Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Russian-speaking projects


What group or community is this source coming from?

name of group Russian-speaking Wikimedians
virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) Википедия:Стратегия движения Викимедиа
Various community forums
Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) local wiki
# of participants in this discussion (a rough count) ≈5
The communities strictly in Russian Wikipedias with Russian-speaking users


The summary is a group of summary sentences and associated keywords that describe the relevant topic(s). Here is an example.

Line Week # Key insight Summary Statement Overall Keyword
1 1 A Example: Knowledge needs to be more relevant. We need much easier ways to add images and videos. Many people want more diverse content, and we need ways to make these easy to crowd-source. We need new projects devoted to this effort that work well. supportive example
2 1 A Example: If we start doing things other than long-form, cited articles, we will dilute the integrity of the projects. concern example
3 example example example table only neutral example

Taken together, all the summary sentences should provide an accurate summary of what was discussed with the specific community.

Fill in the table below, using these 2 keys.

Key Insight
  1. The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.
  2. Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.
  3. Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.
  4. The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.
  5. Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.
  6. Mobile will continue to grow. Products will evolve and use new technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality. These will change how we create, present, and distribute knowledge.
  7. As the world population undergoes major shifts, the Wikimedia movement has an opportunity to help improve the knowledge available in more places and to more people.
  8. Readers in seven of our most active countries have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, is structured, is funded, and how content is created.
Overall (either)
  • supportive
  • concern
  • neutral
Line Week # Key insight Summary Statement Overall Keyword
1 1 B There is nothing new. Twitter exists for a reason, but adapting encyclopedia to its format is a profoundly dumb idea. DZ concern social media
2 1 A The most successful project focused on giving ‘answers to specific questions’ is StackExchange portal. It has a completely different focus and model of organisation, but if we would move into that direction, it is appropriate to do in close collaboration with them to not repeat the same errors and to not fragment the knowledge. Ivan Pozdeev neutral partnerships
3 1 B Wikipedia, Q&A, and social media are three completely different niches with completely different priorities and standards, so attempting a vertical integration between them would be hurtful to ability to compete in all spheres. Wiki has a most advanced system of gathering knowledge and the main focus should be stuck to it (so if we do something different, it doesn’t hurt this system). Ivan Pozdeev concern focus
4 1 A Repeating the idea that I voiced earlier in conversation: most readers do not read the full article, so the most quality assessment should be made over preamble. The main text could be even hidden by default. Bechamel neutral quality
5 1 A The source of the problem is fully understandable: all sources of information that are ‘right’ and ‘reliable’ are not right and reliable. All sources in Wikipedia are conventionally reliable, so people are getting that and are seeking ways to evaluate them − and that is only the opinions of others. Egor supportive verifiability
6 2 C Who has a right to say that ‘traditional ways of verification’ result in truth? Wikimedia projects have a general systematic error to convey information as truthful. The problem is how we can evaluate ethicality of circulation of marginal opinions. From one side we have destruction of NPOV in favour of mainstream, from other side − the danger of influence of misinformation, propaganda, antihumanistic ideas. But it is a problem for the whole world and it is not solvable with users’ opinions. Egor concern verifiability
7 3 E The only productive idea for solving this is authorisation of all information that is given out to the world. Unauthorised information should be doubtful by default and its processing should be done through other means. We need to stop lying ourselves about ‘protection of authors’, because this is not a protection and any action in the net can be tracked without a problem. Egor concern verifiability
8 4 F The only possibility I see is taking on complex of not only information, but ‘information about information’: about sources, authors, current restrictions, etc. The knowledge about restrictions gives us an opportunity to work on them, technological problems are secondary. Every source should be considered made-up, nothing should be considered ‘an absolute knowledge’. Egor neutral sources

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.