Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Reports/Summary of phase 1 process and outcomes

< Strategy‎ | Wikimedia movement‎ | 2017‎ | Reports
2017 Movement strategy
REPORTS
LEARN
JOIN
ORGANIZE
REACH

Summary of the phase 1 process and outcomes
Movement Discussions and New Voices Research
September 2017

This summary report was authored by members of the williamsworks team (Daniel Tam-Claiborne, Shannon Keith, Sara Johnson, and Ed Bland) and consultant Suzie Nussel.

Special thanks to the core and extended strategy team who worked on phase 1, supporting the efforts in the collection, compilation, and writing of the work completed within this report:

  • Executive sponsors at the Wikimedia Foundation for their insights and counsel: Katherine Maher, Lisa Gruwell, Maggie Dennis, Toby Negrin, Anna Stillwell, Jaime Villagomez, and Heather Walls
  • Foundation staff member Guillaume Paumier (strategy co-architect, primary draft author)
  • The williamsworks team: Whitney Williams, Ed Bland, Shannon Keith, Sara Johnson, Daniel Tam-Claiborne, Uzodinma Iweala, and Tucker Nichols (co-architect, project management)
  • Consultant Suzie Nussel (stakeholder management, process design, project management)
  • Track Leads: Nicole Ebber (WMDE) and Foundation staff members Jaime Anstee (individual contributors) and Adele Vrana, Juliet Barbara, Caitlin Virtue (New Voices)
  • Extended strategy team (Foundation staff and contractors): Jan Eissfeldt, Jorge Vargas, Jack Rabah, Ravi Ayyakkannu, Greg Varnum, Nick Wilson, Karen Brown; contractors John Morrison and Margarita Noriega
  • Ad hoc strategy support (Foundation staff): Gretchen Yen, James Baldwin, Zack McCune, Blanca Flores, Victor Grigas, James Buatti, Maria Cruz, Amanda Bittaker, Asaf Bartov, Samantha Lien, Melody Kramer, Lena Traer, and former staffer Sarah Malik
  • Research partners: Reboot (Panthea Lee and Zack Brisson), Dot Connector Studio (Jessica Clark), Lutman Associates (Sarah Lutman and Nancy Watzman), and Wellspring Insights and Innovation (John Holcombe)
  • Facilitators for the large-group live discussions at Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania Conference): Bhavesh Patel and Rob Lancaster assisted by Luis (Wikimedia Conference) and Abby Walla (Wikimania Conference)
  • The steering committee, Advisory group for organized groups, and Drafting group
  • The strategy coordinators and many volunteer discussion coordinators who hosted these discussions
  • The many people from the Wikimedia Movement and outside experts who shared their insights and talents

I. Overview of the phase 1 process edit

Based on the objective to identify a common strategic direction that would unite and inspire people across the movement between now and 2030, a nine-month process (phase 1, January through September 2017) was built in collaboration with the core team and the steering committee. This included three cycles of discussions with organized groups (Track A) and individual contributors (Track B), as well extensive research with those not yet in the conversation (New Voices).  

The outputs of these two work streams were used to inform and shape a final strategic direction, which was authored in collaboration with the drafting group. Primary author Guillaume Paumier posted the first draft strategic direction in early August, and then reviewed and refined the draft in discussion with community and organized groups. The final draft will be posted by early October, 2017. Afterward, an endorsement period will occur, followed by the design and implementation of phase 2 (movement-wide agreement on goals, roles, responsibilities, and resources).

II. Methodology (cycles 1-3 and New Voices) edit

Throughout three cycles of community discussion, 109 Wikimedia groups and communities contributed over 3,000 statements about their perspectives on the movement’s future. Wikimedians, including Track A (organized groups) and Track B (contributors), engaged in this global dialogue through local Wiki, in-person, and virtual discussions.

During Cycle 1, between March 14 and April 18, Wikimedia-organized groups and communities from across the movement held over 100 strategy discussions and shared over 1,800 statements in response to a big question: What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?  These discussions included the 2017 Wikimedia Conference in Berlin, which brought together over 350 attendees from 70 countries and representatives of 90 affiliates, organizations, committees and other groups. The movement strategy team distilled these on and offline outputs into five themes that described potential directions and tradeoffs for our movement: creating a healthy community, participating in the augmented age, forming a truly global movement, becoming the most trusted source of knowledge, and joining the knowledge ecosystem. (See Cycle 1 Synthesis Report, methodology, and resulting 5 themes.)

