Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Summary

< Strategy | Wikimedia movement | 2017 | Sources
Translate this page
Other languages:

This is a short manual summary overview of the Source pages on Meta. It has been built by combining the two manual summaries of the Sources pages (I, II) that were designed to give people a broad idea what other communities than their own are talking about. As with the previous summaries of this format, the text indicates how many source statements were available at the time it was drafted and therefore taken into account at the time of writing. (3s), for example, means 3 statements were available on the referenced source page at the time the summary was drafted.

  • The Arabic Wikipedia’s village pump discussion (26s) surfaced the view that the Wikipedia Education Program should be a priority, including opening permanent Wikimedia offices in educational institutions (§Ar1). Vandalism and competition from Wikipedia in Arabic dialects is seen as a problem by some editors (§Ar4) (§Ar10). Users have supported creation of multilingual projects such as Wikipedia (§Ar5) and Wiktionary (§Ar6), hiring of paid staff to verify content (§Ar7) and to form an editorial board (§Ar13). We should focus on neutrality (§Ar14), integrating with social media (§Ar17), content gap (§Ar18) and audio content (§Ar19). We should also focus on newcomers (§Ar21), improving MediaWiki (§Ar22), starting GLAM projects (§Ar23), using social media (§Ar24), unified login from all devices (§Ar25) and improving wiktionary interface. (§Ar26) While the related Facebook group (4s) emphasized focusing on improving technical aspects of Wikimedia Projects (§Ar2.1 (to 4)).
  • Bengali onwiki discussions (37s) surfaced various views such as focusing on decentralizing the movement with an emphasis on rural areas, (§Bn1.2, §Bn1.31) Wikidata development, (§Bn1.6, §Bn1.25), neutrality (§Bn1.37) and creating a welcoming environment (§Bn1.21). Partnering with related organizations (§Bn1.7), developing spell correction tools (§Bn1.5) and creating audiobooks on Wikisource (§Bn1.8) should be a focus. Article writing should be easier and emphasize both content quality and quantity. Frequent global contests would be helpful, including give rewards for contribution (such as mobile data), engage students and mentor newcomers (§Bn1.20, §Bn1.33). Sister projects should be promoted (§Bn1.26) and all projects integrate Wikidata with all for automatic updating (§Bn1.25). Community members at Bengali community meetups (12s) suggested promoting Wikimedia projects via Wikipedia Library buses (§Bn2.1) and calendars (§Bn2.2). The gender and content gaps (§Bn2.5, §Bn2.4) should be addressed. We should also focus on education (§Bn2.12), reliability (§Bn2.7), user experience (§Bn2.10), mentoring (§Bn2.8) and empowering new users. (§Bn2.11) On skype and hangout discussions (23s) it was discussed that they should be both long term and short term plans (§Bn2.1), organizing at-least one regional conference every year (§Bn2.2) and promoting sister projects of Wikipedia as well. (§Bn2.3) We should focus on Wikidata (§Bn2.11), collaborating with educational institutions (§Bn2.7), neutrality of the content (§Bn2.8), reducing gender gap (§Bn2.9), building trust within the communities (§Bn2.8) organizing WikiCamps (§Bn2.13) and the promotion of Wikipedia. (§Bn2.10) We should also focus on supporting communities (§Bn2.15), improving interface and mobile editing (§Bn2.17), discontinuing Wikipedia Zero (§Bn2.18) and empower newcomers. (§Bn2.23) In the social groups discussions (6s) stress was laid on doing more outreach (§Bn3.1), accuracy of our projects (§Bn3.2), engaging professionals to contribute in specific topics (§Bn3.3), collaborating with other encyclopedias (§Bn3.4), automation (§Bn3.5) and empowering emerging communities.(§Bn3.6)
  • Catalan Wikipedia (12s) contributors stressed on multilingualism (§Ca.1), decentralization (§Ca.2), more focus on sister projects (§Ca.3), collaboration in education. (§Ca.5) We should reduce the gap between communities and affiliates (§Ca.4), collaborate with government and other organizations (§Ca.1), integrate bots and human editors (§Ca.8) and inter-connectivity among various Wikimedia projects. (§Ca.12)
  • Chinese Wikipedia's Taiwanese community (6s) discussed the possibility of having more outreach programs, such as Wikipedia Education Program and GLAM program. (§Zh1.6) The community in Taiwan wants to have more outreach programs. (§Zh1.6) The Chinese community in Mainland China expressed their concern about the relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and the China government, as it is a bit intense right now and it is not beneficial to the development of the community. Some member suggested that the Foundation should work on their relationship with the government (§Zh2.1) (§Zh2.3) , so that they can have the outreach program in the future. At the same time, they think it will be nice if the Foundation can work on the offline Wikipedia as well, which means that the Foundation can develop some devices that the people can access