Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/German Language Wikipedia
Information edit
| name of group | German language Wikipedia |
| virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) | de:Wikipedia:Wiki 2030 |
| Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) | local wiki |
| # of participants in this discussion | 18 |
- 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 | A | 2 | This theme is the most important one strategically. Because only a functioning Wikipedia community can guarantee a future. The prerequisite for this is however not that we all "love" each other (which btw is not possible), but just that the community should be more harmonious for the motivation of the authors. | harmony |
| 2 | ABCDE | Our discussions of cylcle 1 are not represented in cycle 2. Insted we get exposed to an absurd list of themes. I support a Norwegian user who said "I don't see any relevance at all for me in this. It reads like something from a cult/fringe political movement (been there, so I know) or internal company promotion." ([1]) That is exacly my impression. | absurd list | |
| 3 | A | 2 | In fact the 5 themes sum up our problems, but on the most abstract level. Personally I would have prefered a strategy for the next 5 years instead of 13 years, or rather a strategy for an even shorter period. Actually I think that's what they will be doing, in the sense of maybe en:Operational planning. Personally I see theme 1 as essential and many will agree. But how do you reach this goal? The Foundation will be reserving this and in the end our influence will be zero. | more near-term goals |
| 4 | ABCDE | The most important question: How do we change the balance of power within the Foundation so that communites actually will have a say. That would be a task for the next years. | balance of power | |
| 5 | ABCDE | I am sceptical about the significance of the communities. In those cases where it really counts we as a community don't manage to get a consensus for necessary changes. So why should we be able to take part in Foundation decisions? In the real world we have political parties with election programs and voters chose from those. We need something simliar. Only that way we can distill one voice from thousands of voices. | voice | |
| 6 | ABCDE | We do not need one voice in WMF and de.wp. At the moment WMF completely finds itself in limbo. It does not have any legitimation in the communities and elsewhere. It would be a giant step if this could be recognized as a problem even once. | WMF | |
| 7 | ABCDE | I could imagine a membership vote to transform WMF into a membership organization. Like this we'd have procedures of negotiations and decisions, of votes and elections. This is common in many organizations. But that WMF fears that like the devil fears holy water I can understand. | membership vote | |
| 8 | ABCDE | We could be asked which computers WMF will buy or who to hire. But a membership organization causes problems as we can see with Wikimedia Deutschland. A solution could be to have communities as members, meaning that each community has 1 voice. But this would not work without a corresponding structure (election programms, elections). | communities | |
| 9 | ABCDE | As long as this problem is not seen we don't need to discuss further. The WMF is happy that it can do whatever it wants, although it does not produce anything by itself. For that it needs the free and self-driven work of the communities. Since it is proven that the communites are not able or don't want to transform this dependance into threat and pressure potential, WMF is acting just according to its own interests and does not care to a large extent if people care about that or not. You can see this in the strategy process. Although many contributors voiced a legitimacy and democracy deficit, that was not inlcuded into the allegedly participatory strategy process. | legitimacy deficit | |
| 10 | A | 2 | "Healthy, Inclusive Communities" sounds somehow sectarian. Instead of an encylcopaedia project we are supposed to have a "healthy community"? Was somebody playing a bad joke on us? | sectarian |
| 11 | A | 2 | "Great experience" for every new editor? What terrible language. The important question instead is the power structure of WMF. Even communities that work reasonably well don't have any influence on what the WMF is doing. I'm not suprised that this simple question that has been voiced quite often during the strategy process is not part of it. | power structure |
| 12 | A | The phrasing is going towards a religious community. Is there a guru in sight? | phrasing | |
| 13 | A | 2 | Problematic about the text is that it only adresses positive aspects of the community of 2030. As if there was nothing to fight about in 2030. The problem right now is not that not everyone loves each other, but that we don't have a culture of productive dissent, for example in AIV-discussions. Authors get hurt instead. Furthermore we will still have obsolete articles that are not updated, even with a higher number of editors. So if the goal is wrong, how can the strategy leading there work? | productive dissent |
| 14 | A | 2 | I have the impression that with the reference to "health" they are talking about something vaguely positive, but nobody knows what it actually is. But is a community with dissent "sick"? And furthermore, why should that be a concern for the WMF? | health |
| 15 | A | 4 | There will always be editors who get hurt. We have to find solutions on how to deal with this. The way the theme is phrased will simply lead to the well known Jimmy-Wales-solution of excluding toxic users. | toxic users |
| 16 | A | 4 | The Thanks notifications are a helpful software feature in regard to the question, as are the attemps of WMF to increase the number of editors, for example with the visual editor and GLAM cooperations. But unfortunately specific suggestions are unwanted in the strategy process. The text of this theme ought be be restructured, structured into single measures. | single measures |
