Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Briefing/nl
Deze pagina stelt een overzicht op hoog niveau voor van wat we weten over de toekomst en over onze beweging vandaag. Volg de blauwe links voor meer informatie over een bepaald onderwerp.
Zie ook de subpagina voor meta-informatie over de briefing op zich.Deze page wordt bewaard vanwege historisch belang. Elk genoemd beleid kan achterhaald zijn. Als je het onderwerp nieuw leven wilt inblazen, kun je de overlegpagina gebruiken of een discussie starten op de centrale overlegpagina. |
Introductie
Doelen: Waarom zijn we hier vandaag?
Onze doelen (KLADVERSIE):
- Als beweging een samenhangende richting bepalen die ons allen verbindt en inspireert over de komende 15 jaar.
- Build trust, goodwill, and alignment within our movement. Participate in a legitimate, transparent, open process based on shared power, not hierarchy.
- Better understand the people and institutions that form our movement, those we are not yet reaching, and how their needs may change over the next 15 years.
- Build a shared understanding of what it means to be a movement, how others outside of us can take part, and what it will take to increase our movement’s impact. Unite around how to grow to achieve our vision.
- Build relationships to expand and enrich our movement and prospective partners.
Proces: Wat doen we momenteel?
This discussion is one of many that will happen across different groups and channels. You will have several opportunities to share your thoughts and discuss the future of the movement with others.
We will first discuss general ideas, then converge on themes and their implications.
After Wikimania, we will discuss the roles and resources needed to implement what we have agreed on.
Movements are purposeful & powerful ecosystems Mobilized groups, noticing inequity, organizing & taking action to seek change Some good examples include:
|
.jpg)
We're starting a movement-wide discussion. But what exactly is a movement? What are some examples of well-known movements of different types (political, social, local/global, empowerment-based)?
Transformative Movements v. incremental change
|
Collective Impact Framework
|
Social Movement Theory
|
Here are 3 different approaches for evaluating movements. They are each grounded in research and experience but with different lenses.
The 1st is from the Movement Strategy Center (Oakland, CA, USA) and has a very local, community-oriented approach; it is interested in inspiring participants to push for big transformative approaches (as opposed to smaller, more incremental activities) in order to disrupt and potentially eliminate systematic exploitation.
The 2nd is a very current approach among established organizations for looking at - and harnessing - the value of their separate (and potentially isolated) activities in order to coordinate efforts and have a much larger collective social impact.
The 3rd is a somewhat more academic approach for evaluating common aspects of social movements, with the notable political angle called out. All 3 of these “models” of movement evaluation can help us see important elements of our own “free knowledge” movement and help inspire ways to potentially optimize it.
Wat we weten over de toekomst: 2030 en verder
Probabilistic Population Projections based on the World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision
De meest significante demografische trend van de 21ste eeuw zal snelle bevolkingsgroei in Afrika zijn.
Lagos (Nigeria) bijvoorbeeld zal naar verwachting tot 24 miljoen inwoners groeien tegen 2030, hetgeen de bevolking is van het huidige Shanghai, de grootste stad ter wereld.
In andere landen zal de bevolking trager groeien of inkrimpen, en ouder worden.
Veel landen zullen een disproportioneel groot aandeel van oudere inwoners hebben.
Het aandeel van Chinese burgers boven de 60 jaar bijvoorbeeld zal toenemen van 16,1% naar 25,2% in 2030.
The 8.5 billion humans who will inhabit Earth in 2030 still have to live on the same planet. As a movement, we can't ignore our environment and larger ecosystem. We have to be conscious of the other challenges that we face as a global population, and how they impact our movement.
This isn't to say that the Wikimedia movement should try to solve global warming or social injustice; that is not our primary focus.
There is however an urgency in our quest to share free knowledge; complacency is a privilege that most of the human population can't afford.
| De oplossingen zijn verbonden.