Cycle 2 began with the five overarching themes that emerged from Cycle 1. The movement strategy team posted five questions under each theme: the impact a given theme would have in the world, that theme’s relative importance to the others, the tradeoffs required, additional inputs that would bolster the theme, and potential partners related to that theme. 28 organized groups and 27 communities responded to these questions between May 11 and June 12. (See Cycle 2 Summary Insights Report.)

 
Total number of summary statements created for Tracks A & B, by theme

New Voices research: These discussions were complemented by perspectives from those outside of existing Wikimedia communities, including conversations with experts globally, research on readers in twelve countries, and secondary research on global trends that affect free knowledge. This work was conducted between March and September, 2017.

  • Through one-on-one expert interviews, as well as Foundation-led and affiliate-led expert convenings, the movement strategy team received input from over 330 influential individuals and changemakers across technology, business, media, social services, policy, education, and arts/culture. Experts were from over a dozen countries across Africa, the Middle East, Asia, North America, Latin America and Europe.
  • The Foundation and its research partners conducted research on potential readers in places where Wikimedia projects are not well known or used (Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria) and in places where Wikimedia projects are well known and used (France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States).
  • Also in partnership with research vendors, the Foundation reviewed secondary research on issues that will affect Wikimedia’s mission between now and 2030, such as the future of the global population, technology, misinformation, and more.

At the time this report was finalized in September 2017, some research was still underway, and may be summarized and added to this report or posted separately. (See New Voices Synthesis Report.)

 
Total participation of experts in Phase 1, by sector
 
Total participation of experts in Phase 1, by region

In Cycle 3, community discussions were dedicated to considering the challenges identified by the new voices research and exploring how Wikimedia may want to evolve or respond to changes in the world. The movement strategy team posed a weekly challenge question, each week from July 1 to August 13, 2017. Wikimedians responded to these questions over the same time period. (See Cycle 3 Summary Report.)

Building on the summaries submitted by discussion groups, paid language liaisons, and researchers, the movement strategy team synthesized all these inputs on a rolling basis and shared with the drafting committee for their consideration as they helped create the 2030 strategic direction for the Wikimedia movement. The findings outlined in this report will also inform Phase 2 of the movement strategy, involving tangible next steps for how to achieve the strategic direction as a movement.

III. Key Insights by Cycle edit

Cycle 1 edit

The movement strategy team distilled outputs from Cycle 1 community discussions into five overarching themes that described potential directions and tradeoffs for our movement:

Healthy, inclusive communities

By 2030, the Wikimedia volunteer culture will be fun, rewarding, and inclusive for both existing contributors and newcomers.

The augmented age

By 2030, the Wikimedia movement will actively use technological innovations to help volunteers be much more creative and productive.

A truly global movement

By 2030, we will be a truly global movement. In particular, we will turn our attention toward regions we have not yet served well enough: Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

The most respected source of knowledge

We will work toward ever more accurate and verifiable content. By 2030, Wikimedia projects will be seen as the most high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of knowledge.

Engaging the knowledge ecosystem

We will build relationships with a wide variety of organizations dedicated to the ideals of free knowledge.

These five themes emerged from a larger number of common themes that the movement strategy team identified through its initial synthesis of cycle 1:

