[Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy

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

[Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Asaf Bartov-2
Hi, everyone.

I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons.  It took some time to
add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania, hence
the delay.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.pdf

If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a
temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not
meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read this
expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense.

If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the
link or re-share with this full version.

I welcome discussion and questions.

Cheers,

   Asaf
--
    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

MZMcBride-2
Asaf Bartov wrote:
>I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons.  It took some time
>to add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania,
>hence the delay.
>
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/102946507

Thank you for posting this.

The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
initially misunderstood its meaning. The term "Global South" is pretty
awful and deserves a quick death. But based on the title of the
presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet.

I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and
India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on the
ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of
the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does
the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will be
working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time
staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation
contractors?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Asaf Bartov-2
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
> South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
> initially misunderstood its meaning.


No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South" is
emphatically not on the agenda.


> The term "Global South" is pretty
> awful and deserves a quick death.


Agreed...


> But based on the title of the
> presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet.
>

...but what do we replace it with?  This has been rehashed quite a bit, but
no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise
and is politically acceptable.  (Personally I am happy with "developing
world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are euphemistic
as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)

I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of
countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity
throughout all these countries.  It is my understanding that most of the
consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption
that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS
countries the same.  I hope it is by now evident we are not.

Once again, I find no point to debating this.  All who _are_ interested are
welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a
shortlist) to WMF for consideration.  If a superior term arises, I promise
to make an effort to adopt it across WMF.  Until then, let's focus on the
actual work rather than the nomenclature.


> I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and
> India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on the
> ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of
> the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does
> the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will be
> working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time
> staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation
> contractors?
>

There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the
ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!)
means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress),
no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by
local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations,
and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF
grantees.

Cheers,

   A.
--
    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Osmar Valdebenito-2
Thanks Asaf,
I've updated WMAR website with the new presentation.

*Osmar Valdebenito G.*
Director Ejecutivo
A. C. Wikimedia Argentina


2013/8/29 Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
> > South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
> > initially misunderstood its meaning.
>
>
> No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South" is
> emphatically not on the agenda.
>
>
> > The term "Global South" is pretty
> > awful and deserves a quick death.
>
>
> Agreed...
>
>
> > But based on the title of the
> > presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead
> yet.
> >
>
> ...but what do we replace it with?  This has been rehashed quite a bit, but
> no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise
> and is politically acceptable.  (Personally I am happy with "developing
> world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are euphemistic
> as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)
>
> I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of
> countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity
> throughout all these countries.  It is my understanding that most of the
> consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption
> that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS
> countries the same.  I hope it is by now evident we are not.
>
> Once again, I find no point to debating this.  All who _are_ interested are
> welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a
> shortlist) to WMF for consideration.  If a superior term arises, I promise
> to make an effort to adopt it across WMF.  Until then, let's focus on the
> actual work rather than the nomenclature.
>
>
> > I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and
> > India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on the
> > ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation
> of
> > the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does
> > the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will be
> > working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future?
> Full-time
> > staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > contractors?
> >
>
> There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the
> ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!)
> means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress),
> no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by
> local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations,
> and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF
> grantees.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    A.
> --
>     Asaf Bartov
>     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Balázs Viczián
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
What about making it simply global...?

Balázs
2013.08.30. 2:44, "Asaf Bartov" <[hidden email]> ezt írta:

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
> > South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
> > initially misunderstood its meaning.
>
>
> No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South" is
> emphatically not on the agenda.
>
>
> > The term "Global South" is pretty
> > awful and deserves a quick death.
>
>
> Agreed...
>
>
> > But based on the title of the
> > presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead
> yet.
> >
>
> ...but what do we replace it with?  This has been rehashed quite a bit, but
> no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise
> and is politically acceptable.  (Personally I am happy with "developing
> world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are euphemistic
> as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)
>
> I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of
> countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity
> throughout all these countries.  It is my understanding that most of the
> consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption
> that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS
> countries the same.  I hope it is by now evident we are not.
>
> Once again, I find no point to debating this.  All who _are_ interested are
> welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a
> shortlist) to WMF for consideration.  If a superior term arises, I promise
> to make an effort to adopt it across WMF.  Until then, let's focus on the
> actual work rather than the nomenclature.
>
>
> > I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and
> > India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on the
> > ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation
> of
> > the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does
> > the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will be
> > working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future?
> Full-time
> > staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > contractors?
> >
>
> There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the
> ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!)
> means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress),
> no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by
> local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations,
> and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF
> grantees.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    A.
> --
>     Asaf Bartov
>     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Balázs Viczián
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
What about making it simply global...?