According to the Movement Strategy Center, many movements seek to solve problems that are interconnected, with solutions that are connected as well: | ||
| Overgang van systemen op basis van: | naar… | Systemen gebaseerd op: |
| Extraction | → | Regeneration |
| Controle | → | Democratie |
| Exclusion | → | Inclusion |
| Accumulation | → | Samenwerking |
Experts in social movements recognize common symptoms of systems that serve to accumulate wealth and power in the hands of a few.
The Wikimedia movement exemplifies many of the solutions proposed to solve those problems. Sharing knowledge for free inherently shifts power from elites to the people. The way we currently create and disseminate free knowledge through wikis is radically inclusive and cooperative.
The wisdom, generosity, and kindness demonstrated across our communities can also be seen in other social movements that seek to improve our collective future.
5% more young people are enrolled in primary school than were enrolled in 2000 (89% and 84%, respectively).[e 1]
50% of out-of-school children of primary school age live in conflict-affected areas.[e 2]
85% of the global population is literate, up from 82% in 2000.[e 1]
- ↑ a b World Bank, 2014
- ↑ United Nations
15 years is an eternity in the world of technology; the always-connected, touch smartphone now ubiquitous in established markets didn't exist 15 years ago.
Predicting technology 15 years ahead is difficult, but some trends are likely to continue.
One such trend is the growth of internet penetration across the world, and in particular in emerging centers of high population.
,_2013-2016_-_From_Wikimedia_Readership_metrics_until_January_1,_2017.png)
Another strong trend is the continued rise of mobile access, devices, and practices. In 2015, mobile traffic surpassed traffic to the desktop Wikipedia site for the first time. Mobile significantly changes access for emerging countries. Many users are getting information online, then consuming and sharing offline.
Messaging platforms grow rapidly, evolving from simple conversations to expressive communication
Smartphone usage increasingly means sharing stories as they happen.
Our movement and ecosystem: Who are we today?
What do we mean by "movement" in the context of Wikimedia and its vision? There are many different perspectives on what the movement is.
We're a large and diverse group of people doing a lot of different things, playing a lot of different roles, at different levels of involvement.
Our movement is also part of a larger ecosystem of movements, organizations, and individuals. Some of them have interests similar to ours, and others work against our efforts.
Individuele bijdragers vandaag
Bijna 75.000 individuele redacteurs maken momenteel meer dan 5 bewerkingen per maand. Daarvan maken er bijna 13.000 meer dan 100 bewerkingen per maand.
Het werk van bijdragen aan Wikipedia en de zusterprojecten is complex, dus bijdragers zijn geneigd zich te specialiseren in de rollen die ze vervullen. Deze rollen gaan van inhoud-specifiek (het eigenlijke schrijven van inhoud), ondersteunend (sjablonen, tools/bots bouwen), administratief, sociaal (bv. het bemiddelen van geschillen) tot kwaliteitscontrole (vandalismebestrijding en controle van nieuwe pagina's).
Nieuwkomers zijn geneigd om te beginnen bij het aanmaken van inhoud en later over te gaan naar sociale en technische rollen naarmate ze meer ervaring opbouwen.
Individuele bijdragers omvatten ook ontwikkelaars, designers en anderen die de tools en het softwareplatform waarop Wikimedia-sites draaien, maken en verbeteren.
Georganiseerde groepen voorzien een structuur voor groepen en individuen om activiteiten te organiseren die de beweging bevorderen. Per maart 2017 zijn er 50 chapters voor specifieke gebieden, 75 gebruikersgroepen en één thematische organisatie.
Er is een grote verscheidenheid bij de gelieerde organisaties op vlak van model, niveau van activiteit en op financieel vlak. Sommige hebben betaalde medewerkers terwijl andere volledig op vrijwilligers rusten. Sommige kunnen individuele bijdragers ondersteunen terwijl andere focussen op evenementen en outreach.
Er is geen enkel model dat bepaalt hoe een organisatie moet worden; het hangt af van de capaciteit en van externe omstandigheden.
De Wikimedia Foundation is momenteel de grootste organisatie binnen de beweging. Het werd opgericht in 2003 en heeft rond de 290 medewerkers, zowel in San Francisco als verspreid over de wereld.