the articles on Wikipedia without the internet. (§Zh2.6) The corresponding Google Hangout interview (24s) surfaced the views that we should focus on promotion of Wikipedia (§Zh3.3), better design (§Zh3.2), education (§Zh3.4), working for minorities and specially abled people (§Zh3.7), encouraging friendly space online (§Zh3.16), conflict resolution (§Zh3.17), improving translation (§Zh3.21) and communication among the communities. (§Zh3.24) While the Telegram group (3s) focused on content translation (§Zh4.3), development of young communities (§Zh4.2), especially in non-English languages. (§Zh4.2) The community on WeChat (9s) stressed on the importance of quantity (§Zh5.2) and quality (§Zh5.1); focusing on sister projects (§Zh5.3), improving the design (§Zh5.4), developing artificial intelligence (§Zh5.5), diversity (§Zh5.6), newcomers (§Zh5.7), sustainability (§Zh5.8) and gender gap. (§Zh5.9) For the community in Hong Kong and Macau, the Wikipedians in the region is planning to form the user group, as the start of the strategic planning. (§Zh6.19)
  • Dutch Wikipedia discussions (1s) focused on cooperation among Wikimedia projects and partnerships with knowledge institutions. (§Nl.1)
  • Wikipedians on English Wikipedia (40s) said that we should focus on offline accessibility (§En1), quality of information (§En11) and features like graphs and maps (§En4). We should work together with external partners and more internal collaboration like Community Tech Team (§En5). The problems of undisclosed paid editing (§En3) and Wikidata's limited usability (§En8) should also be addressed and the potentials of artificial intelligence to help us explored (§En13). We should focus on documentation (§En20), educational collaborations (§En21), fighting harassment (§En19) and increasing patience of the editors (§En26). We should improve our software (§En22) and be able to handle rich content (§En16) as well. We should also focus on GLAM (§En26), developing a legal strategy (§En27) and improving software. (§En28) While the discussions on sister projects of English Wikipedia (12s) stressed on the increasing the usability of sister projects (§En2.1), collaborations with other library systems (§En2.3), working with GLAM organizations (§En2.6), openness to innovation (§En2.8), increasing reliability (§En2.12), focusing on wikidata (§En2.9) and wikicite. (§En2.10)
  • Contributors on French Wikipedia (100s) discussed that we should focus on smaller wikis, (§Fr1.1) build a global community, (§Fr1.2) promote local-language projects, (§Fr1.4) modernize Wikimedia platforms (§Fr1.5) (such as augmented reality and voice search (§Fr1.57) and creating more strict anti-harassment policy (§Fr1.7). We should focus on quality, (§Fr1.39) creating multilingual wikis for every project, (§Fr1.11) creating a welcoming environment for new users (§Fr1.6) and encouraging cross-cultural exchanges. (§Fr1.25) We should also think about neutrality of the project, (§Fr1.15) internationalization and providing knowledge in various formats (§Fr1.13). We should encourage the use of media/social media for promotion (§Fr1.41). We should also focus on anti-vandalism mechanisms (§Fr1.67), training of Wikipedia spokespersons (§Fr1.68), partnerships (§Fr1.69), intensive outreach (§Fr1.71), conflict resolution (§Fr1.74), translations (§Fr1.75) and neutrality. (§Fr1.76) We should think about gender (§Fr1.82), content gap (§Fr1.83), paid editing (§Fr1.89) and artificial intelligence. (§Fr1.92) While on the French Wiktionary (16s) discussions stress was laid on making the movement more transparent (§Fr2.2) and on making the contributors feel valuable. (§Fr2.1) We should focus on mobile editing (§Fr2.4), emerging communities (§Fr2.3), multilingualism (§Fr2.5), new forms of knowledge (oral and sign language) (§Fr2.6), decentralization of the projects (§Fr2.8), inter-connectivity within projects (§Fr2.9) and diversity of readers. (§Fr2.10) We should also focus on bringing more editors to fill content gap (§Fr2.13), fostering partnerships with organizations (§Fr2.14), creating contribution guides (§Fr2.15) and ensuring security of wikimedia projects. (§Fr2.11) French Wikiversity discussed about promoting wikiversity (§Fr3.2), developing partnerships with universities (§Fr3.3), creating MOOCs (§Fr3.4) and improving video embedding. (§Fr3.5) WMF should fund academic research (§Fr3.7) and hire developers for maintenance. (§Fr3.12) Discussion on French Wikisource surfaced the views that we should focus on partnerships with libraries (§Fr4.1), improving wikidata (§Fr4.2), cooperation among wikisourcers and developers (§Fr4.3), improving OCR (§Fr4.5) and inter-connectivity among wikis. (§Fr4.7) We should build better tools (§Fr4.9), organize contests (§Fr4.12), make better help pages (§Fr4.11) and improve the interface. (§Fr4.17)
