Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Wikimania Movement Strategy Space report/Day 1

Strategic Direction Feedback Session 1 edit

Final preparations for the Day 1 Movement Strategy feedback sessions
Final preparations for the sessions
Participants in the first Day 1 Movement Strategy feedback session study the strategy timeline posted on a wall in the session room
Participants in the first Day 1 Movement Strategy feedback session discuss
A posted set of "likes" and "dislikes" generated by participants in the first Day 1 Movement Strategy feedback session

01 | Mentimeter poll edit

As everyone entered, they took a couple minutes to take the Mentimeter poll to get a soft sense of how everyone is feeling about the Strategic Direction. This tool was used at different points in the space to gauge the temperature of the room.

Participants were initially asked what brought them to the session…

Discussion coordinator in one country traveled around to get a sense of the strategic themes; recommends it as a great opportunity to connect with the community through the dialogue around strategy.
South African gentleman - number one question is: “What’s the execution plan for the strategy?”

02 | Clarifying understanding of the direction edit

Q. Can you get behind this draft of the strategic direction? If not, what needs to change so you can endorse it? edit

Participants took 10 min to read the Strategic Direction, highlight any points that needed clarification.

Clarification	Response from Drafting Group
“Infrastructure for Open” document, bullet #2 - Surprised by the use of the term ‘broker’ - associated to “brokering of cars” for selling / buying”	Intent is that it’s an exchange, not just giving of information.
On pg. 5 after “Locally relevant and sustainable” section - “We will balance self sufficiency and autonomy with intention and values we all share.”	Participants in the community should have independence and freedom, but still balance it with shared values. Not just a patriarchal system with a top down approach.
“Roads, villages and bridges” - what’s the goal of this language?	Previous version was very abstract and difficult to understand if you are not a native English speaker. Decided to use a metaphor that’s more easily translatable even if it’s not as precise. Intent is for more people to understand the basic idea.
“I have so many issues and so many questions” - rather than wasting time for the whole group, who can we provide feedback to you? “Rather than making it a ‘one size fits all’ model, is there a way to address more of the complexities and diversities of what’s needed in different parts of the world.”	Can approach Guillaume and members of the Drafting Group anytime this week.
Outcomes / What we will achieve on the PDF doc? “What is the meaning of using the word ‘greater’ here? It’s too concise.”	Meaning “more” - want more information, higher quality, more topics, etc.
Difference between “knowledge” and “information” - they are used interchangeably, is this on purpose?	Not sure - will check

03 | Reactions to the direction edit

Participants then formed groups of four, to discuss the question: when you think about endorsing the Strategic Direction…

Participants of the Feedback Session 1 discuss,
discuss, and add a "like",
watch a presentation, and keep discussing :)

Q. What do you LIKE and DISLIKE? (Must have a maximum ratio of 1:3) edit

	LIKES
#	Group A	Group B	Group C	Group D	Group E	Group F	Group G
1	Positive tone and outlook	Well distilled in concise and brief text	Lead advocate for free and open knowledge	The importance of local communities is stressed well.	We aim to achieve social progress.	Focus on strong and vivid communities	“Trusted” knowledge - emphasis on the reliability + quality.
2	Acknowledgement of local communities	It addresses many of the inclusion and diversity issues.	The strategic direction covers everything	The importance of community health is stressed well.	The summary of the implications is helpful.	It’s time to be bold and take actions.	Advocacy recognized as core activity.
3	Anyone / Everyone can participate		Brave strategy with bold horizon	“New forms of knowledge” are not taking up too much room.		The goal of make more voices heard to be a truly global movement.	Recognizes need for change in projects.
4			Great to stay with the visions	Everything’s somewhere in there			Wide enough to allow for different projects, activities.
	Other lower-ranked points: The process showed a lot of interesting important topics The wording is vague enough, it can be pilled with input from communities. Nothing really hurts.

