Open main menu

Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20

Beeing the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge means that you need readers who like what they seeEdit

My understanding is that Wikipedia is used by Goggle to produce the Google Search Infobox

File:Google Gunnar Hansson.jpeg
Google Gunnar Hansson

That means that Wikipedia is shown at the top of Googles search pages a place that if you should pay for it as an paid advertisement would cost 100 millions of dollar.

My understanding since wikipedia has got this location and 3/4 lines of Wikipedia text is shown the number of people clicking on the link to Wikipedia is significantly decreased my conclusion 3 lines of Wikipedia is "enough" for the average reader.... they are not interested in Wikipedias free knowledge and instead prefer other sources

Good or bad that 3 lines Wikipedia is enough?Edit

I miss

  1. a discussion/analyse why?
  2. that Wikipedia actively
    1. ask the user was this a good article?
    2. did it meet your expectations?
      1. something like this could be anonymous and just a scale 1-10

The lack of interest in Wikipedia when you have 3-4 lines of Wikipedia I guess could be

  1. People dont trust the content in Wikipedia
  2. Wikipedia has a format/design that is not the prefered
    1. As most users are not logged in we have a problem customize the user interface for different target groups maybe Wikipedia should be designed to adress different target groups and tell users if you log in you wil get a more rich user interface with maps links to xxx etc.. based on Wikidata data....
  3. Wikipedia often lacks multimedia like videos
  4. Some editors of Wikipedia are "afraid" of external links and count the numbers of links displayed instead of thinking what is the target group interested in
    1. Compare Google trying to understand what the user is looking for and just present the best links and rank them according to the knowkedge they have about the user and his/hers location
  5. Should Wikipedia better use the resources in Wikidata to link to external sources?

What I miss is tools and feedbacks mechanism in Wikipedia to learn more how to make Wikipedia the preferred place to consume free knowledge. To often I see on the swedish Wikipedia that people who are active editors and discuss just focus on there own wishes/needs and miss the consumer part of Wıkipedia - Salgo60 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. When working groups are ready for work, they will be notified about your questions. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

trainingEdit

what are the necessary skills to implement the action items to get to the strategic goals ? Where is the training program, for the necessary skills for employees, community functionaries, and editors ? What are the metrics to measure the effectiveness of training ? Slowking4 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Slowking4 , is the training they are talking about similar to the new editor training vids and manuals we already provide. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

yes, but more - building on the GLAM camp experience, we should be training everyone in best practices in how to use tools. and we should be training everyone in the soft skills necessary for a collaborative project. we should be training chapter officers, and board members in best practices for non-profit governance. it may be review for some, but it will provide a skill improvement across the board. Slowking4 (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Different Forms of Knowledge for the skeptical WikipedianEdit

Hi. For a while, I've had a feeling that we should try to find better answers for Wikipedians asking about what "different forms of knowledge" can mean for Wikipedia. For that end, I've created the page Different Forms of Knowledge for the skeptical Wikipedian and would love to have your support in completing it. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) Let's make Wikipedia green! 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gnom: I think basic problem is that it's difficult to find out what was discussed last year. (Because it's already written down and linked to!) But we don't disseminate knowledge about us among us well enough. Few read Meta-Wiki and even fewer read the strategic reports. Few read documentation whatsoever. For me, finding such better answers could mean just creating video on YouTube where someone could explain ideas (that have come from the community!) like multiple versions of the same article (a.k.a. content adjusted to reader's stage of development), "moar interactivity", etc. Maybe I'm biased, but I often point at the documentation reception issue. Tar Lócesilion (queta) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed additional questionsEdit

Are there any objections to including the proposals at [1] in the Working Groups' question sections? James Salsman (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@THasan (WMF):? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done James Salsman (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Areas of inquiry" and "Why this scope"Edit

Is there any substantial difference between the template "Areas of inquiry" and "Why this scope" headers that would prevent deleting one of the two when empty? James Salsman (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Your emailEdit

The email address listed on [2] is returning undeliverable. Please can someone drop me an email. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: Sorry for this, we linked the wrong email address, it's fixed now. :-) Best, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Phillip Kopetzky:   email still failed RhinosF1 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Phillip Kopetzky: 15:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Philip Kopetzky: RhinosF1 (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: Yeah, as always with this when there are several people involved in setting up an email address, my addition was also incorrect. Did you try it again a few days later? Philip Kopetzky (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Philip Kopetzky: Look now RhinosF1 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

StakeholdersEdit

I notice a lot of use of "stakeholders" in recommendations. Is there a definition of that word regarding it's use here? Thank you, Vermont (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, I personally believe that it depends on the context. Stakeholders in IT might (and I suppose they do) differ from the ones in, say, GLAM, or education, or policy. Additionally, various Wikimedia projects have different audiences (both on the sides of authors and "consumers"). Plus, international diversity: somebody else is a stakeholder in the developed countries and somebody else on emerging markets. Therefore, there's no universal wiki-definition of stakeholders, and that's due to the basic definition that you may read in a dictionary. What I suppose the authors wish to say is that various groups benefit from Wikimedia and we should be aware of that diversity when making any plans. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. Vermont (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Activism" or promoting diversity as a goalEdit

I'm not sure if i'm at the right place to put this comment... But anyway.. (Note: my comments referring to the case of the French-language wikipedia because that is where I mostly contributed .)

To achieve the desired objectives, it should be noted that the rules for the eligibility of sources are biased; for example, for cultures where Press or writing is not as common the rule can be discriminatory. These rules should take into account cultural differences.

It should also be clear for all contributors that this "activism" (as they call it when we talk about being more respectful of the diversity) is indeed desirable and valued in the fundamental principles. For the moment, too often, we see violent struggles over questions of respect for, by example, trans people, non-binary, women, etc. Linked to this, social sciences are too often seen as "activism", not knowledge.

Wikipedia is progressive and open to diversity. It should be clear for all chapters : It's against the spirit of the project to be opposed to respect diversity, by for example (again) being opposite to gender-inclusive language.

Finally, yes, it is important to promote diversity, for the sake of all Wikimedia projects, because a community with a very high network density, (Ronald Burt, Structural Hole) is detrimental to innovation and encourages toxic social dynamics, closed on themselves; overprotected the structure and neglecting the goal of free knowledge from every where, everybody). --Idéalités (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20" page.