Balázs
2013.08.30. 2:44, "Asaf Bartov" <[hidden email]> ezt írta:

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
> > South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
> > initially misunderstood its meaning.
>
>
> No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South" is
> emphatically not on the agenda.
>
>
> > The term "Global South" is pretty
> > awful and deserves a quick death.
>
>
> Agreed...
>
>
> > But based on the title of the
> > presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead
> yet.
> >
>
> ...but what do we replace it with?  This has been rehashed quite a bit, but
> no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise
> and is politically acceptable.  (Personally I am happy with "developing
> world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are euphemistic
> as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)
>
> I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of
> countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity
> throughout all these countries.  It is my understanding that most of the
> consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption
> that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS
> countries the same.  I hope it is by now evident we are not.
>
> Once again, I find no point to debating this.  All who _are_ interested are
> welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a
> shortlist) to WMF for consideration.  If a superior term arises, I promise
> to make an effort to adopt it across WMF.  Until then, let's focus on the
> actual work rather than the nomenclature.
>
>
> > I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and
> > India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on the
> > ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation
> of
> > the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does
> > the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will be
> > working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future?
> Full-time
> > staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia
> Foundation
> > contractors?
> >
>
> There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the
> ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!)
> means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress),
> no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by
> local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations,
> and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF
> grantees.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    A.
> --
>     Asaf Bartov
>     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

John Mark Vandenberg
'Global Strategy countries'?

I think this aligns with the intention of GS, which is to support
initiatives that help make our movement more global by investing in
areas/languages where editors and/or readers is low but potential is high.

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Aug 30, 2013 11:42 AM, "Balázs Viczián" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> What about making it simply global...?
>
> Balázs
> 2013.08.30. 2:44, "Asaf Bartov" <[hidden email]> ezt írta:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
> > > South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
> > > initially misunderstood its meaning.
> >
> >
> > No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South" is
> > emphatically not on the agenda.
> >
> >
> > > The term "Global South" is pretty
> > > awful and deserves a quick death.
> >
> >
> > Agreed...
> >
> >
> > > But based on the title of the
> > > presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead
> > yet.
> > >
> >
> > ...but what do we replace it with?  This has been rehashed quite a bit,
> but
> > no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably
> concise
> > and is politically acceptable.  (Personally I am happy with "developing
> > world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are
> euphemistic
> > as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)
> >
> > I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list
> of
> > countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity
> > throughout all these countries.  It is my understanding that most of the
> > consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the
> assumption
> > that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS
> > countries the same.  I hope it is by now evident we are not.
> >
> > Once again, I find no point to debating this.  All who _are_ interested
> are
> > welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a
> > shortlist) to WMF for consideration.  If a superior term arises, I
> promise
> > to make an effort to adopt it across WMF.  Until then, let's focus on the
> > actual work rather than the nomenclature.
> >
> >
> > > I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and
> > > India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on
> the
> > > ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation
> > of
> > > the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements.
> Does
> > > the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will
> be
> > > working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future?
> > Full-time
> > > staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia
> > Foundation
> > > contractors?
> > >
> >
> > There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the
> > ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!)
> > means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in
> progress),
> > no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by
> > local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations,
> > and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF
> > grantees.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >    A.
> > --
> >     Asaf Bartov
> >     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> >
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Anders Wennersten-2
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
Thanks for sharing this, giving me an insight into an area where I
myself have little first-hand experience

For me the key finding are:
*We know now what approaches does NOT work. I am struck with how much of
these findings are also relevant for work being done from chapter.
Hopefully Frank S can summarize these learnings in his work
*Results from external resources only gives results when there exist an
active community. And how and what type of resources make sense and how
they should be provided is learned well by the new Grants organization.

But what about the key issue: What are the parameters that makes a
active community to be created and also be sustainable? We have a lot of
anecdotal stories and a lot of subjective opinions, but have there ever
been done a professional study taking an analytical approach, using many
different of our communities as input to find the critical parameters
that creates success or hampers/disintegrate active communities?

Anders



Asaf Bartov skrev 2013-08-30 01:38:

> Hi, everyone.
>
> I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons.  It took some time to
> add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania, hence
> the delay.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.pdf
>
> If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a
> temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not
> meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read this
> expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense.
>
> If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the
> link or re-share with this full version.
>
> I welcome discussion and questions.
>
> Cheers,
>
>     Asaf


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Michael Jahn-3
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Regarding missing alternatives to the GS _term_.


2013/8/30 John Vandenberg <[hidden email]>

> 'Global Strategy countries'?
>
> I think this aligns with the intention of GS, which is to support
> initiatives that help make our movement more global by investing in
> areas/languages where editors and/or readers is low but potential is high.
>

I tend to say that it's not about areas/languages but about the challenges
mentioned in Asaf's slides. "Global" -- in my opinion -- is a term that
emphasizes _unifying_ aspects of a subject. At its core the GS initiative
is about conditions (re: WP, accessing and contributing) that are
_different_ between certain areas of the world and others. That's why
"global" won't do the trick. The "challenges: factors" section in Asaf's
slides suggests that this difference has its roots in
* limited access to the internet and to materials,
* diglossia and other language issues,
* financial, political and cultural limitations.

...all of which are social issues (<-- terribly unscientifc
oversimplification alert). In other words: The challenges have nothing to
do with latitude (or longitude) but have an inherently social nature. Thus,
there may not be a need to find a geographical label at all. What matters
is a priority list which determines in which countries support is both
highly necessary and most likely to be effective. With the countries listed
in the aforementioned slides the WMF has such a list. I guess if
Greenland[1] met the priority criteria (showing a huge community potential,
having web access issues and specific cultural issues, and so on and so
forth), it would probably make the priority list, wouldn't it? My point is:
An alternative term for "global south" could be something based on _what_
is addressed instead of _where_ things are addressed. Could be something in
the direction of "Social Access Initiative" or the like. (Really, just an
example for illustration purposes, I won't defend it :-)

Best,
Michael Jahn

[1] My apologies to Greenland. I know nothing about you, except that you're
way up north! It's a shame. Don't mean to insult you.