**These are not necessarily the same groups below**

	DISLIKES
#	Group Z	Group Y	Group X	Group W	Group V	Group U	Group T
1	Implications are lacking vision.	Wikimedia is an educational movement in the tradition of the enlightenment	Beyond Wikimedia: What will change around us. Changes in political ecosystem are not addresses (censorship, “net neutrality”, fake news). (Vested interests and lobbyism for proprietary systems).	Not mentioned why free access to knowledge is important.	Where is the direction?	Underrepresented role in advocacy in the area of civil rights (free speech, education, …), copyright reform.	The wording is so vague, it does not give enough direction.
2	Implications should be more concrete.	We are a political movement.	Automation in connection with commercially non-viable languages will lead to more biases.	No mention of need for existing community to be more open and welcoming.	Sum of all knowledge” may not respect indigenous control of traditional knowledge.	Beyond WM, text indicates we might react to everything, but shouldn’t responses be measured?	“We should state”: Experiment new things, fail earlier and often, the be bold attitude should be embraced.
3	What are the implications regarding the goal of giving more people ACCESS to free knowledge. (Answers to the limits)	Too passive, e.g. no active search for new contributors.	Shouldn’t we also dance, compose, and paint our strategic direction?	Does not distinguish between knowledge and information.	UX on Wikimedia projects sucks. :(		What about advocacy?
4		Can this text provide conclusions for the future structure of the movement.		Contribute ‘to human progress’ is unclear statement.			The language is difficult
	Other lower-ranked points: What won’t we do in the future. => prioritization Too many metaphors. Structure of text not clear. “Human progress” concept use. It’s colonial and strong Western concept. Avoid it! Good aspects that came up with the process (consequence of being truly global, quiet voices, role model for digital spaces) got lost and are not part of the direction anymore. The questions we hope to answer until 2030 are not defined.

04 | Suggestions for improvement edit

Participants were then invited to take five minutes individually to write down ideas in answer to the question...

What would be the most important improvement to make the strategic direction more endorse-able for you? edit

Then in groups of 3, participants shared their top likes/dislikes with each other, followed by suggestions for improvements. The next task was to choose the one most important improvement, which could be a change and/or something missing.

GROUP 1 We innovate together in order to adapt to the rapidly changing realities of our users. This doesn’t only concern the technical ways/medial gadgets/platforms of consumption, but even more the social environment in which knowledge will be produced and acquired. “Infrastructure for open” - Actively engaging individuals and institutions to participate and share… Reasoning: We are of the opinion that reaching out and actively to get new contributors is important to reinforce potential collaborations and partnerships.	GROUP 2 We wish 3 directions following roads, bridges, villages: Roads: Access - a focus could be on people who don’t have access. Bridges: Partnerships: Increase diversity either in content or participant. Villages: Open, welcoming, and supportive communities & organization.
GROUP 3 We should evolve, be open and supportive, willing to experiment, take risks, accept failure, embrace innovation in order to adapt to the rapidly changing realities of our users and readers.	GROUP 4 USE SIMPLE ENGLISH => make the text more easy to understand and implement! An example: “As a movement, we will assemble through strong, sustainable communities that motivate us to contribute. We will welcome people from everywhere to grow fields of knowledge that represent human diversity.” CHANGE TO SOMETHING LIKE… “We will come together in strong, sustainable communities that will make everyone want to contribute. We will welcome people from everywhere to help collect and share all knowledge.”
GROUP 5 Engaging & fun learning experience across platforms. Outreach to be expanded to include those who are traditionally or inadvertently marginalized or excluded (inclusiveness extended to people as well as issues)	GROUP 6 Make our role explicit in public policy and as a global civil society movement to defend and advocate for free speech, open access and anti-censorship which are essential for our future. (Or ALT ...and laws that allow reaching our strategy and mission.)
GROUP 7 Try to use simple English, small and understandable texts and sentences ⇒ to involve small wikis and communities. They need more time for translation, organization of the community. And with large and complicated text of English. ⇒ they simply drop off. Small wikis and languages = <100,000 articles Add the term “Enlightenment” in the first sentence	GROUP 8 It requires Wikimedia to act politically and legally to ensure our vision of “... Instead of it remains rooted...” We will fight any form of political and commercial censorship
GROUP 9 One group couldn’t agree on one thing on behalf of all of them, so they instead submitted their personal opinions: More vision! Access more social than technical challenges The question we have to answer by 2030 are not defined Finding the archimedean point that extracts the important evolving aspects of the strategic movement process.	GROUP 10 Add the word ‘enlightenment’ in the first sentence