  • The German Wikipedia discussions (61s) discussed the idea of democratically electing expert boards among wikipedia users to improve quality (§De1.1 to 7)A welcoming social environment (§De1.8) and keeping all the articles up to date (§De1.15) has been deemed important; while Wikidata can be helpful (§De1.18) but someone has to update Wikidata as well. (§De1.19) We should focus on quality rather than quantity. (§De1.21) Wikipedia should be a democracy and all the supervisory positions should be appointed by community; possibly downsizing the WMF with a headquarter outside US and for fundraising by organizations. (§De1.13) We should have an internal quality management, restructure policy and guideline pages, (§De1.30) and rethink the value of primary sources (§De1.25). There should be think about conflict resolution (§De1.54), problem of lobbying (§De1.60) and maintaining neutrality. (§De1.61) A meeting in Austria (31s) supported a welcoming environment, (§De2.1) finding new knowledge (visualization) formats, (§De2.26) involving more diverse voices and sources of knowledge, and keeping content up to date. (§De2.21) We should focus on integration of tools with Wikipedia (§De2.38), usability of Categories (§De2.42), abolishing talk pages (§De2.43) and a central page for questions about article. (§De2.47) While Swiss community (35s) focused on collaboration among different languages (§De3.2), reducing gender gap (§De3.4), changing design (§De3.3) and keeping the data up to date. (§De3.5) We should also focus on Wikidata (§De3.11), neutrality (§De3.17), reliability (§De3.20), plurality of opinions (§De3.28), downsizing WMF and Chapters (§De3.33) with more stress on regional meetings. (§De3.31)
  • Greek Wikipedia (11s) contributors focused on quality of content (§El.2), multilingualism (§El.3), fighting with harassment. (§El.1) We should also focus on rich content (like maps, videos, graphs) (§El.5), sister projects of Wikipedia (§El.7), improving MediaWiki (§El.8), automation (§El.9) and autonomy of the movement. (§El.11)
  • Hebrew Wikipedians (45s) discussed that we should focus on facts, being politically neutral (§He2) and reaching more audiences. (§He1) We should rethink Wikimedia's design, (§He12) adapt new technologies, (§He6) collaborate with Academia and engage students, (§He17) focus on quality (§He10) and integration of Wikimedia projects. (§He8) While one person thinks we also think about the problem of paid editing, (§He13) another says that some work should be assigned to paid editors. (§He21) We should collaborate with other organizations (§He20), creating a healthy environment (§He22), improving mobile version (§He24) and becoming a social network (§He25). Our work should support differently able people as well. (§He26) We should also focus on text-to-speech (§He27), scanning technologies (§He28), printing Wikipedia by themes (§He31), bringing in youth (§He32) and fighting vandalism. (§He34) It was also discussed that we should lay more stress on neutrality (§He38), supervising edits of paid editors (§He40), including more areas of knowledge (§He39), using artificial intelligence (§He42), improving content translation (§He43), promoting credibility (§He44) and creativity. (§He45)
  • The Hindi Wikimedians Whatsapp Group (25s) discussed that we should decentralize the movement's formal organizations (§Hi1.2) and focus on reaching every village. (§Hi1.6) Portable devices should be our priority (§Hi1.5) and Wikipedia should be pre-installed on all devices. (§Hi1.18) We should also engage students and teachers by collaborating with educational institutions. (§Hi1.7) We should focus on growing both quantitatively (§Hi1.20) and qualitatively, (§Hi1.14) potentially making relevant content in other languages visible on any given wiki. (§Hi1.24) We should create an open and welcoming environment. (§Hi1.25) We should hire staff to empower local communities (§Hi1.27), educate about various grant programs (§Hi1.29) and give training to trainers. (§Hi1.30) The Hindi Wikimedians Google Hangout discussion (12s) also surfaced the views that Wikipedia should be more easily accessible from mobile devices. (§Hi2.3) We should collaborate with organizations (§Hi2.9) and local governments (§Hi2.6) to take Wikipedia to the villages. (§Hi2.5) We should promote Wikipedia on social media (§Hi2.7) and also work together with educational institutions with the help of more paid staff. (§Hi2.10) We should create tutorials, ebooks and other material in regional languages. (§Hi2.8) During phone interviews (5s) participants discussed that we should focus on reaching villages and get people from diverse backgrounds to join the movement.(§Hi3.1) We should advocate the use of Wikipedia for education(§Hi3.2), creation of educational videos(§Hi3.3), tutorials and books(§Hi3.4), and usage of offline Wikipedia.(§Hi3.5)
  • On Hungarian Wikipedia (7s) it was discussed that we should focus on community health (§Hu.1), partnerships with educational and cultural institutions (§Hu.2), mentoring new users (§Hu.3), outreach (§Hu.4), quality of articles (§Hu.6), multimedia content (§Hu.7) and improving user interface and policies. (§Hu.5)
  • Indonesian Wikimedia community (4s) discussed that there will be comprehensive and trustworthy articles (§Id.1), more social gatherings (§Id.2), free knowledge sharing (§Id.3) and more organized offline activity (§Id.4) in the next 15 years.