> John Vandenberg.
> sent from Galaxy Note
> On Aug 30, 2013 11:42 AM, "Balázs Viczián" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > What about making it simply global...?
> >
> > Balázs
> > 2013.08.30. 2:44, "Asaf Bartov" <[hidden email]> ezt írta:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
> > > > South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
> > > > initially misunderstood its meaning.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South"
> is
> > > emphatically not on the agenda.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The term "Global South" is pretty
> > > > awful and deserves a quick death.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed...
> > >
> > >
> > > > But based on the title of the
> > > > presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead
> > > yet.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ...but what do we replace it with?  This has been rehashed quite a bit,
> > but
> > > no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably
> > concise
> > > and is politically acceptable.  (Personally I am happy with "developing
> > > world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are
> > euphemistic
> > > as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)
> > >
> > > I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a
> list
> > of
> > > countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some
> uniformity
> > > throughout all these countries.  It is my understanding that most of
> the
> > > consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the
> > assumption
> > > that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS
> > > countries the same.  I hope it is by now evident we are not.
> > >
> > > Once again, I find no point to debating this.  All who _are_ interested
> > are
> > > welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a
> > > shortlist) to WMF for consideration.  If a superior term arises, I
> > promise
> > > to make an effort to adopt it across WMF.  Until then, let's focus on
> the
> > > actual work rather than the nomenclature.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil
> and
> > > > India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on
> > the
> > > > ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a
> discontinuation
> > > of
> > > > the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements.
> > Does
> > > > the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff
> will
> > be
> > > > working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future?
> > > Full-time
> > > > staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia
> > > Foundation
> > > > contractors?
> > > >
> > >
> > > There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the
> > > ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the
> world!)
> > > means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in
> > progress),
> > > no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by
> > > local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic
> organizations,
> > > and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be
> WMF
> > > grantees.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > >    A.
> > > --
> > >     Asaf Bartov
> > >     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> > >
> > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> > > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Öffentlichkeitsarbeit

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260

http://wikimedia.de <http://www.wikimedia.de>

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der
Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei!

*Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales
Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:*
http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=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 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Asaf Bartov-2
In reply to this post by Anders Wennersten-2
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Anders Wennersten <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for sharing this, giving me an insight into an area where I myself
> have little first-hand experience
>
> [..]

> But what about the key issue: What are the parameters that makes a active
> community to be created and also be sustainable? We have a lot of anecdotal
> stories and a lot of subjective opinions, but have there ever been done a
> professional study taking an analytical approach, using many different of
> our communities as input to find the critical parameters that creates
> success or hampers/disintegrate active communities?
>

Not to my knowledge.  I explicitly state that this is a tough nut to crack,
i.e. that we don't yet know how to create that sustained core of
self-motivated active editors.  It's very much worth studying, but I don't
have a research department at my disposal.  If and when research brings us
some proposed solutions (we must not assume in advance that there is
precisely one way in which such cores come into existence), I'll be first
in line to listen and learn.  For now, with so much work to be done where
we _do_ have a core of active editors, we'll focus on working with those.

As stressed in the presentation, while we won't _actively_ try to make
something happen where there is no active editing community (e.g. Namibia,
Suriname, Botswana, Afghanistan), we remain open to experimentation with
_community initiatives_ anywhere in the world, via our grantmaking programs
as well as any advice, networking, etc. we can extend to support such
initiatives.

   Asaf
--
    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Heather Ford-4
I'm sorry I'm coming so late to this but I've been thinking about this a
lot and there are two questions that I still have that have been bugging me
that perhaps you might clarify, Asaf.

The first is why South Africa isn't included in the strategy. The more I
think about it, the more I think that it seems like a glaring omission and
so I keep thinking that there is something I'm not considering. If the
Foundation used 'active editing community' as a benchmark, South Africa has
a really strong editing community in Afrikaans Wikipedia as well as a
strong chapter that is interested in extending this success to other local
languages and to broader editing of Wikipedia within the region - a region
that is very poorly represented on WP and would benefit from more
assistance and advice from the Foundation.

The second is your point about research not being at your disposal at the
Foundation. I'm curious about why research isn't part of your strategy. It
seems to me that this would be the perfect opportunity to engage in more
research to understand what kinds of challenges people are facing, what
conditions make a local project successful, and also, about what kinds of
projects are useful in their symbolic effects rather than focusing only on
scale. I know that research capacity at the Foundation might be strained by
there are always opportunities for collaboration with the research
community, as well as incentives for researchers to engage in research that
the Foundation really needs.

Hoping you can shed some light on this!

Thanks!

Best,
Heather.