  • Reliable, Neutral, High-Quality Content: Discussions of content and knowledge mostly centered around how to improve the content quality - often measured by reliability, credibility, neutrality, readability - so that Wikimedia project could be a better knowledge resources.
  • Community Health & Support: There was frequent mention of improving the experience for contributors and the overall health of the Wikimedia community, including through greater diversity and gender balance.
  • Internal & External Collaboration: Collaboration was a common topic, most frequently as it relates to the education sector, but also more broadly with other internal and external actors so that Wikimedia could become a well-networked player in the world of free knowledge.
  • Features: These comments were excluded from Cycle 2 and sent to a ‘feature recommendation’ page where all features would be aggregated and assessed after Phase 1 of the movement strategy process.
  • Users, Editors, & Contributors: There was frequent mention of improving the experience for contributors and the overall health of the Wikimedia community through programs like new editor mentoring.
  • Outreach, Awareness, & Promotion: There was frequent mention of improving the overall health of the Wikimedia community by focusing on efforts of outreach and promotion to attract new editors.
  • Innovation: Discussions also explored how innovation and technology can be best leveraged for Wikimedia to adapt and improve, including through automation, other platforms, and products beyond the encyclopedia.
  • Funding, Staffing, and Other Organizational Needs: These comments were excluded from Cycle 2 because they pertained to specific, operational recommendations that would be more relevant for Phase 2. They will be reviewed at the end of Phase 1 in fall 2017.
  • Emerging Communities: Many hoped Wikimedia could better meet the needs of emerging communities, including through better outreach and awareness, availability across languages, and accessibility via mobile and offline capabilities.
  • Advancing Education: Collaboration was a common topic, most frequently as it relates to the education sector, but also more broadly with other internal and external actors.
  • Movement Values: Topics like features and values were commonly discussed. While important, these ideas related more to the tactics of how we do things, rather than the outcome we hope to achieve in the world. Statements related to features will be routed to the appropriate department at Wikimedia Foundation.
  • Knowledge: Discussions of content and knowledge mostly how to improve the content quality - often measured by reliability, credibility, neutrality, readability - so that Wikimedia project could be a better knowledge resources.
  • Sustainability & Growth: Topics like features and values were commonly discussed. While important, these ideas related more to the tactics of how we do things, rather than the outcome we hope to achieve in the world. Statements related to features will be routed to the appropriate department at Wikimedia Foundation.

See Cycle 1 Synthesis Report, methodology, and resulting 5 themes.

Cycle 2 edit

The movement strategy team synthesized the top perspectives that emerged among Wikimedians debating the five overarching themes:

To Wikimedians, creating a healthy, inclusive community is paramount to fulfilling the overarching goal of curating the sum of all knowledge and allowing free access to all people.[1] Active, empowered communities are central to the sustainability and future of the movement.[2] There is pride in the great accomplishments completed so far, and the community and organized groups are passionate about making it even better. This will require proactive steps for everyone to feel included and respected – in spite of gender or geography, socioeconomic status, or education level.[3] Many recommended that better mechanisms and enforcement be put in place to curb harassment, abuse, and vandalism in order to create a safe and collaborative space for all who participate.[4] As the movement grows, everyone – especially experienced editors – will have to consider the needs of those who are experiencing Wikipedia for the first time – whether as a reader or a contributor.[5] Wikimedians will need to design experiences and tools to better support and welcome newcomers so that long-term sustainability can be achieved.[6]

The movement could be a role model for other digital spaces, exemplifying how to globalize collaboration, communication, and metadata scholarship.[7] By being a healthier, more inclusive space, our international communities could encourage even wider participation and diversity of people, cultures, and perspectives.[8] To do so, the movement would need more rigorous standards of quality and positive behavior[9] to build stronger relationships across communities and encourage interactivity among projects and languages.   

Both knowledge quality and quantity could increase as diverse voices are actively integrated and encouraged to collaborate effectively. Wikimedia could be the largest, most neutral, trusted and reliable free knowledge resource available.[10]  Many Wikimedians believe that people from all regions should be encouraged to participate, which would fill knowledge gaps and add more diverse points of view. This would help eliminate bias and create more neutral, reliable, verifiable, and complete content.[11] While inclusion may cause some friction,[12] many believe that increased diversity is the best way to ensure higher quality.[13]  For many, this fulfils the primary goal of being an encyclopedia and would increase its usefulness and readership.[14]

By sharing all knowledge globally and freely, Wikimedia could break down barriers and be a transformational force to connect cultures across the world.[15] This would help preserve local knowledge and cultures while increasing the number of total volunteers.[16] Different cultures have different knowledge needs; therefore, the models and support may also need to be different. Some Wikipedians warn that we must proceed with caution, helping local communities grow organically with approaches that fit their cultures. Active outreach to new places and new partners is going to be required.[17] In some cases, this will involve not just training someone on how to use Wikimedia projects, but on making new readers and contributors aware of what it is in the first place and why they are critical participants in the quest for free knowledge.[18] We need to resolve the complexity[19] of how to include these new knowledge sources[20] (oral histories, etc.), while maintaining strong verification processes and quality in all the projects.