  • Italian Wikipedians (107s) discussed that there should be a uniformity in terms of templates, (§It1.11) guidelines and Manual of Style (§It1.8) as well as increased communication among various languages and projects. (§It1.1) We should focus on educating and bringing more contributors. (§It1.5) We should find various ways to engage children (§It1.14) and students such as collaborating with youth organizations. (§It1.13) We should focus on quality (§It1.18), content gaps (§It1.20), innovation (§It1.21) and verifiability. (§It1.24) We should fight censorship (§It1.22), spams (§It1.27), fake news (§It1.28) and paid editing. (§It1.39) We should also focus on education (§It1.32), mentoring new users (§It1.37) and creating guides. (§It1.36) There should be stress on making a welcoming environment (§It1.49), improving mobile editing (§It1.53), on-wiki communication (§It1.60) and VisualEditor (§It1.77), promoting neutrality (§It1.62), giving legal advice on projects (§It1.69), fighting copyvio (§It1.97), developing better tools (§It1.84) and engaging organizations and institutes. (§It1.89) We should reimburse volunteers for movement related costs (§It1.107) and also integrate with other Open projects such as OpenStreetMap. (§It1.105) Italian Wikiquote (21s) users said that Wikiquote guidelines should be improved to make it easier for newbies. (§It2.2) There should be a collaborative library to improve quotations. (§It2.4) Wikiquote should have a presence on social media. (§It2.5) We should focus on notability (§It2.7), NPOV (§It2.9), improving guidelines (§It2.10), improving the software (§It2.13) and collaborating with schools (§It2.12) as well as IMDb. (§It2.18) Wikiquote should be promoted more (§It2.16) and digitization should be encouraged. (§It2.15) Italian Wikisource (20s) contributors suggested that Wikimedia projects should be more interconnected (§It3.1) and Wikisource should be integrated with other projects. (§It3.6) We should improve the technical aspects of Wikisource so that one can easily contribute and view texts, even on mobile devices. (§It3.8) Some users stressed including other open-access works (§It3.3) while others said that we should focus on scanned works. (§It3.15) We should also focus on improving software (§It3.18), working with external partners (§It3.16) and focusing on quality. (§It3.17) Italian Wikiversity (25s) suggested that the movement should focus more on sister projects of Wikipedia. (§It4.1) We should also focus on schools and children by collaborating with projects such as Vikidia. (§It4.5) We should lay stress on minority languages (§It4.7), inter-connectivity within projects (§It4.8), partnering with institutions (§It4.11), reducing content gap (§It4.12), promotion of Wikiversity (§It4.13) and innovation. (§It4.15) We should promote kindness in the community (§It4.14) and Kiwix as well. (§It4.9) We should also focus on twinning (§It4.16), creating and sustaining small wikis (§It4.17, §It4.18) and fighting vandalism. (§It4.25)
  • Discussion on Japanese Wikipedia (14s) surfaced the views that more free resources (such as images) should be available (§Ja4.2), Mediawiki should be improved (§Ja4.4) and we should focus on content gap(§Ja4.3). We should also focus on translation (§Ja4.13), quantity and quality (§Ja4.9), neutrality (§Ja4.10), protecting from censorship (§Ja4.11), encouraging politeness among the community. (§Ja4.12) Japanese Wikidata interview (1 user, 7s) on Twitter indicates that the seasoned Wikidata user felt that the project’s mission is unclear and it is complicated to explain. (§Ja1.1) (to 6)) A group on Slack (5s) agreed that WP has poor quality content regarding certain disciplines such as Computer sciences. (§Ja2.2) Wikipedia Facebook Messenger Interview (14s) stressed on the importance of statistics (§Ja6.2), sister projects (§Ja6.4), improving design (§Ja6.5), community health (§Ja6.7), supporting newcomers (§Ja6.9), decentralization (§Ja6.11) and integration of content. (§Ja6.14) Wikidata Facebook Messenger Interview (9s) surfaced the views that we should focus on comprehensiveness and decentralization of the projects, (§Ja3.1) and clarification of licenses. (§Ja3.6) We should also focus on data structure, (§Ja3.4) data relationship, (§Ja3.3) data input, (§Ja3.8) data output on Wikidata. (§Ja3.9) Onwiki, freeing more content (§Ja4.2) and recruiting more quality contributors have been noted. (§Ja4.3) While the community on Facebook group (2s) discussed about community dynamics (§Ja5.1) and creating new user roles. (§Ja5.2)
  • Latvian Wikipedia discussions (14s) stressed on filling content gaps (§Lv.1), improving community health (§Lv.2), easier navigation (§Lv.3), partnerships (§Lv.5) and documenting Cultural Heritage. (§Lv.13) We should also focus on integration with Wikidata (§Lv.6), improved communication among contributors (§Lv.11) and other free content projects like OpenStreet Maps. (§Lv.14)