On 30 August 2013 17:24, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for sharing this, giving me an insight into an area where I myself
> > have little first-hand experience
> >
> > [..]
>
> > But what about the key issue: What are the parameters that makes a active
> > community to be created and also be sustainable? We have a lot of
> anecdotal
> > stories and a lot of subjective opinions, but have there ever been done a
> > professional study taking an analytical approach, using many different of
> > our communities as input to find the critical parameters that creates
> > success or hampers/disintegrate active communities?
> >
>
> Not to my knowledge.  I explicitly state that this is a tough nut to crack,
> i.e. that we don't yet know how to create that sustained core of
> self-motivated active editors.  It's very much worth studying, but I don't
> have a research department at my disposal.  If and when research brings us
> some proposed solutions (we must not assume in advance that there is
> precisely one way in which such cores come into existence), I'll be first
> in line to listen and learn.  For now, with so much work to be done where
> we _do_ have a core of active editors, we'll focus on working with those.
>
> As stressed in the presentation, while we won't _actively_ try to make
> something happen where there is no active editing community (e.g. Namibia,
> Suriname, Botswana, Afghanistan), we remain open to experimentation with
> _community initiatives_ anywhere in the world, via our grantmaking programs
> as well as any advice, networking, etc. we can extend to support such
> initiatives.
>
>    Asaf
> --
>     Asaf Bartov
>     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Abbas Mahmood
+1 to the questions Heather asked. Especially the South Africa issue.

Abbas.

> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:36:17 +0200
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
>
> I'm sorry I'm coming so late to this but I've been thinking about this a
> lot and there are two questions that I still have that have been bugging me
> that perhaps you might clarify, Asaf.
>
> The first is why South Africa isn't included in the strategy. The more I
> think about it, the more I think that it seems like a glaring omission and
> so I keep thinking that there is something I'm not considering. If the
> Foundation used 'active editing community' as a benchmark, South Africa has
> a really strong editing community in Afrikaans Wikipedia as well as a
> strong chapter that is interested in extending this success to other local
> languages and to broader editing of Wikipedia within the region - a region
> that is very poorly represented on WP and would benefit from more
> assistance and advice from the Foundation.
>
> The second is your point about research not being at your disposal at the
> Foundation. I'm curious about why research isn't part of your strategy. It
> seems to me that this would be the perfect opportunity to engage in more
> research to understand what kinds of challenges people are facing, what
> conditions make a local project successful, and also, about what kinds of
> projects are useful in their symbolic effects rather than focusing only on
> scale. I know that research capacity at the Foundation might be strained by
> there are always opportunities for collaboration with the research
> community, as well as incentives for researchers to engage in research that
> the Foundation really needs.
>
> Hoping you can shed some light on this!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
>
> On 30 August 2013 17:24, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for sharing this, giving me an insight into an area where I myself
> > > have little first-hand experience
> > >
> > > [..]
> >
> > > But what about the key issue: What are the parameters that makes a active
> > > community to be created and also be sustainable? We have a lot of
> > anecdotal
> > > stories and a lot of subjective opinions, but have there ever been done a
> > > professional study taking an analytical approach, using many different of
> > > our communities as input to find the critical parameters that creates
> > > success or hampers/disintegrate active communities?
> > >
> >
> > Not to my knowledge.  I explicitly state that this is a tough nut to crack,
> > i.e. that we don't yet know how to create that sustained core of
> > self-motivated active editors.  It's very much worth studying, but I don't
> > have a research department at my disposal.  If and when research brings us
> > some proposed solutions (we must not assume in advance that there is
> > precisely one way in which such cores come into existence), I'll be first
> > in line to listen and learn.  For now, with so much work to be done where
> > we _do_ have a core of active editors, we'll focus on working with those.
> >
> > As stressed in the presentation, while we won't _actively_ try to make
> > something happen where there is no active editing community (e.g. Namibia,
> > Suriname, Botswana, Afghanistan), we remain open to experimentation with
> > _community initiatives_ anywhere in the world, via our grantmaking programs
> > as well as any advice, networking, etc. we can extend to support such
> > initiatives.
> >
> >    Asaf
> > --
> >     Asaf Bartov
> >     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> >
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by Asaf Bartov-2
hi asaf, would you have a breakdown of the ~200'000 usd given to
global south please?

rupert.

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi, everyone.
>
> I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons.  It took some time to
> add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania, hence
> the delay.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.pdf
>
> If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a
> temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not
> meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read this
> expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense.
>
> If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the
> link or re-share with this full version.
>
> I welcome discussion and questions.
>
> Cheers,
>
>    Asaf
> --
>     Asaf Bartov
>     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Anasuya Sengupta
In reply to this post by Heather Ford-4
Hi Heather,

Apologies for the delayed response; as you’ve probably heard, we’ve been a
bit under the weather around here. In any case, here are a few thoughts
related to your questions, I hope they’re clarifying.

