >
> > > >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> > are
> > > not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers
> from
> > > our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource,
> > Wiktionary...?
> > > It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that
> > to
> > > have members chosen by those communities.
> > > >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
> Groups
> > do
> > > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
> having
> > > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> > >
> > > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> > > distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
> > focus
> > > was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
> > the
> > > Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> > > those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We
> > would
> > > like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people
> not
> > > interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> > > would be really interested in hearing them.
> > >
> > > The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> > > engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> > > collective process.
> > >
> > > >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> > > that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> > > aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender,
> race,
> > > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition
> of
> > > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> > >
> > > With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity
> > considerations
> > > are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> > > strategic discussions.
> > >
> > > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer
> project
> > > communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups
> > helps
> > > us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic
> process.
> > >
> > > We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> > > Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on
> > filling
> > > these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> > > also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> > > thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> > > letter.
> > >
> > > >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> > movement
> > > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > > members?
> > >
> > > In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we
> > accept
> > > further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> > > expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these
> > proportions
> > > will change
> > >
> > > Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up
> > in a
> > > more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> > > interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related
> to
> > > the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in
> > the
> > > strategy process.
> > >
> > > Have a great weekend!
> > > Kaarel
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
> > > >
> > > > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital
> projects
> > > are
> > > > not directly represented.
> > > > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital
> communities
> > > like
> > > > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to
> > have
> > > > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen
> by
> > > > those communities.
> > > > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > > > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the
> only
> > > > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
> > Groups
> > > do
> > > > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
> > having
> > > > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> > > >
> > > > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of
> diversity
> > > that
> > > > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> > aspect
> > > is
> > > > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > > > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive
> definition
> > of
> > > > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get
> to
> > > > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> > > >
> > > > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > > > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of
> the
> > > > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> > > movement
> > > > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to
> staff
> > > > members?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Micru
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group
> and
> > > > > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot
> of
> > > > > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> > > > > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> > > > > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> > > > > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> > > > > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> > > > > outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> > > > > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> > > > > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task
> for
> > > > > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity
> of
> > > > > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After
> that,
> > > > > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
> > > > >
> > > > > == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> > > > > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> > > > > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an
> update,
> > > > > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> > > > > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the
> > detailed
> > > > > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> > > > > forward to seeing many of you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date,
> > as
> > > > > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> > > > > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> > > > > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> > > > > hearing from you during future consultations.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the name of the Core Team
> > > > > Kaarel & Nicole
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> > > > > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Nicole Ebber
> > > > > Adviser International Relations
> > > > > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > > > http://wikimedia.de
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> e.
> > > > > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > > > > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > > > > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > > > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Kaarel Vaidla*
> > > Process Architect for
> > > Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > > 2030.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>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
> _______________________________________________
> 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>



--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
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