  • Malayalam Wikipedia discussions (11s) focused on improving mobile applications (§Ml.1), inviting more Wikimedians to global conferences (§Ml.2), ensuring transparency of affiliates (§Ml.3), improving tools for events like writing contests (§Ml.4) and filling content gaps (such as LGBTQIA articles). (§Ml.5) We should also focus on mentoring newcomers (§Ml.6), editor retention (§Ml.7), support small communities in grant writing and reporting (§Ml.8), improving interface (§Ml.9), extensive outreach (§Ml.10) and collaborations. (§Ml.11)
  • Meta (95s) discussions emphasized the quality of content and the need to contest fake news (§Meta4), fighting paid editing (§Meta18) and undisclosed advocacy. (§Meta7) While one user advocated promotion of free knowledge efforts of WMF, (§Meta3) another user said that we should look for alternatives for WMF developed softwares. (§Meta2) We should focus on improving collaborations between distributed communities, formal affiliates (§Meta20) and potential partner organizations. (§Meta21) Knowledge should be promoted globally by improving offline access and by making our content easily understandable. We should focus on improving technical aspects of Wikimedia (§Meta12) and also the ability to handle rich content such as maps and graphic tools. (§Meta19) We should focus on gender/content gap (§Meta6) and improve inter-connectivity in our projects around Wikidata. (§Meta14) We should advocate for freedom of panorama in the US (§Meta13) and respect each other despite our differences.(§Meta5) We should also focus on newbies (§Meta29), decentralization (§Meta34), improving mobile editing (§Meta35), outreach (§Meta42), cross-wiki collaboration and improving transparency. (§Meta61) We should lay stress on new projects (§Meta67), improving user interface (§Meta68), community health (§Meta85) our impact on the world (§Meta74) and encourage copyleft. (§Meta88)
  • Norwegian Wikipedia discussions (12s) stressed on minority languages (§No.5), supporting volunteers (§No.6), quality of content (§No.7), cross-wiki collaboration (§No.8) and better tools for newbies. (§No.10)
  • On the Polish Wikipedia (58s), users said that contributing to Wikipedia should be easier, (§Pl1.5) and the software should better support multilingual efforts. (§Pl1.1) Certain users suggested creation of a unified Wikipedia, such as Wikimedia Commons and Metawiki, with tools to translate same article into various languages. (§Pl1.8) Paid editors can also be hired to keep the content up to date by getting access to professional databases. (§Pl1.7) It was discussed that WMF/Movement should be politically neutral (§Pl1.2) and also that WMF Board of Trustees should represent the community better. (§Pl1.3) WMF should be only a support organization and not the organization leading the movement. (§Pl1.14) We should focus on sister projects of Wikipedia (§Pl1.15) and editorial autonomy of Wikipedia in various languages. (§Pl1.18) A tool to convert mp3/mpeg while uploading them to Wikimedia Commons. (§Pl1.17) We should focus on newbies (§Pl1.20), outreach (§Pl1.21), content gap (§Pl1.22), emerging communities (§Pl1.23), other Wikimedia projects (§Pl1.25) and better communication between users and organizations. (§Pl1.27) We should focus on Wikipedia rather than Wikidata (§Pl1.28) and also we should improve the software to make it more user friendly. (§Pl1.29) WMF should remain financially independent (§Pl1.34), we should think about the problem of dead links (§Pl1.37) and also about the survival of Wikipedia. (§Pl1.49) We should encourage cooperation among projects (§Pl1.39), more openness in the community (§Pl1.40), user retention (§Pl1.43), multilingualism (§Pl1.46) and neutrality. (§Pl1.46) Wikimedia Commons should not be limited to content to be used only on Wikimedia projects (§Pl1.57) and there should be updates about work being done on all the wikis. (§Pl1.56) The Pl.WP Facebook group (3s) highlights the need for technological improvement (§Pl2.1) and discussed political bias.(§Pl2.2)
  • Portuguese Wikipedians (24s) discussed about having a welcoming environment with proper mechanisms for dealing with harassment (§Pt.2), disputes (§Pt.1) and moderation of discussions. (§Pt.3) We should lay more stress on filling content gap with local content (§Pt.6) and translation should not be a priority. (§Pt.8) We should also focus on gamefication (§Pt.9), restrictions on edits by IPs (§Pt.13), readability by machines (§Pt.22), other media types (§Pt.23), usefulness (§Pt.20) and accessibility. (§Pt.21)
  • An overview of the Russian language (14s) village pumps discuss the importance of multilingualism (§Ru1.3) and geographic user base diversity, (§Ru1.1) easier online participation, focus one newcomers and outreach (§Ru1.13) and the need for improved WMF engagement on technical changes. (§Ru1.5) The Ru.WP RfC (39s) emphasizes a focus on WP's the importance of the grassroots model of development, (§Ru2.3) problems of new users trying to join the community, (§Ru2.4) and the need for more multilingualism.(§Ru2.6) We should also focus on neutrality (§Ru2.19), outreach (§Ru2.25), improving content translation (§Ru2.29), developing Wikidata (§Ru2.37) and improving technical aspects. (§Ru2.38) While the community on Russian Wikivoyage (23s) discusses about the development of Wikivoyage (§Ru4.1) by integrating with maps and making print version. (§Ru4.2) We should also focus on integration with Wikipedia (§Ru4.5), Commons (§Ru4.7) and Wikidata. (§Ru4.9) We should hire technical coordinators for communities (§Ru4.15), engage experts (§Ru4.20) and preserve cultural and natural heritage. (§Ru4.23) Discussions on village pumps of various Russian-speaking projects (14s) stressed on inter-connectivity of projects (§Ru3.1), multilingualism (§Ru3.3), unrestricted access (§Ru3.4), engaging newbies (§Ru3.13) and collaborations with educational institutions. (§Ru3.14)