Eén van de Foundations belangrijkste activiteiten vandaag is het voorzien van rechtstreekse ondersteuning aan websites en het verbeteren van de technische platforms waarop Wikimedia-sites draaien.
De Foundation onderhoudt ook programma's en grants om individuen, gemeenschappen en gelieerde organisaties van de beweging te ondersteuning.
Dit strategieproces van de beweging zal in het bijzonder beïnvloeden waarop de Foundation in de komende 15 jaar zal focussen.
Movement growth and tensions
Over the last 15 years, our movement has grown and become more complex. Along the way, there have been disagreements, mild and strong. There have been decisions involving power, money, and breaches of trust that have hurt relationships across the movement.
Many of us in the movement have felt wronged. Some have made mistakes that we might feel we can't ignore. Instead, we would ask that we acknowledge our shared history and learn from what we could have done better.
We can take a moment to reflect on the past, air any grievances, and heal before we can make plans for a future that we build together.
Wat doen we vandaag in de beweging?
We create content, we consume content, we support content creators and consumers
This section is currently Foundation-centric. Please help improve it to reflect finances across the whole movement, or propose improvements on the talk page.
More than 5 million readers around the world donated $77 million USD in the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2015–2016 fiscal year. Donations were about $15 USD on average.
While the Foundation raises funds all year long internationally, the bulk of the revenue (almost 50%) comes in during the December English campaign.
Wikimedia's email fundraising program continues to grow significantly, doubling email revenue for the second year running. Readers opt-in for future email communications when they make a donation, and a year later the fundraising team sends a few reminders to donate.
Narrative
Narrative
Waarom zijn we deel van deze beweging?
Rationale: Show the diversity of motivations and also the common values shared across the movement. Understand what the members of these groups get out of being part of the movement.
Points to convey: See Research:Codex/Motivations of contributors and related links, Research:Necromancy, Studies on motivations of volunteer Wikipedians?, Research:Newsletter/2013/November#What drives people to contribute to Wikipedia? Experiment suggests reciprocity and social image motivations
Format:
Contact: Guillaume
- People are motivated by both personal and social factors. Group identity and perceived value of contribution to the group is critical beating social loafing.
- Fun, Learning and Social-seeking reasons seem to dominate high contribution editors. Ideological alignment seems to be less predictive of high contribution rates
- Feelings of self-efficacy and positive feedback are critical to sustained contribution
- The motivation of new editors is strongly negatively affected by negative feedback and the rate of negative feedback for good-faith newcomers has been rising.
Narrative
English Wikipedia is read in a wide variety of use cases that differ in their motivation triggers, the depth of information needs, and readers' prior familiarity with the topic.
[For more details about the study and results, please refer to https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.05379.pdf. For a more detailed summary of results, please refer to section 4.3.]
Some interesting user behavior observations based on the Wikipedia reader study: Users who intend to use Wikipedia for work or school (19.5% of the participants, left table) are more frequently observed for specific topics of articles, namely war & history, mathematics, technology, biology & chemistry, and literature & arts.
For the first two of these topics, users are more than twice as often motivated by work or school motivations when compared to the average Wikipedia user. While these topics cover a wide range of different areas, all of them are more related to academic or professional activities than for leisure.
Additionally, this type of motivation is more often reported by users accessing Wikipedia’s desktop version. This could be expected since many work/school activities are performed in office settings.
Furthermore, we can see that this motivation occurs more often for users who are referred by external search engines multiple times in a session, and by users who stay longer on an individual page, which can be seen as a potential indicator for intensive studying.
By contrast, users who describe their motivation as bored/random (right table), are more likely to use internal navigation within Wikipedia and to spend only little time on the individual articles.
Also, they tend to switch topics between the individual articles more often (as indicated by the subgroup with a high average topic distance).
These are telltales for less focused browsing behavior. Bored users also view more articles on Wikipedia both within the survey session and overall during the study period.