| 17 | D | "most trusted, high-quality, neutral, and relevant source". Is this self-irony? A trustful prognosis for 2030 is not possible, especially if Wikipedia has never fulfilled a single of those points. Furthermore this is contrary to one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be a source. | source? | |
| 18 | D | 1 | Wikipedia has to become a reliable source. There is enough fake news even in scientific publications. | source |
| 19 | D | 2 | I think that the first sentence ("Wikimedia projects will be regarded as the most trusted, high-quality, neutral, and relevant source") is too ambitious. But because of the rest of the text of this theme, which is desirable and achievable, it is the second most important for me after theme 2 ("The Augmented Age"). | too ambitious |
| 20 | A | 4 | Wikipedia will never be without dissent. As long as we have Wikipedia as an open system (and it should stay this way) people will get together here that have fundamentally different opinions. This will always cause friction and dissent. And we shouldn't pretend that this does not and will not exist. And there will always be people, now and in 2030, that are not compatible with what Wikipedi stands for. Now and in 2030 we will have to expel those. | Dissent |
| 21 | A | 4 | We had the project Grants:Project/Mental health within the community, but there's not much going on there anymore, small surprise. I am afraid that all these desperate attempts to make Wikipedia with its monstrous buerocracy somehow future-proof resp. sustainable will fail. Because they're only based on speculations and assumptions by the narrow view of the Wikimedia buerocracy. The term 'movement" alone is misleading. There is no Wikimedia movement besides a certain administration, functionaries and software technician circle, who are all without article contribution worth mentioning. Authors got nothing to do with that. | Mental health |
| 22 | A | 2 | An important paragraph, but it's not the present reality. And if the whole situation is developing like it is that won't change. To make it real everything should be welcome. Nobody claims that vandalism and insults ought to be endured, but the en:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is extremely demotivating. The most important aspect of the text: we are supposed to encourage. But who? And how? If everyone has a different approach and does like he/she always did nothing will change. My proposal: endure changes, be bold, explain changes (summary and user/article discussion pages, reach a consensus). The revert button is useful, but it's not only used to avert damage, but to retain states of things. Which of the 2 is vandalism? | encouraging |
| 23 | A | 5 | Because the title of this theme is 'healthy, inclusive communities ... in Wikimedia projects' I say that there is no other organization active in this field. | Wikimedia projects |
| 24 | A | 1 | The utopia 'Healthy, inclusive communities' would contribute to more authors becoming involved in Wikipedia, because fewer authors would turn their backs on the project. We all would have friendly relations. We would meet regularly (some do that already). | friendly space |
| 25 | A | 2 | For me this is strategically the crucial theme, because only a functioning community can guarantee a future for Wikipedia. A precondition for this is not that we all 'love' each other. This is not possible. But it should work better. Otherwise the motivation of the authors evapores faster than it needs to. | functioning community |
| 26 | A | 3 | When you stand up for this theme successfully Wikipedia will have more authors. Then you will have more time for other themes, not less. | authors |
| 27 | A | 5 | I can't think of an organization. But I'd say that the main topic here is psychologists. Maybe administrators could be aided by facilitators that are schooled by psychologists. The facilitators could be "normal" Wikipedians that get schooled in psychology. Like this the administrators' tasks would be rather technical while interpersonal tasks (editwars, nominations for deletions) could be dealt with by the facilitators. | psychologists |
| 28 | A | 4 |
|
friendliness |
| 29 | A | 4 | For some it's a toxic user, for others just a troublemaker. Demarcations like that are difficult in an open project such as Wikipedia. | Definition toxic user |
| 30 | B | 1 | Knowledge is part of humanity and under its control. Artificial intelligence is making use of this knowledge, which is does not have values. What role does Wikipedia play in this process, given the following premises:
|
Artificial intelligence |
| 31 | B | 1 | The idea to create something superhuman that generates knowledge is even older than Faust. But I am afraid that we are not aware of the mephistophelian temptations that come along with it. Asimov was refering to some of them, and those can be scary. I think it is important that we start to distinguish between human intelligence, futher coginitive ability and mere algorithm. Lsjbo is just transforming data, placing it on the right spot; I would not dfine that intelligence. Yet the dangers by bot owners are not to be underestimated, although responisble for these are the humans running the bots. Additionally Wikipedians are becoming redundant by those. This progress is hard to stop as shown in the recent article Generation R. But thinking about it critically: do we need values for generating knowledge and article improvement or are they even disruptive in regard to accuracy and neutrality? So which role plays artificial intelligence in the Wikipedia? As humans it is our responsibility and nature to search for answers and to