  • On the Spanish Wikipedia's (58s) strategy page, the idea of movement-wide notability criteria has been raised (§Es1.1) alongside the need for better translation and language support, (§Es1.6) accessibility of the content, (§Es1.4) preserving the movement's independence, (§Es1.6) and WP is a teaching tool. (§Es1.7) We should focus on newcomers, (§Es1.8) user retention, (§Es1.10) modernizing Wikipedia interface (§Es1.9) and analyzing its current structure (§Es1.11). We should also focus on partnering with local governments and institutions (§Es1.12), laying more stress on emerging communities (§Es1.16), not becoming endogamic and participating in other international forums as well. (§Es1.17) We should offer different versions of articles according to audiences (§Es1.18) and also engage experts to fill content gaps. (§Es1.20) We should also focus on our values (§Es1.26), integration among projects (§Es1.31), fixing gender and content gap (§Es1.39) and doing research on communities. (§Es1.54) The telegram group (29s) discussed about validation of articles by experts (§Es2.1), lack of flexibility of users and policies (§Es2.2). Foundation should better support affiliates (§Es2.4) and rethink the "impact" of projects (§Es2.3). We should promote diversity and fix the disconnection between the affiliates and the community (§Es2.5). Focus on Wikidata (§Es2.6), gender gap (§Es2.7) and improving edit-a-thons (§Es2.8). We should also focus on sister projects of Wikipedia (§Es2.11), newbies (§Es2.15), user retention (§Es2.22), improving metrics (§Es2.24), partnerships (§Es2.18), stopping Wikipedia Zero (§Es2.28), using Kiwix (§Es2.27) and fighting fake news. (§Es2.10)
  • The Swedish Wikipedia's (6s) village pump discussion compared Sv.WP with the country's national encyclopedia (§Sv6) while noting the need for improved reliability (§Sv3) and interwiki cooperation.(§Sv5)
  • Ukrainian Wikipedia discussions (28s) focused on working systematically (§Uk.7), decreasing internal conflicts (§Uk.8), language balance (§Uk.10), language diversity (§Uk.12) and both quantity and quality of the content. (§Uk.6) We should also focus on embracing the technology (§Uk.15), new forms of knowledge (§Uk.16) and involve children (§Uk.18) and women. (§Uk.19) We should stress on education (§Uk.17), collaborations with organizations (§Uk.20), development of skills (§Uk.22), digitization (§Uk.24) and images recognition, semantic analysis, machine translation, automatic text and multimedia processing and automatic knowledge. (§Uk.26)
  • During the Vietnamese Wikipedia's (28s) conversation, the focus has been content quality (§Vi2) and the technical challenges like anti-vandalism measures (§Vi5) and advertising,(§Vi6) and opportunities, like educational outreach,(§Vi9) that accompany working towards it. We should focus on training of newbies,(§Vi8) offline accessibility,(§Vi6) keeping information updated(§Vi9) and acknowledging contributors. (§Vi7) We should also focus on promotion of Wikimedia projects. (§Vi15) While one person suggested mingling with social networks (§Vi17) another opposed the idea. (§Vi18)
  • Wikidata discussion (3s) stressed on concentrating on Wikidata (§WD.1) and connectivity with scientific literature and web. (§WD.2)
  • Wikisourcers at Wikisource Mailing list (12s) talked about focusing on Wikisource mission statement (§Ws.1), effectiveness of the project (§Ws.3), inter-connectivity (§Ws.4), digital typography (§Ws.5), notability (§Ws.10) and curation and metadata. (§Ws.1) We should also focus on collaborations to do more digitization (§Ws.12) and also develop methods to enable people to customize and personalize our content according to their needs. (§Ws.9)
  • Discussion on Wikimedia Commons (1s) stressed on making it easier to contribute to Wikimedia Commons without any language barriers. (§WC.1)
  • Members of WikiConference North America User Group (3s) discussed about strong on-wiki and off-wiki communities (§WNA.1), communication and exchange (§WNA.2) and focusing on Conferences. (§WNA.3)
  • Wikimedia Community Brasil User Group (5s) discussed about focusing on Wikidata (§BR.1), gender gap (§BR.2), diversity and access (§BR.3), better tools for management of outreach activities (§BR.4) and education (subjects like Mathematics). (§BR.5)
  • Wikimedia Ghana User Group (5s) talked about having a community space (§GH.1) with more focus on WEP (§GH.2), Wikipedia Zero (§GH.3) and emerging communities. (§GH.4)
  • Members of Wikimedia Serbia (4s) said that Wikipedia will be a part of curriculum in education (§RS.1), all public works will be digitized (§RS.2), wikidata will be used extensively (§RS.3) and user retention will not be a problem anymore (§RS.4) in the next 15 years.