The Global South strategy and what it really means: Thank you too for
giving us another opportunity to clarify what I think we should make clear
from the start: Asaf’s presentation at Wikimania does not reflect the
complete Global South (GS) strategy from the WMF Grantmaking team, but
 really our "Strategy for the proactive development efforts by WMF
Grantmaking of existing highly active editing communities in the GS"
or the“Focus Areas in the next phase of catalysing GS community
development’”(you can see why we’ve tended to shorten what is
otherwise a misnomer :-)).
Our overall GS strategy continues to be to support communities and
organizations across the Global South in multiple ways: through grants,
through connections with other communities and organizations, and through
the support of ideas, needs and capacities that may need resources (people,
information et al) beyond money. We are explicitly looking at improving the
distribution of resources across our global movement, given that last
fiscal year, only 8.5% of our total grants spending in dollars went to the
Global South. We do better in terms of *number* of grants: 33% of our total
grants went to the Global South. Still, we know and recognise the current
reality and its historical roots, and are strongly committed to shifting
this dynamic over time.

The "focus areas" are just that -- focus areas -- and are not exclusive,
that is, the focus strategy absolutely does *not* imply that countries
outside the focus areas are not able to receive help from WMF.  The various
grants programs continue to be available to all (within each program's
criteria), and recent grants to, for instance, Estonia and Armenia show
that small countries can and do benefit from WMF funds and attention,
albeit in a more responsive or reactive context, i.e. those groups take the
initiative to reach out when they need resources from us. We will continue
to be open to working with groups and communities from around the world,
and certainly in offering any advice and attention that is sought. At the
same time, we recognise - from both Asaf’s Wikimedian experience and mine
from other movements and community initiatives - that too much money is
just as dangerous (if not more) to emerging volunteer communities than too
little money. For a community to have a relatively strong, stable and
self-sustaining core of volunteers is rarely dependent on (lack of) funds,
while key to its long-term success, and influences its ability to absorb
and implement grants effectively.

So why these nine geography/language communities as focus areas in
particular? As you know, we moved away from the Catalyst Projects model in
India, Brazil and the Arab region, finding it both resource-heavy and
strategically problematic: we believe that the best way forward is to
combine the ideas and initiatives of Wikimedia communities with investment
and attention from WMF. While continuing to focus on India, Brazil and the
Arab region - and shifting the Catalyst Projects in the first two into
partnership grants - we decided to focus on geographies and related
language communities that had the highest base of editors, both nationally
located as well as contributing to a larger online community, in the Global
South. We are attempting to learn whether a pro-active engagement strategy
with these communities - reaching out to both online and offline active
contributors - would raise their levels of contributions significantly, and
how we can support these initiatives through grants and other resources.

The table below gives you a sense of how we made our choices. Countries
like China and Russia that were obviously in the ‘top 10’ in terms of
quantitative indicators, we knew might be difficult to support more
practically with large grants or other intensive processes at this time,
and we ended up with these nine as an interesting mix of geographies,
languages, contexts and community forms. South Africa does have a
good-sized active editing community (around 9-13 very active editors,
123-125 active editors).  However, the fact is that all of the countries in
our focus areas list have significantly more active and very active editors
than South Africa, other than in Egypt’s case (though editors from Egypt
are arguably important to the larger Arabic language community, which is
why Egypt is one of our focus geographies/language communities) and so it
did not make the list this time around.

The list is still an exploratory one, and it is quite likely to see some
adaptations in the coming year or two -- not in the sense of abandoning
projects mid-way, but of adapting to changing needs or newly-discovered
obstacles where projects were not started yet.  So a couple of factors that
could bump South Africa up and into the list are:

* some of the selected focus areas may turn out to not be ready for a
practical WMF investment.  Not much is known yet about the potential for
doing work in Vietnam, for example, though Asaf is in exploratory
conversations, and when more is known, a decision will be made about
whether or not to embark on projects in Vietnam.

* South African Wikimedians' own initiatives (e.g. the successful grant
with OSF) can make _proactive_ WMF investment in South Africa more
obviously useful and practical.

Note: while this was not the reason South Africa did not make the focus
list, it is worth recognising that the chapter in South Africa - while
passionate, responsible and growing in confidence - is based on the energy
and passion of two or three individuals currently, having recently lost two
of its previously active volunteers to Real Life<tm>.  So the chapter is
still at the "promising" stage, and not yet a solid platform for
significant initiatives. We certainly hope this will change; we have been
supporting WMZA with grants and advice, and will continue to do so.

Work in progress: Overall, to be clear, this is a work in progress. We’re
exploring a new set of approaches to ‘catalysing’ communities, that are
highly contextual, and that may change depending on our initial work. Over
the course of the next few weeks, we will be building out more details
about this strategy on Meta, and look forward to your further comments
there.


Country

Major non-English languages

Population (millions)

Internet penetration (%)

Internet pop. (millions)

ENWP editors

ENWP very active eds

Maj. lang. eds

Maj. lang. very active eds

Active eds outside country (in non-EN major lang.)