preserve nature. For this it is necessary to know about it. A bot writing articles about places, astronomical objects and animals is helping us more to learn about our environment than, helping us to better interact with it. If we really want to know "what holds the world or the universe together at its core" ... this is our only chance, apart from its utopian character. Hawking said that that we have to leave this planet within the next 100 years. This process would be hard to imagine withought artificial intelligence. But sociral issues are different in nature. And it will take a while until bots will be able to create complex articles. Another focus will be on the use of the computational complexity theory and the computability theory, for instance for the determinational of potential articles. Another critical point are the assistance systems, that demand less and less of the reader or control less what he knowns and vice versa. That is why we should continue not to rely on these answers, but should study the subject further. By this schematic structure the encyclopedic understanding as such can get lost, naturally leading to the question whether the Wiki as we know it will be still accepable if a bot can provide answers to questions directly. This all will have an impact on every day life and research. I cannot imagine that his complex will have an impact on education. | Artificial intelligence |
| 32 | B | 1 | If there's one thing that worries me about artificial intellegence is that it might work too well, especially the use of AI in image editing (see c't 11/2017). Take a daylight picture of city A and a nighttime picture of city B, total both up and you've got city A at nighttime. Pictures have always been altered, but it's a difference if you have to be an expert in that or if you just add up 2 pictures. This has an impact on the pictures that we are using. | Artificial intelligence |
| 33 | B | 1 | I believe that artificial intelligence makes sense for us. We could for example need an artificial intelligence that looks at Commons pictures and then creates and stores the summary resp. picture description in our future Commons-Wikidata. An artificial intelligence tool, so to say. But that won't be reviving Wikipedia, it's just another tool. It wouldn't be a strategic product, merely a userful tool. | artificial intelligence |
| 34 | B | 1 | The theme is not talking about artificial intelligence, but rather tools to facilitate editing, especially a translation tool. With the translation tool Wikipedia could grow faster. And if the information transfer is improved, Wikipedia would be used more often. But what will be an increasing problem is a problem we already have: self-promotion of companies, politicians and other entities. | translation tool |
| 35 | B | 2 | Together with 4 and 5 this theme is important (theme 1 as very important and theme 3 as not so important). This theme forms the basis of expanding Wikipedia more quickly and improving the distribution of knowledge. | distribution of knowledge |
| 36 | B | 3 | One shouldn't exaggerate the automation so that the expenditure doesn't get to vast. Technology is useful, but don't lose sight on 'knowledge'. | automation |
| 37 | B | 4 | You will work most effectively using well established technology. Immature technology will just burn lots of time and money. | established technology |
| 38 | C | 2 4 | Pictures on Commons should have a better protection against deletion requests by having more editors explaining rules to new users. The project should provide a better support for photographers. | Wikimedia Commons |
| 39 | C | 4 | The Content Translation Tool is very important. It should be improved. That would improve the communication between the different languages of the world. | Content Translation Tool |
| 40 | D | 4 | If we just could reduce the theme to „We will work toward ever more accurate and verifiable content. We will increase the depth of knowledge available and maintain our standards for verifiable and neutral content. We will invite experts to join us. We will help people understand how our processes make us reliable“ the Wikimedia projects will stand a realistic chance to become the „most relevant source of knowledge“ beyond all scientific literature and respectable press by 2030. At the same time we would be "respected" as a "source of knowledge". | Experts |
| 41 | D | 4 | For 2030: Stay down-to-earth and recognize the complexity of reality. You are not more than one brick and your purpose is probably to teach and enable media competence. | media competence |
| 42 | D | 2 | I think that this theme is the most important. It contains the original goal, while technical improvments and getting new editors are "just" means to improve the content. Getting from very good to almost perfect is a smaller step than getting from bad to good. I think that we still have lots of articles that are bad. | original goal |
| 43 | A | 1 | This theme is essential for Wikipedia. Everyone should be able to contribute with joy. Only like this Wikipedia can grow. | Joy |
| 44 | A | 1 | Wikipedia is made for facilitating access to knowledge for everyone. The more people contribute in the world the more international it becomes. Wikipedia is improvable in many languages. Healthy and inclusive communities are the right way to improve this. The more inclusive Wikipedia is the more balanced and neutral the Wikis will get. | inclusive |
| 45 | C | 4 | A big step forward for my needs as a technician working internationally could be a visual encyclopedia, such as the visual dictionary by Merriam Webster (http://www.visualdictionaryonline.com). We should have this new Wikimedia project in many different languages. | visual encyclopedia |
| 46 | ||||
| 47 | ||||
| 48 | ||||
| 49 | ||||
| 50 |
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.