  • Wikimedia Indonesia - Mailing list survey (6s) focused on reliability, education (§ID.1), neutrality (§ID.3), partnerships (§ID.2), equalization across languages (§ID.4), promotion of cultural heritage (§ID.5) and emerging communities. (§ID.6)
  • Wiki in Africa (1s) discussed that emerging communities will be a part of the history with focus on equal and equitable access to resources. (§WIA.1)
  • Wikimedia District of Columbia discussion (10s) stressed on community health (§US-DC.1), reaching out to emerging communities (outreach in villages) (§US-DC.2), combating harassment (§US-DC.3) and involving people from all professions. (§US-DC.4) We should also focus on diversity (§US-DC.6), neutrality (§US-DC.7), collaborations with institutions (§US-DC.8), better technology (§US-DC.10) and supporting local and remote volunteers. (§US-DC.9)
  • Wikimedia Levant (14s) discussed in a meeting that we should focus on quality (§LEV.1), automatic grammar correction (§LEV.6), filling content gap (such as Science). (§LEV.10) We should also focus on reviewing content created as a part of Wikipedia Education Program. (§LEV.13)
  • Wikimedia Ukraine discussions (20s) focused on including new types of media (§UA.1), quality of content (§UA.2), campaigning against copyright (§UA.3), better policies (§UA.4) and collaborations with educational institutions. (§UA.5) We should also focus on partnerships (§UA.6), bringing new readers (§UA.8), recruit new editors (§UA.9), inter-connectivity with other open source projects (§UA.12), new sister projects. (§UA.15), conflict resolution (§UA.17), multilingualism (§UA.18) and improving the interface. (§UA.20) There should not be conferences anymore (§UA.14) and local uploads should be banned. (§UA.16)
  • Wikimedia Argentina discussions (26s) focused on the people behind Wikimedia projects (§AR.1), Greater diffusion of the bases and foundations of the movement and its projects,(§AR.2) gender gap (§AR.4), Empowering everyone (§AR.10), Create a specific project to promote open hardware (§AR.11), modern mobile interface with communication compatibility with mobile (§AR.12), education program (§AR.15), Generate a revenue system based on charging companies for displaying its logo on articles (§AR.16), Wikipedia must take a quantitative and qualitative leap with an expanded base and multiplied by the new generations.(§AR.22) improved communication, they also emphasis on quality rather quantity in the programs. (§AR.25) Analyze if any other project is needed and to relaunch the less-used ones.(§AR.26)
  • Wikimedia Deutschland staff (15s) discussions focused on diversity of contents; at the same time they emphasis on the quality (§DE.1), they also discussed about media literacy, use and creation of free knowledge,(§DE.2) collaboration, creativity, inclusiveness,(§DE.6) creating welcoming environment,(§DE.13) diverse ecosystem of knowledge for communities and institutions (§DE.14) as well as joint activism and access.(§DE.15)
  • WikiWomen's User Group (13s) discussed that We should develop a less elitist and more inclusionary encyclopedia.(§WW.1) Notability must be the underpinning, but secondary criteria needs to be re-evaluated (§WW.2), accuracy of the content (§WW.3), eliminate bullying and wikilawyering (§WW.4), encourage article creation (§WW.5), progress monitoring tool,(§WW.6) improve readability (§WW.7), they also discussed about deletion policy (§WW.11), article naming policy about women articles (§WW.12) and WMF buy-in. (§WW.13)
  • Wikimedia Nederland staff (12s) discussed that cooperation between the various projects has been optimized, reducing overlap and promoting synergy.(§NL.1) Providing a complete learning environment, including access to supporting materials.(§NL.2) They also discussed about knowledge representation, innovation, (§NL.3) visual impairment, dyslexia, limited literacy of cognitive challenges,(§NL.4) creating welcoming environment for users, (§NL.5) better infrastructure support (§NL.7), partnerships (§NL.8), capacity building, GLAM,(§NL.9) academic reliability,(§NL.10) promoting research on Wikimedia projects (§NL.11) and neutrality. (§NL.12)
  • Wikimedia Nederland discussion (18s) focused on user-friendly participation,(§NL.1) technological developments, (§NL.2) Machine translations, (§NL.4) need for community growth and diversification, (§NL.8) capacity building, (§NL.9) advocating free license (§NL.10), quality of Wikimedia projects, reliability and neutrality (§NL.15). The also emphasis on education (§NL.16) and globalization of our projects. (§NL.18)