Through technology, Wikimedia could create an open and adaptable system (seamless connection between projects and their content) that effectively integrates and supports free knowledge, even as knowledge formats and devices evolve.[21] Wikimedians want things to work better and more easily, and they want to fix what is broken or ineffective. Wikimedia should not be a technology innovator[22] but use technology to its advantage to better support users and increase overall participation.[23] We must minimally “catch up” with technology to remain relevant and sustainable.[24] This means smart tools, general automation,[25] and designing interfaces that accommodate today’s readers and editors.[26] We should expand tools to curate multimedia content and search.[27] The movement should cautiously use AI and machine learning to help increase quality and accessibility. The overall view from Wikimedians is that we should  maintain our community-first focus,[28] and use AI and other technologies to reduce busy-work, not replace volunteers, and improve quality.[29] Machine translations with human support could allow for one global, universal encyclopedia.[30]  Above all, we should use a flexible technology strategy, so that the projects can adapt as new advances are made.

Where possible, the movement should create synergies with partners that add free content, functionality, and awareness to engage more people and ultimately benefit society.[31] Wikimedians acknowledge that partnerships will make the movement more effective in achieving its mission, especially educational partnerships.[32] However, some contributors point out that an investment in improved communication among Wikimedia groups and across individual contributors is needed.[33] The movement can only be as effective as its most coordinated bodies. Some Wikimedians recognize the enormous potential for increasing partnership work with other like-minded organizations and communities.  A few also shared that there is opportunity to work much better together inside the movement.

Ultimately, these actions would allow us to help create a better world,[34] one in which free access to all knowledge increases educational and economic equity.[35]

See Cycle 2 Summary Insights Report, Cycle 2 sources

New Voices edit

The movement strategy team synthesized the key findings from conversations with over 300 experts around the world; research on readers in regions where Wikipedia is well known, and those where it is not; and secondary research on global trends that affect free knowledge: 

Knowledge sharing is highly social.

  • Experts and research stressed that Wikipedia’s users today aren’t our users tomorrow. Young people -- a generation enabled by smartphones -- are the newest demographic to reach.[36]
  • A trend toward youth is especially true in Africa, the world’s youngest region, which is predicted to rejuvenate an aging global workforce with a supply of young consumers and college graduates due to a 15 percent population boom from 2015-2030.[37]
  • Experts say that they’re steeped in their use of social media and chat functionality, and that they prefer to share and discuss information through platforms they already know.[38][39]
  • In lower-awareness regions, getting information via messaging apps is seen as equivalent to information passed by word-of-mouth—just faster and through a broader network; though this hasn’t been seen in higher-awareness regions.[40] Information-seeking is becoming increasingly task- and search-led, and less discovery- and browsing-oriented.[40]
  • People in Indonesia and Brazil no longer expect their content to be mediated by “trusted institutions;” instead, research found that they want their content curated by trusted individuals.[40]  In contrast, information from the United States and Western Europe cautioned against trusting in the self-cleaning mechanisms of community and showed continued interest in trusted institutions like museums and newspapers.[41][42]
  • The proportion of the global population in the age range of 15-64 that possesses no education is diminishing over time. At the same time, the percentage of the global population who are internet users will rise from 44 percent to 58 percent from 2016 to 2021.[43]

 Future information technology could radically change how knowledge is created, processed and shared.

  • Experts recommend that we use technology to better meet our users needs.[40] Machine translation, AI and structured data are some ways to curate and deliver relevant, reliable and local relevant content.[41] Research also showed improvements in AI could drive the rise of real-time, personalized education, information and entertainment services, including machine-generated music, news and storytelling.[44][45][43]
  • Experts believe Wikimedia should consider improving the user experience of Wikipedia and other projects in a way that appeals to the masses.[39] Research suggests that guided discovery and integration with major web properties will be increasingly important.[40][41]
  • For example, technology experts suggest that allowing people to interact with Wikipedia content on the Google knowledge panel, or curating channels by content area on widely-used instant messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram will become the most prevalent ways to exchange information.[46][39] New audio visual technologies could transform how people experience and share knowledge. Voice is beginning to replace typing in some contexts, which could impact how Wikipedia editors work.[44] Virtual reality focuses on visual, audio and tactile communication modes, and are largely interactive rather than participatory.

Movements are built on emotion and human connection.

  • According to research, expert interviews, and group convenings, Wikipedia must do a better job of communicating its values and approach.[40][47][48][49]
  • There is a belief that Wikimedia should consider incentives to keep the movement engaged and growing. What motivates someone to participate in the movement, and how do we invite others to join?[48] Experts in Kenya believe people may be drawn to the idea of telling the stories of their own cultures and communities, but that it has to be positioned around tangible benefits or recognition. Rewards, badges, or other forms of validation can help, too.[39]
  • Creating a distinct and desirable sense of identity and positioning around the role of a Wikipedia contributor (and why you should volunteer to be one) might be a way to encourage more to participate.[39][50]

As learning platforms evolve, we will need to think beyond the encyclopedia in order to meet the needs of users.