05 | Levels of endorsement edit

As they left the session, participants were invited to post a note on the wall to express how much they endorse the Strategic Direction, and based on what consideration(s):

1-24% [The BIG issue] is...	50-74% [Endorse if… and if…]	75-99% [Endorse if…]	100% [YES]
state that we are a political organisation	importance of political/legal advocacy is added	Provide access to a)People b)information /knowledge/issues Traditionally marginalised or deemed less important	Learn from popular platforms and improve Wikimedia projects in an ‘open’ way :-)
Finding a direction	the direction delivers a clear picture/priorities	Make the language simpler
	clear language	It is simplified (language)
	focus on our WP (trusted knowledge)	Advocacy, technology and partnerships are better defined
	radical advocacy	partner with other advocacy organisations and exchange knowledge and resources
	focus on friendly community	try to keep the process simple, simple english, small blocks of text → to involve more small wikis and feedback
		recognise ‘all knowledge’ may be deliberately limited to respect indigenous control of traditional knowledge

06 | Post-discussion poll edit

Strategic Direction Feedback Session 2 edit

[120 MINUTES]

Participants in the second Day 1 Movement Strategy feedback session discuss
"Dislikes" generated by participants in the second Day 1 Movement Strategy feedback session
Participants in the second Day 1 Movement Strategy feedback session discuss

01 | Mentimeter poll edit

Again, the session began by getting an understanding of people’s reasons for joining the session, and then followed the same format as the first session:

Germany - learn about the strategy. Didn’t know much about it content wise, wanted to know more about the direction.
Germany - participated in some steps already, but wanted to learn more about what the current steps are.
Estonia - Been involved for quite a long time, interested in the situation in general because writing articles about Wikipedia and free culture, and the direction it might go.
USA - Researcher, WMF reduce body politics seen in Trump and Brexit vote. Found out by accident about the session.
Bulgaria - curious to see how it is going to continue because it is very important.
WMF - curious, don’t know too much about it.
Panthea - been doing research.
WMF - Interested because this will guide the work, really important that we are plugged into what our community wants.
WMF - fundraising back end tech side

02 | Clarifying understanding of the direction edit

Clarification	Response from Drafting Group
Q. Pg. 1 , 6th bullet - “In 2018: Organizations in the movement each build their own strategic…” What’s the methodology to defining the organization?	We try to agree on the general direction, and then move onto Phase 02, how do we get there, roles played by Wikimedia, google, museums, etc. Work out who does what. Done through many channels.
Q. Black swan effect - how do you reconcile that with future planning?
Q. Will the chapters be the drivers?	We have to see. (Come to session on Phase 2 on Sunday to discuss further) Audience member answered - the foundation more at the “center” of the organizations rather than at the “top”.
Blue box in implications. Section - information and knowledge interchangeable?	Mostly not by design - “information” and “knowledge” are being used interchangeably for the most part.
Q. Focus on HOW to do things and less on the general definition - how do we define knowledge and what is it that we want to share?
Limits section, top of page 3 - there are different citation tags in here, where did they come from? Was that a user project?	Every piece of the argument to be cited, not enough time to do it all by today - need to find the citations in the research.
Q. Structures for the future (bottom of pg. 3) - what are you trying to do by putting social structures & data structures together into one section?	One characteristic is that we are organised around socio-technical structures. Some see one and some see the other so tried to mash them together.
Q. Pg. 3 “Beyond Wikimedia: What will change around us” - didn’t see any mention on censorship. Ex: China, Turkey, Trump. Also right wing attacks on fact checkers in general.	Trying to look at what will change in the next 15 years, and this is more immediate. Balance between what is affecting us now and in the next 15 years,

03 | Reactions to the Direction edit

	LIKES
#	Group A	Group B	Group C
1	Broadly inclusive of the entirety of humanity	Need for formats beyond text and images	The document is done in good-will.
2	Emphasizes community	Principles are clear and open	The draft is crisp and not too long.
3	People should enjoy editing	Next steps clarify how orgs get involved
4	Limits of Wikimedia are well put out.	Admissions of - gaps of knowledge, - systemic bias
	Other lower-ranked points: Recognition that we are a community of people first. A wiki, encyclopedia, project, etc, second or as a product of the community.