  • Wikimedia Italia discussion (20s) focused on mediation, specialized sources, digital literacy (§IT.1), encouraging experts to continue to vary approaches and methodologies to include other points of view (§IT.2), multi-linguism, (§IT.3) globalisation (§IT.4), community building, (§IT.5) open content (§IT.6), encourage diversity (§IT.7), quality of contents (§IT.8), making the GLAM a real gateway for knowledge sharing (§IT.9) and education program (§IT.10). Some users express their concern that institutions have mistrust about Wikipedia (§IT.11). They also emphasis on awareness building,(§IT.13) reliability of Wikimedia contents, (§IT.14) and partnership. (§IT.17) (§IT.18) (§IT.20)
  • Wikimedia Israel discussion (47s) emphasis on cooperation among Wikipedia, educational institution and academia (§IL.2) (§IL.3), reliability (§IL.4) (§IL.34), AI (§IL.5), finding way to encourage diverse people to contribute (§IL.6), working on languages that are at risk (§IL.9), creating friendly environment (§IL.10), work within our capabilities and resources,(§IL.13) inter projects communications (§IL.14), strengthening the personal connection among contributors(§IL.18) and disadvantaged-communities (§IL.20). They also discussed about the quality of the contents, (§IL.21) working with external bodies (§IL.22), education programs,(§IL.23) better translation software support (§IL.27), dissemination of Wikipedia culture (§IL.29), Accessibility of content, (§IL.31) partnership,(§IL.44) technological improvements,(§IL.45) and paid contributions. (§IL.46)
  • Affiliations Committee (14s) discussed about supporting individuals through local affiliates (§AC.1), developing models for partnerships (§AC.2), creating viable and sustainable affiliates (§AC.3) and building a participatory and inclusive process for decision making. (§AC.5) We also should focus on learning (§AC.13), conflict prevention (§AC.6), social impact (§AC.7), inclusiveness (§AC.8), diversity (§AC.9) and reputation of the affiliates. (§AC.12)
  • Esperanto and Free Knowledge User Group (2s) talked about inclusiveness (§EliSo.2) and availability and reach of Wikimedia projects in all the languages. (§EliSo.1)
  • Wikimedia UK (5s) discussed the importance of diversity (§WMUK.1), advocating for public domain (§WMUK.2), improvement in technology (§WMUK.3), collaboration with organizations (§WMUK.4) and combating fake news. (§WMUK.5)
  • Wikimedia Taiwan (4s) discussed in an in-person meeting that we should focus on diversity and emerging communities (§TW.1), collaboration with governments, media and local organizations (§TW.2), encouraging newcomers and attracting experts (§TW.3) and improving the quality of the content. (§TW.4)
  • Wikimedia Côte d'Ivoire discussion (25s) focused on taking Wikipedia in rural areas (§CI.1), use Wikipedia as an education tool (§CI.2), oral citation (§CI.4), innovate by integrating Wikipedia into research and documentation centers (§CI.5), outreach events,(§CI.6) partnership (§CI.7) (§CI.23) and low reach region (§CI.8), solidarity among contributors (§CI.9), volunteer training program (§CI.13), support emerging communities (§CI.16), technological improvement (§CI.20) and content quality. (§CI.21)
  • Private survey data (72s) shows that people are talking about centralizing all projects(§PS.1), decentralize the movement(§PS.13), better communications(§PS.2), improve stability, reliability(§PS.3) (§PS.17), cooperation among contributors, prioritization of Wikicite database (§PS.5), technological improvements(§PS.10) (§PS.21), creating friendly environment for everyone (§PS.19), global south (§PS.22), Integration of Wikidata (§PS.24), alternative knowledge source (§PS.31) and partnership. Participants also focused on gander gap (§PS.46), education (§PS.60) (§PS.61), creating friendly and welcoming environment for newcomers (§PS.68) and a true multilingual community facilitated by language technology.(§PS.72)
  • Berlin strategy workshop data (59s) focused on the goal they wanted to achieve such as targeted encyclopaedias (§BSW.1), legal certainty, freedom of panorama, lobbying (§BSW.4), Gender justice (§BSW.6), technological improvements (§BSW.7) (§BSW.9) and some kind of honorary benefit cards to Wikimedians. They also shared how to achieve these goals. Ideas such as engagement (§BSW.10), fellow program (§BSW.13), running school projects (§BSW.14), transparency in the movement (§BSW.15) and by using best practices. (§BSW.16) They also discussed which impact should our projects have on society and politics? ((§BSW.20) - (§BSW.28)) They emphasis on solidarity with other language versions (§BSW.29), community and chapter, more transparency, culture of communication, gender-sensitive language, diversity; (§BSW.37) lobbyism, legal certainty (§BSW.45); appreciated hub in the network of the transfer of knowledge (§BSW.50).
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Summary&oldid=26230742"