  • As people continue to adopt mobile devices and turn away from traditional text and toward creating and sharing video, audio, and visual multimedia content, pressure is growing on technology platforms to evolve.[43]
  • New content types and platforms like AI, virtual reality, and augmented reality have the potential to serve as content or topics for Wikimedia projects, as potential opportunities for distributing Wikimedia projects’ content, or as vehicles for spreading the ethos of open editing and sharing of content.[43]
  • Research and discussions with expert  indicate that existing and future readers want a platform for learning that will extrapolate Wikipedia’s current encyclopaedic format and its western-centric norms.[51][40][50]
  • Experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East believe that the formal education system is failing youth in emerging markets around the world, and people are seeking new ways to consume and process knowledge online.[52]
  • Online knowledge-seekers are looking for short, compact and visual ways of engaging with content and acquiring new skills.[53] Wikipedia’s future users will need a platform that allows them to create and transfer knowledge in non-text formats, with a strong emphasis in oral and visual resources.[54]
  • Leaders in historically marginalized communities in the western world share similar concerns about current text based consumption on Wikipedia. The guidelines about who and what is cited does not often match with the cultural preservations systems in these communities.[50]

 There’s a tradeoff between credibility and inclusivity.

  • When discussing the quality of Wikipedia’s content, several expert conversations centered around the idea that the highest quality content may not coexist with new and inexperienced voices.
  • There were questions about how Wikipedia can be trusted and perceived as a credible source of knowledge while welcoming new users who don’t necessarily value unbiased reporting and the “highest quality” information.[55]
  • Research found that people not yet included in the Wikimedia movement treat online information as biased, and adapt how they validate and use information accordingly.[36] And although some people know Wikipedia is an editable platform, our research suggests that many do not think of the actual content as adaptable and expandable.[48]
  • Wikipedia’s open contribution model is poorly understood in markets where there’s low awareness, and this is therefore viewed as a weakness.[36]
  • Our findings suggest that inclusivity and new representation can only happen when there are lower barriers to entry, and that experienced users may need to accept less-than-perfect information in order to train and incorporate new users into the movement.[56]

Wikimedia should be an influencer in shaping world policy for access to knowledge.

  • Experts see the potential of Wikimedia to become a platform for underserved audiences to access, create and preserve knowledge.[57][41][58][49] Some of those experts go as far as to argue for a stronger political approach ["Neutrality and silence is actually taking a political position"[57]].
  • Wikimedia is seen as a key to the unconnected users that are in need of offline options to access content. Playing a bigger role in the affordable internet debate has also been recommended, especially as we know that the cost of mobile data is still a connectivity barrier for low income users.[59][36]
  • Overall, there is a strong desire for free, accessible internet for all and Wikimedia is seen as a missing voice in that debate.[60][61]

 We are stronger when we work together, but we need direction.

  • Experts believe that Wikimedia should play a leadership role in the open ecosystem — and there is a particular need for a shared platform for the open knowledge community.[41] They believe we can be a better partner in building a digital knowledge base for cultural institutions (GLAMs) and work with other institutions invested in the future of information (media, academia, reference fields).[58]
  • There is an appetite for better coordination between open organizations (Creative Commons, Internet Archive) and cultural, scientific, and knowledge-based organizations generally.[41]

 We need to be prepared for the risk of major societal and political changes in the future.

  • Our orientation toward information as a society may change dramatically in the future (misinformation, disinformation, understanding of provenance, etc.).[62] Trust is not promised. Populism is rising globally again.[63][57]
  • Experts in Europe are pushing us to ask the question: what are the existential and reputational risks to Wikimedia? They believe Wikimedia may need to get more aggressive and political to respond.[41][57]

  See New Voices Synthesis Report

Cycle 3 edit

The movement strategy team synthesized the top perspectives that emerged from Wikimedians discussing the findings from new voices:

Wikimedians recognize the forces changing the way communities consume and share content. Nearly three-quarters of Wikimedians express the desire to create social media functionality or collaborate with existing social media platforms, as long as it is done credibly with an eye toward increasing functionality and attracting new users.[64]