Total active eds in non-en lang. (all countries)

1. India

ml, ta; gu, mr, kn, te, hi, bn

1210

11

133.1

1685

82

n/a

n/a


1. India (BN)






8

1

76

84

1. India (ML)






61

11

55

116

1. India (TA)






83

17

39

122

1. India (HI)






26

3

34

60

1. India (TE)







9

37

1. India (MR)







7

21

1. India (KN)







4

38

1. India (GU)







3

10

2. Brazil

pt

194

42

81.48

286

36

1288

164

409

1697

3. Turkey

tr

76

44

33.44

155

13

558

61

106

664

4. Mexico

es

115

37

42.55

124

5

538

44

4243

4781

5. Argentina

es

42

67

28.14

118

10

624

83

4157

4781

6.Vietnam

vi

88

34

29.92

51

2

268

44

78

346

7. Egypt

ar

80

36

28.8

43

3

175

19

571

746

8. Philippines

tl

92

32

29.44

428

40

18

4

40

58

9. Indonesia

id

237

22

52.14

164

17

368

32

65

433











South Africa (XH)

xh

51

17

8.5

123

9

0

0

4

4

South Africa (AF)

af

51

17

8.5

123

9

7

29

* These figures are from February 2013.

Research _is_ part of strategy but...: We do want - and certainly believe -
research should be part of our strategy, for obvious reasons that we won’t
belabour to you, as a Wikimedia/GS researcher! Just the existence of a
focus initiative like this begs for a good research framework that will
test some of our assumptions and hypotheses and throw up others. However,
the point Asaf made was more in relation to our ability to manage and
coordinate with external researchers, as well as our internal capacities to
do relevant analyses. Within WMF, we are now setting up a better data
analysis process by creating and strengthening our Analytics and Program
Evaluation and Design teams, and within Grantmaking itself, we’re putting
in place a Grantmaking Learning and Evaluation team that will support some
baseline data and research. Asaf will also have more time to potentially
coordinate external research in this area, as we are currently hiring for a
program officer to support him in running the Project and Event Grants
Program (what he’s largely been devoted to so far).

On a more theoretical level, though, we know that the research already
taking place seems quite relevant globally -- e.g. editor retention
research, policy change effects, etc., all have implications for our goals
around editorship in the GS, especially as in most of the GS, the languages
people are likely to want to contribute in are major, mature Wikipedias
(Spanish, English, French).

We would actually love to know from you and your fellow researchers what
challenges you see that are both specific to the GS and to Wikimedia, i.e.
from the point of view of the online communities, the main challenges seem
to be either standard Wikimedia challenges (e.g. newbie biting, where to
start, surprise policy violation attacks), or standard GS challenges
(Internet access, data charges, access to libraries, long distances or poor
infrastructure).  My sense is that the challenges that are both specific to
the GS and to Wikimedia are around building a self-sustaining core of
community (because of some of these intersecting challenges mentioned above
and the constraints on cognitive surplus), as well as a potential
language/confidence barrier in reaching out to the global Wikimedia
community, including WMF, to request for support when needed. I certainly
hope that if the latter should be the case, we are changing the reality
rapidly: we are always open to conversation, on wiki, on email, on VOIP…
and to supporting Wikimedians, particularly in the Global South, in
expanding their communities and their online presence.

Let us know if we can answer any more questions, or clarify things further.

Warmly,
Asaf and Anasuya


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Heather Ford <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I'm sorry I'm coming so late to this but I've been thinking about this a
> lot and there are two questions that I still have that have been bugging me
> that perhaps you might clarify, Asaf.
>
> The first is why South Africa isn't included in the strategy. The more I
> think about it, the more I think that it seems like a glaring omission and
> so I keep thinking that there is something I'm not considering. If the
> Foundation used 'active editing community' as a benchmark, South Africa has
> a really strong editing community in Afrikaans Wikipedia as well as a
> strong chapter that is interested in extending this success to other local
> languages and to broader editing of Wikipedia within the region - a region
> that is very poorly represented on WP and would benefit from more
> assistance and advice from the Foundation.
>
> The second is your point about research not being at your disposal at the
> Foundation. I'm curious about why research isn't part of your strategy. It
> seems to me that this would be the perfect opportunity to engage in more
> research to understand what kinds of challenges people are facing, what
> conditions make a local project successful, and also, about what kinds of
> projects are useful in their symbolic effects rather than focusing only on
> scale. I know that research capacity at the Foundation might be strained by
> there are always opportunities for collaboration with the research
> community, as well as incentives for researchers to engage in research that
> the Foundation really needs.
>
> Hoping you can shed some light on this!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Heather.
>
>
> On 30 August 2013 17:24, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for sharing this, giving me an insight into an area where I
> myself
> > > have little first-hand experience
> > >
> > > [..]
> >
> > > But what about the key issue: What are the parameters that makes a
> active
> > > community to be created and also be sustainable? We have a lot of
> > anecdotal
> > > stories and a lot of subjective opinions, but have there ever been
> done a
> > > professional study taking an analytical approach, using many different
> of
> > > our communities as input to find the critical parameters that creates
> > > success or hampers/disintegrate active communities?
> > >
> >
> > Not to my knowledge.  I explicitly state that this is a tough nut to
> crack,
> > i.e. that we don't yet know how to create that sustained core of
> > self-motivated active editors.  It's very much worth studying, but I
> don't
> > have a research department at my disposal.  If and when research brings
> us
> > some proposed solutions (we must not assume in advance that there is
> > precisely one way in which such cores come into existence), I'll be first
> > in line to listen and learn.  For now, with so much work to be done where
> > we _do_ have a core of active editors, we'll focus on working with those.
> >
> > As stressed in the presentation, while we won't _actively_ try to make
> > something happen where there is no active editing community (e.g.
> Namibia,
> > Suriname, Botswana, Afghanistan), we remain open to experimentation with
> > _community initiatives_ anywhere in the world, via our grantmaking
> programs
> > as well as any advice, networking, etc. we can extend to support such
> > initiatives.
> >
> >    Asaf
> > --
> >     Asaf Bartov
> >     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> >
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
***Anasuya Sengupta
Senior Director of Grantmaking
Wikimedia Foundation*
*
*
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
Support Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Anasuya Sengupta
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
Hi Rupert,

