Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/Polish Wikipedia

Information edit

What group or community is this source coming from?

name of group Polish Wikipedia users
virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) w:pl:Wikipedia:Strategia_Wikimedia_2017 (and its thematic subpages)
Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) Polish Wikipedia
# of participants in this discussion (a rough count) 26

Summary edit

Fill in the table, using these 2 keys.

Theme key
  1. Healthy, inclusive communities
  2. The augmented age
  3. A truly global movement
  4. The most trusted source of knowledge
  5. Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem
Questions key
  1. What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
  2. How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
  3. 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?
  4. What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
  5. 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 Keywords
1 C 2 International, multilingual nature of Wikimedia project is an asset that may help to overcome current separatist tendencies in the world, by bringing knowledge to more people, so they can better understand others and the world. [1] understanding the others
2 C 2 Wikipedias in local languages should not focus on translating from English but rather create their own input to the knowledge, which should be translated to major languages, so the local voice can be heard globally.[2] translations
3 A none Suggestion made to simplify the language of the theme description, so it could be understand by non-corporate people.[3] simplification of language
4 A (possibly, not clearly stated) none Long, general discussion about the complex and "pompatic" style of theme descriptions, which disappoints people because they are written in prohibitive, hard to understand, corporate style language and are too general and abstract to enable discussion about real issues.[4] corporate language
5 E 1 Wikipedia is a source of knowledge no more, no less that that, therefore we should concentrate on providing good knowledge, so we naturally will become a part of ecosystem, and in fact we are now, although informally, so no any special partnerships with education institutions are needed for this. [5] knowledge
6 C + B 4 Good machine translation system but always screened finally by humans feeling well their mother tongues is the key for expanding Wikipedias in less popular languages; we need better machine translations.[6] machine translations
7 E 3 The problem with official knowledge ecosystem is that it always support currently dominant scientific theories represented by majority of experts, diminishing the less popular ones, but Wikipedia should be neutral and cover these less popular even if it is not liked by experts; therefore for Wikipedia is more important to follow its own values and rules than trying to join mainstream education system. [7] minority point of views
8 A + B 2 The important thing is to break somehow the vicious circle of lack of devoted Wikipedians, who have therefore limited time to take care of newbies, so there is less Wikipedians etc; in order to sort it out stronger technical support is needed for devoted Wikipedians.[8] technical support, newbies vs old (no idea how to describe in one keyword as it is about link between 2 issues)
9 A 2 Everyone should make examination of conscience as we all contribute to unhealthy culture of our communities, but it probably cannot be forced by any strategy.[9] examination of conscience
10 C 2 Suport for emerging communities in underdeveloped countries is important, but there is the issue how to do it; if there is no good idea, all efforts, including financial will be wasted. [10] waste of resources
11 C 2 It shouldn't be a strategic goal, as putting resources for this theme artificially doesn't produce any good results, rather it should be part of some other general strategic goals and maybe achieved together with other efforts.[11] waste of resources.
12 D 2 Encyclopedia shouldn't be the only prophet on knowledge market, but rather starting point for further studies, therefore it is not necessary to be the "most respected source" it is enough to be "good source"; "the most" sounds like a kind of "knowledge imperialism", which we should rather avoid, therefore this topic shouldn't be a strategy goal.[12] knowledge imperialism
13 D 2 This goal is impossible to combine with NPOV - as there always be people criticizing Wikipedia for not following their POV and trying to discredit Wikipedia, so there is no chance to be "the most respected" by all.[13] NPOV vs. respect
14 E 2 The most important thing is to keep and follow NPOV understood as fair relation of various POVs in the controversial themes, including minority POV proportionally to its importance. [14] NPOV
15 A 4 No any technical tricks can change the community attitude toward newbies, some internal work is rather needed such as real life meetings and trainings.[15] newbie treatment
16 D 2 Experts will never comes to edit Wikipedia as they have different habits, attitudes and expectations than are needed to collaboratively create a knowledge, so engaging too much effort to this theme is waste of time. WMF should rather focus on technology and support of existing community [16] experts engagement
17 D 2 Another user disagreed with the above statement claiming that experts are very important and Wikipedia community should rather follow the habits of main-stream academy people than pushing strange and non-welcoming regulations which in fact do not support quality but are rather an unnecessary obstacles for newbies.[17] experts engagement
18 B 2 The future technology directions are non-predictable, so rather shorter 2-3 year strategies are needed in this field.; we should first respond to the real current technical problems and try to resolve them step by step than thinking about Wikipedia on the moon.[18] shorter time strategies
19 B 3 We must focus on real issues such as anti-vandal tools, instead on focusing on secondary details such as shape and color of buttons [19] anti-vandal tools
20 A 4 There is a problem with language used in Wikimedia projects which contains a lot of terms and acronyms knows only to devoted Wikimedians; therefore a project clarifying the language we communicate to each other is need as it is big barrier for newbies.[20] language of communications
21 A 4 Community of editors won't solve such problems as gender gap. It needs support of professional experts in sociology and volunteer management who should sometimes even force needed changes from outside. This is a role for WMF [21] external managing of volunteers
22 A 5 Linked Open Data is our potential ally in recognition of gender (and others) gaps in content and also potential source of new volunteers. [22] gender gap
23 A 4 A new special role in wiki is suggested - an ombudsman for newbie editors, who can have a right and duty to protect them from angry actions of toxic users.[23] newbie protection
24 A 2 This theme is important because the level of newbie-biting is very high and it kills Polish Wikipedia as the user shown on his own experience. [24] harassment of newbies
25 A 4 To solve the problem with newbie-biting there should be terms of office for admins, and the admins should be allowed to maintain the articles about which they have good knowledge/expertise. terms of office for power users
26 A 1 & 2 This is theme should not be a strategic goal as the healthy community is not our goal to achieve but rather one of the resources we can use for some strategic purpose. So, we should rather focus on some external strategy goals and then decide how to achieve it. The community itself is not our product. non-strategic theme
27 D 2 & 4 Due to increasing political divisions across societies all over the world the most important thing is to keep very strict NPOV; Admins should use strong measures to stop changing Wikipedia into political debate, there should be concise code of conduct, how to deal with POV, there should be a "black list of un-trusted sources" and finally most prominent members of community should stay away from political declarations in social media.[25] Political NPOV
28 D 1 & 4 This theme is the most important; Wikipedia should seek the true, as the true is currently very rare, and people are looking for it, especially in countries with semi-dictatorships such as Russia or Turkey; therefore stronger control of quality of content is needed and in most important topics the external experts should be asked to write articles under their names, and that names should be put in articles.[26] True as the core value
29 C 1 This theme is not that important. The creation of encyclopedia is a kind of luxury for which only people in richer areas of world can afford. Therefore focusing efforts on poorer areas in hope to find volunteers willing to edit is meaningless. Wikipedias without communities of real, devoted editors will turn into billboard with local adds or free space to keep personal files.[27] no volunteers in global south
30 B 1 This is key theme, especially going in the direction of better multimedia support. Otherwise we will become boring walls of texts in the era of multimedia world.[28] Multimedia
31 B 4 More automation is needed. As many as possible work should be automated. Not only simple cleaning and editing tasks but also matching people of similar interest or having appropriate skill for needed tasks, so AI could find them and ask for help.[29] Automation AI
32 D 4 Wikipedia will be trusted when articles are based on trustworthy sources, therefore teaching wikipedians which sources are trusted and which one are not is the core task.[30] Sources
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

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.