Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/Wikimedia Deutschland (discussion at the general meeting of members)
What group or community is this source coming from?
|name of group||Wikimedia Deutschland (general meeting of members)|
|virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country)||Bamberg/Bavaria/Germany|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||in-person discussion|
|# of participants in this discussion (a rough count)||15|
- 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||Keywords|
|1||A||4||We should make use of artificial intelligence to amplify positive developments within the community (i.e. feedback loops) while still considering the human factor (apply empathy and social norms).||feedback loops, human factor, artificial intelligence, social norms|
|2||A||4||If we want to establish and enforce values that foster a positive culture within our communities, these values have to be practised by community leaders (e.g. experienced users, power users, admins). We have to establish a "leadership culture" based on positive, shared values.||leadership, sustainable leadership culture, leadership principles, common values, strong community|
|3||A||4||We should acknowledge the creation of a safe environment as an essential task and responsibility of the Wikimedia organizations. We should not leave it up to the communities alone to find solutions.||safe environment, safe space, responsibility, recognition|
|4||A||4||Should we enforce a zero-tolerance-policy against personal attacks and apply strict sanctions?||personal attacks, zero-tolerance, sanctions|
|5||A||4||Controversial thought: Wikimedia should consider to work with paid community managers who enforce a safe and welcoming environment throughout the Wikimedia projects.||paid community managers, welcoming environment|
|6||A||4||New editors can be demotivated by automated, harsh bot notifications if they do mistakes without knowing better (e.g. copyright infringement notifications when uploading images). We should aim for a more friendly, constructive wording.||bot notifactions, new editors|
|7||A||4||We should define more precisely who our communities are: online communities only or offline-communities / activists too?||communities, definition|
|8||A||4||We should integrate more positive feedback into our projects - not only by editors but by readers too.||positive feedback, editors, readers|
|9||A||4||We should make it possible to rate the "friendliness" of postings on talk pages.||talk pages, friendliness, rating|
|10||A||4||We should conduct studies to find out what really motivates or frustrates our editors.||studies, research, motivation, frustrations|
|11||A||4||In order to strengthen transparency and trust we could highlight the authors of articles. This could also be a motivating factor for editors.||authors, attribution, social, transparency, motivation|
|12||A||4||We should make the creation and evolution of articles more transparent and easy to understand - e.g. by providing new tools. At the momement, people would have to look up the history and every single edit to assess an article's evolution.||transparency, article creation, article evolution|
|13||B||4||The Wiki technology has worked well for Wikipedia as an encylopedia but we shouldn't tie our projects to it if other technologies suit other projects better.||Wiki, technologies, innovation|
|14||D||1||Wikimedia will be the most respected open and accessible platform for knowledge products: We filter the most relevant and reliable content out of the constantly growing information supply and make it accessible in a consumable form.||platform, trust, information supply, consumable information|
|15||D||2||If we lose society's trust in the neutrality/reliability of our content, this would be Wikimedia's end.||trust, neutrality, reliability|
|16||D||4||We should develop mechanisms to remain an open system while we will have to resolve the conflict between reliability of our content and openness of our content creation processes, e.g. through application of quantitative quality indicators (quality rating, quality ranking).||open system, quality indicators, quality rating, quality ranking, reliability versus openness|
|17||D||4||Wikimedia's trustworthiness could be measured against the TRUST criteria: Transparent, Reliable, Unselfish, Safe, Two way communication.||transparent, reliable, unselfish, safe, two way communication|
|18||E||1||Wikimedia would be the entrance and guide to a world of knowledge. We would have opened as many doors as possible to enable all human beings to freely share in the sum of all knowledge. In order to achieve that goal we would collaborate with partners who teach and cultivate a culture where knowledge can transform into education.||platform, door opener, entrance, guide, collaboration|
|19||E||1||In addition to providing Wikipedia (the encylopedia), Wikimedia will be the hub for scientific and scholarly knowledge based on open access. We will provide a platform for publicizing academic knowledge (e.g. primary sources). We will work towards a world where all primary sources and scientific papers are freely accessible and useable. We will strengthen our ties to partners ranging from education to academia and further an alliance of players working with open access (but won’t be creating the content itself).||open access, open science, knowledge hub, reference|
|20||E||1||Collaborative aggregation of knowledge will be a cultural technique that is learned, widely spread and acknowledged by all.||collaborative aggregation of knowledge, cultural technique, acknowledgement|
|21||E||1||Knowledge is no more created in closed shops or silos. It’s common practice that Wikipedians and scientists collaborate. We will work towards a default where all/most of the relevant sources being referenced in Wikimedia projects are freely accessible.||no closed shops, collaboration with scientists, references, open access|
|22||E||2||Very important: If we define our role in the knowledge ecosystem we will have a better understanding of what communities we need and where we should focus within the community theme.||very important, effect on theme A, definition of our role|
|23||E||4||Wikipedia - the encylopedia - is our core asset. We should focus on the encylopedia and shouldn't aim to include every form of knowledge (like manuals, recipes...) in Wikipedia. However, different forms of knowledge can be gathered in other Wikimedia projects.||encyclopedia, other Wikimedia projects, beyond Wikipedia|
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.