The ~200,000 USD Asaf mentions is the total of the grants we gave to five
GS chapters in the last fiscal year (to WMAR, WMIN, WMMX, WMVE, WMZA). Of
the overall 5.65 million USD we gave out in grants last year, the total to
the Global South was ~470,000 USD (including the grant to CIS India, IEG
grants, travel and participation grants and scholarships).

Hope that helps,
Anasuya


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:42 AM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>wrote:

> hi asaf, would you have a breakdown of the ~200'000 usd given to
> global south please?
>
> rupert.
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Hi, everyone.
> >
> > I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons.  It took some time
> to
> > add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania,
> hence
> > the delay.
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.pdf
> >
> > If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a
> > temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not
> > meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read
> this
> > expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense.
> >
> > If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the
> > link or re-share with this full version.
> >
> > I welcome discussion and questions.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >    Asaf
> > --
> >     Asaf Bartov
> >     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> >
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
***Anasuya Sengupta
Senior Director of Grantmaking
Wikimedia Foundation*
*
*
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
Support Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

rupert THURNER-2
many thanks, that helps a lot! is the base data (a list of grants and
how you consolidate it) available, including a link to the project
page?

rupert.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Anasuya Sengupta
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Rupert,
>
> The ~200,000 USD Asaf mentions is the total of the grants we gave to five
> GS chapters in the last fiscal year (to WMAR, WMIN, WMMX, WMVE, WMZA). Of
> the overall 5.65 million USD we gave out in grants last year, the total to
> the Global South was ~470,000 USD (including the grant to CIS India, IEG
> grants, travel and participation grants and scholarships).
>
> Hope that helps,
> Anasuya
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:42 AM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> hi asaf, would you have a breakdown of the ~200'000 usd given to
>> global south please?
>>
>> rupert.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi, everyone.
>> >
>> > I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons.  It took some time
>> to
>> > add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania,
>> hence
>> > the delay.
>> >
>> >
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.pdf
>> >
>> > If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a
>> > temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not
>> > meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read
>> this
>> > expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense.
>> >
>> > If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the
>> > link or re-share with this full version.
>> >
>> > I welcome discussion and questions.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >    Asaf
>> > --
>> >     Asaf Bartov
>> >     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>> >
>> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
>> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ***Anasuya Sengupta
> Senior Director of Grantmaking
> Wikimedia Foundation*
> *
> *
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
> Support Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Asaf Bartov-2
All the data is public:
Project and Event Grants are all listed at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests and tabulated at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Table
Annual Plan Grants (FDC) are listed here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals

Cheers,

   Asaf


On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:29 PM, rupert THURNER
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> many thanks, that helps a lot! is the base data (a list of grants and
> how you consolidate it) available, including a link to the project
> page?
>
> rupert.
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Anasuya Sengupta
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Rupert,
> >
> > The ~200,000 USD Asaf mentions is the total of the grants we gave to five
> > GS chapters in the last fiscal year (to WMAR, WMIN, WMMX, WMVE, WMZA). Of
> > the overall 5.65 million USD we gave out in grants last year, the total
> to
> > the Global South was ~470,000 USD (including the grant to CIS India, IEG
> > grants, travel and participation grants and scholarships).
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> > Anasuya
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:42 AM, rupert THURNER <
> [hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> >> hi asaf, would you have a breakdown of the ~200'000 usd given to
> >> global south please?
> >>
> >> rupert.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi, everyone.
> >> >
> >> > I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons.  It took some
> time
> >> to
> >> > add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania,
> >> hence
> >> > the delay.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.pdf
> >> >
> >> > If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a
> >> > temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not
> >> > meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read
> >> this
> >> > expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense.
> >> >
> >> > If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change
> the
> >> > link or re-share with this full version.
> >> >
> >> > I welcome discussion and questions.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> >    Asaf
> >> > --
> >> >     Asaf Bartov
> >> >     Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
> >> >
> >> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> >> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> >> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ***Anasuya Sengupta
> > Senior Director of Grantmaking
> > Wikimedia Foundation*
> > *
> > *
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
> > Support Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[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] WMF's New Global South Strategy

Heather Ford-4
In reply to this post by Anasuya Sengupta
Thank you so very much for your reply, Anasuya and Asaf. And sorry you've
been ill :(

Your message was so helpful - thank you for explaining how the decisions
were made, and for writing that you are open to changes in the strategy as
you learn more about this process. That is much appreciated :) I also want
to say that I don't want this to be seen as an attack on the strategy. I
think you have done such great work already, and more importantly, have
been open to learning from your mistakes (as we have as we've gone through
this process with you) at a time when there has been tremendous changes at
the Foundation - all of which I appreciate. I just think that there are
some foundational challenges that the current strategy brings up that I've
been thinking a lot about recently. I share them with you in good faith
below :)

