Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20

Active discussions

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 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)

No FoundMe (talk) 22:39, 2 December 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)

Idéalités: How do you think this would or should be implemented? For example, German-language Wikipedia just voted on genderneutral language. A vast majority rejected the proposal. The use of generic masculine remains the status quo. So how exactly would Wikimedia enforce the use of gender-neutral language in that Wikipedia project? I am not trying to argue about the use of genderneutral versus gender-biased language; I am simply interested in how people who support the recommendations think the process of enforcing the new guidelines and rules would look like. --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

::I don't know, WMF have to find a way to be really clear about he's point of view and PROMOTE IT!! Often peoples said "Wikipedia have to be conservative"... NO. No where it's question of conservatism, it's the opposite. Wikimedia is a progressive project. It's the foundation who have the responsibility to promote open minded ideology ! WMF should show his love for diversity, for LGBT friendly space, with banners on wikipedia and stuff like that. Every redactors should be conscious of it, and if they don't like to see so much diversity, they can leave : the essential is to have more diversity on all project, it an emergency.--Idéalités (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

WMF pushing diversity against the desires of the individual Wikipedia communities is likely going to create more push-back and turn votes on various policies in the opposite direction from what you desire. ChristianKl❫ 14:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Enforcing an open minded ideology is not an open minded ideology. Besides, gender-inclusiveness will look very different in different languages. In German, we still struggle to decide whether Bäcker_in or Bäcker*in represents all genders better. We are talking about the profession of bakers, for which the english language does not even know a female form. However, the german language creates female forms by adding the suffix -in to the male form, which in itself can be considered discriminatory. --Jaax (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Idéalités: You wrote "they can leave". In the example that I made above that would be 80% of the community of one of the top 5 Wikipedias. Because they are not willing to adopt a new language policy. Do you think Wikimedia needs to replace their old online community by a new online community? --Martina Nolte (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge EquityEdit

Cite: "As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege."
Such a statement from the dominant player in the field smells, sounds and feels like patronizing. Seen from the outside, the WMF is essentially synonymous with "the body who runs wikipedia". For obvious reasons Wikipedia is perceived as a mainstream project by the global north. This image will rub off on any initiative the WMF might start. Unfortunately, this means that the efforts envisioned by the strategy will fail to catch on. They will fail to activate those who they try to target. The underlying reason being that very few people like to feel being patronized. Projects will be started, money will be spent, reports will be written. But in the long run nothing self-sustaining will remain. ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Global Gouvernance Body !?Edit

I don't like to imagine Wiki.m.p.edia becoming THE "essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us". So ? What's about the others ? Are they competitors ?

Like Tim Berners-Lee, I'm afraid to see how far goes the centralization of the Web. And I wonder : Does the Wikimedia movement really aspire to « welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities » by creating a new global Governance Body of knowledge ? Is the cultural diversity really possible in a global organization ? Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither do I like this vision. I see a big problem for knowledge, too. Wikipedia should not be THE essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge but one source among many others. It is a good thing that there are diverse sources of knowledge, independent of each other. This independency should be promoted. Even today I often find wrong data from Wikidata or Wikipedia in any number of other databases/publications, usually without indicating the source. It becomes more and more difficult to find independent knowledge sources. Wikipedia, and more so Wikidata, tends to disrupt or sometimes even corrupt other databases. The reason is this cursed competition issue.Mautpreller (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Code of ConductEdit