Some Wikimedians, on the whole, believe that new technology and products should be developed for more efficient search, Q&A, and chat functionality.[65] This desire to move “beyond the encyclopedia” was echoed in their strong support for increased multimedia content, including audio and visual, with an emphasis on accessibility across languages.[66] At the same time, however, these Wikimedians were staunch in their support for the timeless appeal of the current encyclopedic model, and few expressed a desire to change its core capabilities and mandate.[67] Instead, many Wikimedians stressed that resources could be allocated toward sister projects to house more educational materials and experiment with other initiatives.[68]

Because new forms of knowledge may be difficult to verify in traditional ways, they are in favor of establishing best practices for how to deal with classifying which sources should be considered reliable and verifiable.[69] Some Wikimedians believe that it can be difficult to be inclusive while still maintaining high quality standards, but they argue for including offline media sources, multimedia content, and non-traditional sources as a way to expand what the community agrees are acceptable sources.[70] Twelve of the 31 sources  were in favor of promoting oral history as its own Wikimedia project as long as it can be verified,[71] with about five groups speaking against it.[72] Verification can be conducted through experts, volunteers, and anonymous judges, and some think it should be backed with funding to support local scholars in conducting and collecting oral stories.[73]

In order to counteract trends of misinformation, these Wikimedians agree that clearer guidelines related to sources should be established and knowledge sources should be made more accessible. Lists of reliable sources should be curated and sites that consistently publish false information should be blacklisted or presented with a caveat or counterbalanced with another point of view.[74] Constant verifiability and staying up-to-date on the most current methodologies for fact-checking are critical to upholding Wikipedia’s responsibility to present quality information.[75] These Wikimedians agreed that bias in articles is a problem, but one that does not have an easy solution.[76] And while it may not be possible to entirely root out bias, they stressed that AI tools can be integral in reinforcing reliability of content and reducing misinformation.[77] Stricter editing controls can also be a way to reduce misinformation, through more active administrators and privileges.[78] In spite of the challenges, neutrality is absolutely a tenet that the movement must strive for.[79]

As the creation, presentation, and distribution of knowledge changes, new technological features will help serve community needs. These include 3D-modeling, virtual reality, voice-to-speech and other translation services, and augmented reality.[80] Investment should continue to be made in mobile platforms as the internet evolves, including the ability to edit and create content on mobile devices.[81] A few Wikimedians agree that AI can and should be integrated in thoughtful collaboration with the help of human editors as a tool to help with misinformation.[82] Partnerships in the technology sector should be pursued to strengthen Wikimedia and persist amidst future technological developments.[83]

In order for Wikimedia to meet its current and future readers’ needs in the midst of demographic and population shifts, some Wikimedians stress that attracting new users is crucial for the continuation of the movement.[84] A few said that special efforts should be made to educate the general audience about how Wikipedia works, including outreach to all ages, geographies, and education levels.[85] Some Wikimedians stress that raising awareness about how Wikipedia works and promoting it in low-awareness regions will strengthen its mission.[86] Representation with respect to language and geography is crucial to Wikimedia’s continued success, including incorporating local viewpoints and accommodating readers from a non-Western background.[87] Technological innovations may better attract new users by providing content in more accessible formats like mobile,[88] and language pluralism and translation can help engage non-English speakers.[89]

