Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/German Language Kurier discussion
< Strategy | Wikimedia movement | 2017 | Sources
|name of group||German language Kurier|
|virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country)||de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Nimm am nächsten Zyklus der Wikimedia-Strategiediskussion teil, die bis zum 12. Juni 2017 läuft|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||local wiki discussion page of the Kurier (equivalent to Signpost)|
|# of participants in this discussion (a rough count)||7|
- Theme key
- Healthy, inclusive communities
- The augmented age
- A truly global movement
- The most trusted source of knowledge
- Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem
- Questions key
- What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
- How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
- Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
- What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
- Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?
|Line||Theme (refer to key)||Question (refer to key)||Summary Statement||Keyword|
|1||ABCDE||These themes are not the result of the discussion on de.wikipedia.||not represented|
|2||ABCDE||"Healthy"? "Augmented"? "Truly global"? "most respected"? "Ecosystem"? Really? Good night.||buzzwords|
|3||ABCDE||Certainly. For someone having problems with writing articles he can find alternative
|4||ABCDE||The phrasing used for the themes is disgusting advertising language. That's ironic considering that hardly a Wikipedia is more paranoid regarding advertisment than the English Wikipedia. The text chunks are bordering illegibility. The whole project is designed in a way that finally only a few bureaucrats will be interested in the result, because most real Wikipedians who want to write articles won't be interested into digging through this mass of unpleasant clutter. The WMF is proving once again that all attempts at involving communities are just a fig leaf. The message is that they don't want to be disturbed by editors. So it doesn't matter finally that the problems of the communities that were voiced did not make it into this high gloss advertising text. I feel taken for a ride.||advertising language|
|5||ABCDE||Interestingly once again the criticism about the power structure has been entirely kept out of the strategy process, although it has been voiced many times. It doesn't seem to fit, they don't want to hear it. Would disturb the high gloss presentation.||power structure|
|6||ABCDE||The wording got improved, so it is not the blather it appeared to be at the beginning. One could think about one of those themes if one felt addressed. On the other hand the entire opinon-forming-process looks like brainstorming for young businessmen. Well, the whole thing is no concern of mine.||wording|
|7||ABCDE||Even the discussion pages are pre-structured. In politics you call that a procedural ruse. This is a strategic discussion manipulation. The WMF staff is acting like apparatchiks of the CPSU. Nothing is supposed to disrupt their narrow-minded world-view.||pre-structured|
|8||A||All these positive things are no use to me. What does "positive" mean? Healthy is better than sick, alive is better than dead. We don't have to elaborate on that. Regarding the communities there are 2 differenct aspects that are much more interesting. Doesn't such a strategic come down to disempowering the communities? It is obiously not the job of the WMF to perform mircale cures on the communities. And how else can we understand such a shadowless goal? Mr Wales with his "toxic users" comes to my mind straight away. But such target projections are only possible at the price of ignoring real conflicts, contentious issues and peculiarities of the community. A "positive" goal would rather be to search for patterns for strong contradictions within the community (and between communities and between the communities and WMF). But this would not be a goal of the WMF.||solutions for conflicts|
|9||BC||The goals of WMF are primarily aligned to the reputation of their projects, which can be transformed into reputation for their functionaries and fundraising. And for this reputation conflict is less presentable as these inflated advertising messages. What makes me sit up and take notice is a certain abandonment of the encyclopedia as the principal medium. Are that really suggestions by a movement that mainly consists of communities? Or rather something that the WMF is reading into the process?||conflict|
|10||ABD||Healthy, advancing, truly global, most trusted, engaging. This is the vocabulary of modern exploitation. You are supposed to burn for your project and slave away voluntarily(!) until you drop. Such treates are best ignored.||Exploitation|
If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.
Detailed notes (Optional)Edit
If you have detailed notes in addition to the summary, you may add them here. For example, the notes may come from an in-person discussion or workshop. If your discussion happened on a wiki or other online space, you do not need to copy the detailed notes here.