Finally, this motivation can also be observed more frequently for articles that cover specific topics, such as sports, 21st century, and TV, movies, & novels.
Clearly, these topics are more leisure-oriented and are in stark contrast to the previously discussed topics favored by users who use Wikipedia for work or school.
Points to convey: See [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Japan - Focus Group and Survey Findings, File:Wikimedia Survey 2014 English Fundraiser.pdf , File:Report.WikimediaJapan.f.071916.pdf
A few quotes from donors
Some information from surveys: do people know we're a nonprofit, how much are interested in contributing content, etc.
Format:
Contact: Caitlin C., Lisa
Narrative
Narrative
Een levende beweging: hoe we evolueren
Rationale: Build understanding of the dynamics of the main groups within the movement
Points to convey: Contributors to the wikis are the most visible part of the movement. What do we know about them? Wiki-wide trends e.g. Rise and Decline, different dynamics across wikis. A summary of Research:WMF Strategy document: Research about contributors. Community health, civility, metrics about harassment
Microcontributions, offline events
Gender bias on Wikipedia, Gender gap, Research:Gender gap
Diversity improves quality: it is important that some editors are highly experienced while others are more green. It's important that few editors contribute a lot to an article while most others contribute only a little.
To newcomers, the rules are complex and often non-intuitive. This causes difficulty and often leads to frustration for good-faith newcomers. It also results in power disparities where experienced editors are more empowered by their "process literacy" to "win" disputes.
Rationale:
Format: A few charts (if applicable) and a few sentences summarizing what we know (and possibly what we don't know)
Contact: Guillaume, Aaron
 |
 |
All large Wikipedias appear to demonstrate a pattern of exponential rise starting in 2004 and slowing in 2007. While most wikis' active editor counts held relatively constant since 2006, the English Wikipedia has experienced a substantial and sustained decline.
At the root of this decline in English Wikipedia's active editors appears to be a sudden decline in the retention of good-faith newcomers due to the negative environment caused by counter-vandalism tools that "view newcomers through a lens of suspiciousness".
Narrative
Points to convey: Number of languages, levels of activity and growth rates. Comparison of the amount of content in languages. Map of geotagged articles.
Diversity of content. Place and dynamics of sister projects. Content gaps.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06307
http://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
Rationale:
Format:
Contact: Asaf, Leila, Katy/Chris S.
Narrative
There are significant knowledge gaps in Wikipedia today. If Arabic is the only language you know or you prefer to read in, a language with 467M native speakers, you can only learn about 87K geographical locations in the world using Wikipedia.
If you speak all the languages for which we have a Wikipedia project, you can only learn about 2M geographical locations using Wikipedia. While this example is focused on geo-taggable articles, it clearly shows the gaps of knowledge in one specific area.
Significant gaps exist in many Wikipedia languages across many fields and the future editors will need to close these gaps for access to sum of all knowledge to become a reality.
Narrative
Wikimedia sites provide knowledge to hundreds of millions of readers, and we don't track them.
A third of them come from Google, a third from internal links, and a third from other places (social media and other search engines).
Many readers consume Wikimedia content through indirect reuse, like syndication and knowledge panels. This audience is estimated to be in order of magnitude of one billion but it very difficult to measure.
Global north, global south. Wikipedia very well know in some parts of the world and not in others offline, education. Kiwix, Wiki Med
Placeholder for Suzie's updated metrics from the 2010-2015 strategic plan:
- Number of people served
- Number of Wikipedia articles
- Increase percentage of very high quality material
- Number of editors doing 5+edits/month
- Number of women and Global South editors
Looking back, we seem to have made some progress on the main priorities that emerged from the 2010-2015 strategic plan.
However the metrics that we’ve been using to measure our success don’t always reflect the progress that we're seeing.
Are we really measuring what we want to measure? What would be better ways to measure the progress of the movement as a whole, not just that of Wikimedia organizations?
De toekomst van onze beweging in 2030
Questions & prompts: What is the future we want to build together as a movement in the next 15 years?
- Wat willen we zijn?
- Wat willen we doen?