Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Swedish Wikipedia
What group or community is this source coming from?
|name of group||Swedish Wikipedia|
|virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country)||Swedish Wikipedia's Village pump|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||local wiki|
|# of participants in this discussion (a rough count)||11|
- Key Insight
- The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.
- Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.
- Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.
- The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.
- Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
|Line||Week #||Key insight||Summary Statement||Overall||Keyword|
|1||1||A||We shall not adjust to death but find strategies where our quality work seems to be an attractive alternative.||concern||quality|
|2||1||A||Change media behaviour can be natched with extended ways of access (made by others than Wikipedia) but the foundation of facts (=Wikipedia) is a must.||neutral||facts|
|3||1||A||We have a working infrastructure which we should value and protect, at the same time we must be open for new solutions that can make us more adjusted to, e.g. Snapchat.||neutral||adjustment|
|4||1||A||Wikipedia's task is to write an encyclopedia. Is that format unmodern and a dying dinosaur, that's fine, let Wikipedia sleep in dignity as an active encyclopedia and don't try to be something else. Better that Wikimedia starts a new project that gathers questions and answers from various Wikimedia projects.||concern||encyclopedia|
|5||1||A||It will take a long until knowledge becomes dusty. The information society means knowledge gets more meaning for more people. It would be of interest to make a survey about level of education, income, living conditions among people looking for information on Wikipedia.||neutral||survey|
|6||1||A||Search engines will become more developed towards that bots generate answers from various databases and sources instantly when the query is submitted. And Wikimedia is absolutely the right instance to match that development.||neutral||queries|
|7||1||A||If WMF wants to supply easily digested info in order to maximise the number of accesses, Wikipedia isn't the right place. It is not our task on Wikipedia to follow every change in trends.||concern||trends|
|8||1||A||Wikipedia shall not be anything else than an encyclopedia.||concern||encyclopedia|
|9||1||A||I don't see why Wikipedia shall package the knowledge in a new way, but Wikimedia Foundation can do it.||neutral||package knowledge|
|10||1||A||Information can be presented in different ways, but to me it is more important to put effortt in correct and well balanced information than focusing making it easily accessible.||concern||correct and well balanced|
|11||1||A||Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that the Wikimedia movement can't be a platform for information sharing, but the naswer to that may not be Wikipedia.||concern||encyclopedia|
|12||1||A||It is the information – the knowledge sharing – that is important, not the format and packaging. In that sense Wikimedia is more important than the project Wikipedia.||neutral||knowledge sharing|
|13||1||A||There is a need for structured information, placing topics in a context, explaining, giving backgrounds and perspectives. In this area Wikipedia has a better future.||neutral||context|
|14||1||A||Wikipedia is a place where different opinions and views meet and create a common text. This is one of Wikipedia's strengths, that will continue to make it relevant.||concern||opinions meet|
|15||1||A||The big encyclopedias were born from the Age of Enlightenment 300 years ago. An idea that has survived big changes in the society for that period of time with revolutions and world wars will continue to survive in the information era.||concern||Age of Enlightenment|
|16||1||A||There is no reason to leave the western model of encyclopedia.||concern||encyclopedia|
|17||1||A||We should not depreciate or despise other kind of information sharing, spreading or development just because it doesn't look like Wikipedia.||neutral||sharing|
|18||1||A||We shall continue to be proud of that we are working with an encyclopedia and it will continue to have a great value, but we shall be open for other ways to make it accessible.||neutral||encyclopedia|
|19||1||A||The challenge for Wikimedia Foundation is to create a Wikimedia project, a sister project, which could attract more than just a ppm of the population to share and add knowledge and to have a better represenation of these ppm.||supportive||sister project|
|20||1||A||There will always be an audience searching for easily accessible, with good overview and of good quality. It is those Wikipedia should strive to meet. Others needs may be supported by other wiki projects.||concern||good quality|
|21||2||C||The need of sources can't be changed, but we might open up for "own reserach", but that will require review by "experts", as in the academic world. This should be done beside the ordinary Wikipedia articles.||supportive||review|
|22||2||C||There is a need to define what "knowledge" is in this case.||concern||knowledge|
|23||2||C||I can hardly agree with the "key insights". I believe that the foundations to understand, interpretate and describe our world - also what's not yet descibed in reliable written historical sources - is supported by science, democracy and transparency, i.e. the values that are the keys of the Wiki projects.||concern||science|
|24||2||C||I think it is important that we - in regards of verification - stand for a view of knowledge based on the knowledge and education tradition that has been built up in the "western world" for centuries.||concern||verification|
|25||2||C||It's important to document the whole world, but not without the requirement of sources.||neutral||sources|
|26||3||F||Let us develop our strengths, our global community to deliver knowledge (=neutal and correct information). See the technical development as an opportunity and let others spread our information when our interfaces aren't not enough. Don't compete with Google and Facebook – collaborate with them.||neutral||collaborate|
|27||3||E||It is in some way built into the civilised society that we protect facts, objectivity and balance by support of research, criticism of sources and an active debate in the society. This is supported by technology and globalisation.||concern||protection|
|28||3||E||A clearer definition of Wikipedia's role in relation to other actors is needed. We should not rely on unverified information from news.||neutral||definition|
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.