	DISLIKES
#	Group A	Group B	Group C
1	“What kind of knowledge is the sum of all knowledge?” Should be defined (data / information/knowledge)	Bureaucracy & increasingly closed editing community / increasing barriers to becoming a new editor is not mentioned. Gender issue not strong enough addressed facing the non visibility of women who are half of the population.	Technology is missing. We are providing platforms and the movement will need platforms. Implications / Reliable Justification Low level: Technology is not mentioned strongly, and here it’s just in context of research and nothing more. Not bold enough. Seems too specific.
2	Direction talks about Wikimedia Movement as an advocate, partner foundation - builder, supporter - but not as ultimately responsible doer of anything in particular e.g. encyclopedia writing)	More clear goal about we are where people go for knowledge	Common understanding of the movement??? We don’t know what the product is that the movement creates. Knowledge? Information?
3	Missing multimedia tactic (new authoring tools)	Black swan effect - need to deal with negative possibilities	Does not pay attention to copyright & advocacy and legal environment. (Unclear if this is meant by advocate)
4	Diversity is not just geographic	How to overcome insularity	Does not tell us at a core essence who we are and what we should change. We are an encyclopedia AND more.
	Other lower-ranked points: Too long Bigger culture washing out the smaller in same language and other instances No citations in the second half of the draft.

04 | Suggestions for improvement edit

GROUP 1 Reduce poetry make the language simple. It needs to be more of an active strategic direction that includes activities of individual contributors as well as affiliates. Attached an appendix with relative prevalence of the topics that has been captured by the different communities. The most sordid gap in the current strategic direction is the lack of clear definitions / understanding of the basic premises : what is “the sum of all knowledge”, what do we mean by sharing, etc. This would enable us to understand what we might change and what we might keep. Add definition to how community(ies) can inclusively make meaning of “the sum of all human knowledge.” What is meant by “knowledge”? Alongside sentence about welcoming good faith contributors ADD a sentence about strengthened prevention of bad-faith contributors (harassment, trolls, bad faith) (INDIVIDUAL) Last sentence… but we will welcome everyone who is ready and willing to participate in good faith.	INDIVIDUALS D1 - Our current communities don’t represent 51% of the population (women) as well as the diversity of the human population. Pg. 3 - third sentence. D2 - ...challenging for ex., the research on the low participation rate of females has not lead to action. Pg. 3, 2nd paragraph. Q1 - pg. 4, paragraph 6, second sentence: Remove everything after “scale” i.e. “and enable greater…” “We will make it possible for anyone to join us in this effort.” This is P.R. speak and not based in the reality of our project where we have to ban people daily.

05 | Levels of endorsement edit

0% [NO]	1-24% [The BIG issue] is...	25-49% [What’s stopping me is…]	50-74% [Endorse if… and if…]	75-99% [Endorse if…]	100% [YES]
		The designers and facilitators of the process haven’t paid much attention to the most basic questions, nor to the question, what are the limits of change we should not cross. E.G. What is our definition of “knowledge”?		It needs to be more accessible to individual contributors
				A more active focus on movement role in the journey
				Define “knowledge”, “diversity” and goals of movement.
				Yes if incorporate suggestions by D (in the above section)
				Easy to endorse this document, which speaks generally of principles almost all Wikimedians share. Because of its generality, I’m not sure it will do much to push us forward as a movement, which seems unfortunate, but that may be inevitable.
				Yes good so far. 99% endorse, but bureaucracy & other barriers to entry to Wiki editing community need to be be better recognized.
				Endorse if D1 & D2 incorporated (above)
				Yes if Q1 incorporated (above)