See Cycle 3 Summary Report

Appendix edit

Synthesis Reports edit

Source Pages (Compiled) edit

Final Direction edit

Citations and references edit

  1. ↑ A 1 B 222 18
  2. ↑ A 9
  3. ↑ B  6
  4. ↑ B 1
  5. ↑ A 3
  6. ↑ A 35 23 34 3  1 3 3 8 4 40  B 102 556 1 17
  7. ↑ A 22 3 4 6 26 4 3 1 5 12 21  B 248 642 24 3 70 120 123 1 3 1 1
  8. ↑ A 5 1 3 1 11 B 181 217 644 84 191 208 660 9
  9. ↑ A 571 103 60 2
  10. ↑ A 316
  11. ↑ A 31 31 49 18 B 112 176 201 25 29 1 161 212 289 13 8
  12. ↑ B 21
  13. ↑ A 6 5 9 B 282 1 112 176 181 217
  14. ↑ B 12  [survey 337 360 415 420 434 444 449 454 464 469 484 593 594] [English WP 101] [German WP 18] [Hindi WP 1 2 24] [Spanish WP10 39] [Wikidata 20]
  15. ↑ A 24 8 42 45 20 42 43 14 23 26 27 23 B 115 266 14 261 286 306 319 568 599 601 607 608 30 19 28 32 38 171 23
  16. ↑ B 12
  17. ↑ B 27
  18. ↑ A 279
  19. ↑ B 616
  20. ↑ A 44
  21. ↑ A 35 4
  22. ↑ A 28
  23. ↑ A 88
  24. ↑ A 11
  25. ↑ B 89
  26. ↑ A 17 1
  27. ↑ A 1 2 24 25 22 3 18 B 41 30 8 32 33
  28. ↑ A 19
  29. ↑ A 19 B 13 14 30 18 19
  30. ↑ B 636
  31. ↑ A 78 118 16 40 6 38 41 42 58 72 18 B 13 492 496 504 509 538 577 590
  32. ↑ A 14  B 500 13 68 69 70 94
  33. ↑ B 79
  34. ↑ B 171
  35. ↑ A 620 21 31
  36. ↑ a b c d Summary of Key Opportunities & Findings: Indonesia & Brazil
  37. ↑ Brief: Demographics
  38. ↑ Expert interviews, line 4, line 5, line 7, line 9
  39. ↑ a b c d e Kenya strategy salon with technology experts - May 29, 2017
  40. ↑ a b c d e f g Summary of Key Opportunities & Findings: Indonesia & Brazil
  41. ↑ a b c d e f g Berlin Strategy Salon - March 29, 2017
  42. ↑ Wikimedia Poland affiliate-led expert salon - June 5, 2017
  43. ↑ a b c d Brief: Emerging platforms
  44. ↑ a b Mary Meeker, "Internet Trends Report 2017," Kleiner Perkins, May 31, 2017. Accessed June 27, 2017,   https://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/internet-trends-2017-report
  45. ↑ Amy Webb, “2017 Tech Trends Annual Report.” Future Today Institute, 2017. Accessed June 27, 2017. https://futuretodayinstitute.com/2017-tech-trends
  46. ↑ Expert interviews, line 7, line 16, line 35
  47. ↑ Strategy Salon Dinner NYC - May 30, 2017; Berlin Strategy Salon - March 29, 2017
  48. ↑ a b c San Francisco Strategy Salon - March 2, 2017
  49. ↑ a b DC salon
  50. ↑ a b c Strategy Salon Dinner NYC - May 30, 2017
  51. ↑ Bill Drayton, social enterprise expert, interviewed by Ed Bland, June 6, 2017
  52. ↑ Expert interviews, line 24, line 33
  53. ↑ Nigeria Strategy Dinners Day 1, Day 2 , Day 3
  54. ↑ Expert interviews, line 9, line 10, line 35
  55. ↑ Expert interviews, line 30, line 48
  56. ↑ Wellspring ‘Awareness, Attitudes, and Usage Research’
  57. ↑ a b c d Brussels Movement Strategy Dinner - March 29, 2017
  58. ↑ a b India expert workshop - June 1, 2017
  59. ↑ Expert interviews, line 35
  60. ↑ Wikimedia Chile - strategy meet-up in Santiago - June 6, 2017
  61. ↑ Mexico expert workshop - May 17, 2017
  62. ↑ Economist, July 1, 2017
  63. ↑ Ingrid Betancourt, Colombian politician, interviewed by Jorge Vargas, June 8, 2017
  64. ↑ 7
  65. ↑ 3
  66. ↑ 4 40 41 8
  67. ↑ 5 15 20 2
  68. ↑ 3 1 11 4 24
  69. ↑ 1 16
  70. ↑ 5 14 3 6
  71. ↑ 4
  72. ↑ 1 2 3
  73. ↑ 1 2 3 4 1
  74. ↑ 1 3 5 22 16 25 7
  75. ↑ 29 30 18 20 37
  76. ↑ 7 24
  77. ↑ 36 15 19
  78. ↑ 11 7
  79. ↑ 52 38
  80. ↑ 23 19 12 13 14 18
  81. ↑ 7 9 27 63 38
  82. ↑ 74 87 82 85 81 83 21
  83. ↑ 16 20 26 30 39
  84. ↑ 47 46 50
  85. ↑ 49 62 40 42 94 30
  86. ↑ 30 48 50 39 29 88
  87. ↑ 21 35 19 31 25 50 49 89
  88. ↑ 61 32 24 36 24
  89. ↑ 35 90 29 91 34
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Reports/Summary_of_phase_1_process_and_outcomes&oldid=24959658"