1. The first point is that there is a key symbolic and practical difference
between focus countries and general support. As Asaf said at Wikimania (my
paraphrasing): 'We won't go out of our way to support projects outside of
these countries, but will be open to requests for support from anyone
elsewhere.' I think the feeling in some countries outside of this scope is
that, instead of welcoming their initiatives, they are sometimes met with
immediate and pretty vehement opposition. This isn't to say that the WMF
isn't supporting those initiatives, it's just that the tone of those
conversations is often oppositional and sometimes even aggressive which
doesn't bode well for good relationships between the Foundation and
community members who, admittedly have a long way to go to developing
strong proposals for support, but who need to feel supported and valued if
they are to continue doing this work. This makes the 'active focus' so much
more of a big deal than it would immediately be apparent: being in an area
of active focus often means that the barriers are just much easier to
overcome since it is in the WMF's best interests to make things happen
there.

2. My second point is that the WMF has chosen to look mostly at active
editors at a national level in order to decide on the focus countries, but
has added more symbolic reasons in its decision to support Egypt. I totally
support the decision to focus on Egypt but I think it points to the need
for a systematic approach for choosing what active interventions the
Foundation will make. The problem, I think, with the approach of using
active editor counts as the primary way of deciding which countries to
focus on are as follows:

- Countries are being compared to one another without an understanding of
the barriers to participation in different parts of the world. The
unintended consequence of this is that it gives the impression by people
working in places where it is a major success to get just one more active
editor, just one more article about a relevant local topic, rather than
scores more that their work isn't valued as highly.

- We often choose a particular way of evaluating where to focus our efforts
because of the availability of the data, rather than because it is the best
way of understanding a problem. The problem with this is that it can result
in us believing that this is the right way of evaluating whether something
will be successful when other alternatives (perhaps more difficult) might
prove to be more accurate.

- Finally, I was struck that the number of *readers* of Wikipedia aren't
taken account in this decision. There is a great paper by Judd Antin and
Coye Cheshire called 'Readers are not free riders' [1] that speaks about
the importance of reading Wikipedia in becoming a Wikipedian. Active
editors shouldn't, I believe, be the only way to think about which
communities are most engaged in Wikipedia.

3. All of these issues lead me back to the same question: what is the goal
of this programme? And: how will we know when it is successful? Is it about
increasing the numbers of active editors in particular countries? Or, is it
about trying to actively solve the problem of weak representation of
particular subjects and people at the level of geography? I would advocate
for the former rather than the latter because increasing numbers cannot be
seen as an end in itself. We have the benefit of being a community that
doesn't have to be driven by numbers or shareholders or profits. We can
think more deeply about the symbolic power of our interventions and about
what it means to be successful as a global movement. We're trying to build
an encyclopedia in which the sum of all human knowledge is represented.
We're only going to do that with the involvement of people around the
world. And as people like Mark Graham have shown [2], some of the weakest
representation on Wikipedia is of places in sub-Saharan Africa.
Understanding why this is a problem *by engaging in projects* in this part
of the world seems to me an obvious strategy - but only if this is the type
of goal that we're looking towards.

4. What I would advocate for is two things:

a) The first is to establish a strong research agenda that doesn't only
assess the success of current projects (for example, the current programme
that tracks an editor's edit counts from the moment of a training
intervention etc) but to also gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of
Wikipedia in the lives of people in places where there may not be a large
number of editors. Doing this will enable the WMF to gain a better
understanding of how to turn those readers into editors. This needs to
happen because the conditions of access to WP is *so different* in some
parts of the world that we cannot simply import old understandings of how
to generate interest in editing through interventions like the Wikipedia
Academies. [I'm going to write a bit more about the value of ethnography in
this context on ethnographymatters.net if you are interested]

b) The second is to develop interventions that are not only aimed at
gaining more editors but that can make a high impact in the lives of
ordinary people around the world. I'm reminded here of a project discussed
at the Haifa Wikimania where Wikipedians worked with students in a project
to install Wikipedia on computers in Cameroon and that within hours of the
installation people from the village were queuing up to read up on medical
information. That's the kind of project that I would want to see the WMF
'going out of their way' to initiate and support - in addition to the
easier (but never easy!) projects of supporting already-successful editing
communities. In doing this, we will be able to learn more deeply about how
Wikipedia needs to change as countries in the Global South come online. I
know that you don't want to be developing a programme where the Western
ways of doing things (i.e. growing Wikipedia) are merely imported wholesale
into the Global South. But without a solid understanding of what Wikipedia
is and what it can be in places where it is just a seed, this won't happen.

In conclusion, in the words of outgoing chair Kat Walsh, and something
reiterated by Abbas Mahmood at Wikimania, 'we (should) be doing the things
that are hard and not only the things that are easy.' I look forward to
helping wherever I can as you develop the strategy in the months to come :)

best,
Heather.

[1]
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~coye/Pubs/ConferenceProceedings/AntinCheshire_ReaderFreeRidersCSCW.pdf


[2]
http://www.zerogeography.net/2009/11/mapping-geographies-of-wikipedia.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>