The recommendations include a "Code of Conduct". Last year, the Foundation initiated a pre-consultation on a "Universal Code of Conduct". The comments were overwhelmingly rejecting a universal code of conduct for Wikimedia projects. How did the community feedback to the pre-consultation influence the strategy process and decision making? --Martina Nolte (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Martina Nolte, Thanks for bringing this up and asking a great question. The community feedback varies based upon where it is provided. The platform and setting matters greatly. Some folks don’t feel comfortable interacting in certain areas or platforms due to harassment or other forms of targeted behavior. People participating in the pre-consultation were a rather small group compared to the whole.
During the consultation process, working group members heard a lot from community members in varying formats. This sometimes was voicing the need for a universal code of conduct. Much of the time it was expressing concern or frustration with the symptoms of not having a universal code of conduct. This could be situations like harassment, marginalization, or stress from emerging communities trying to establish community norms.
I know it’s hard to see the logic behind something that was opposed in the place where you saw it. Since we’re passionate about Wikipedia, let me put it in terms to remove the Wikipedia from the equation. Imagine there are loads of car accidents on a road. People complain to the city that there are too many car accidents and say something must be done. The city council decides putting a speed limit on that road or perhaps a stop sign might be a good idea. They do this to change behavior on that road to result in fewer car accidents. Sure, some people might be frustrated by having to drive more slowly or stop at a new stop sign, but the road will (if all goes to plan) be safer and result in fewer car accidents. Basically, we’re trying to make this road of Wikipedia safer and more enjoyable for everyone! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. This is not at all like putting a speed limit on a road to prevent accidents, it is rather like creating a penal law against individuals. But not in a way how such laws usually come into being. Not by a legitimate elected gremium, not openly discussed, without any regard to en:Rule of law, let alone civil rights. The haziness and obscurity of your legitimation ("working group members heard a lot", "this sometimes was voicing", etc. pp.) is tell-tale language.Mautpreller (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Your analogy is that the WMF is like the city council and that the role of setting policy is not with the democratic processes of the community? It seems a very silly analogy given that the nature of a city government is that it makes decision that are not made at state or national level.
That's basically the complete opposite of the values of allowing more people to participate in decision making that this document proposes.

A more distributed leadership, based upon the principles of subsidiarity and self-management, allowing those affected by decisions to participate and make decisions (particularly about governance and resources), will redistribute power throughout the Movement.

This sentence in the change narrative calls for decision not being made the way you try to push through the universal code of conduct. ChristianKl❫ 16:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Jackiekoerner, that's not a valid analogy at all. It's more like the city council soliciting feedback on whether the speed limit should be changed, and the response being overwhelmingly "No, leave it alone." Then the city council puts forth a proposal to change it anyway, and when people ask "Uh, didn't you see where we said 'Leave it alone'?", the council handwaves at some backchannel process where, trust us, a bunch of anonymous people really do want it changed. We handle on-wiki business on the wiki, not via backchannels. If some people wanted to join the discussion in regards to the matter, they should have been pointed to the page where they could do so. If you're going to continue down this road, the indication won't be that we need a new speed limit. It will be that we need a new city council. Seraphimblade (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Jackiekoerner: In no way is a code of conduct like adding a speed limit sign to an unregulated street. Local communities already have speed limit signs, people to enforce them, and with few exceptions it has been working very well. The UCoC seeks to abolish local autonomy and establish a global WMF governance, probably, as we really can't be certain of it's actual goals when most of the terminology in the UCoC's page makes absolutely no sense to any volunteer and is quite contradictory, being apparently heavily worked on by someone whose volunteer account has under 20 edits globally and was created after he was hired by the WMF. From everywhere I've seen, this UCoC has had extreme criticism. It is not a valid argument to ignore all of that criticism by stating that there are people too afraid of voicing their support for it. If people want to enact change, they shouldn't expect to do so without actually coming forward about it. We had a lot of discussions about the UCoC, which were overwhelmingly negative, and if someone wants to voice their support for it, there is the chance. You make it seem like people who are in favor of it could be hounded or harassed, where I have not seen any evidence or instance of that. If that is someone's experience, however, we have local community processes to deal with such harassment, and we don't need a UCoC for that. As you reference users who have complained that they feared harassment, if there actually was any harassment towards them about contributing to the discussions on meta, please contact myself or another administrator and we will handle it. If there wasn't, drop the talking point. Vermont (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all! Sure, people can disagree with the speed limit changes, but the fact of the matter is accidents are still happening. What is in place on the road (road=Wikipedia) is not working. People are still getting hurt. People are leaving the projects. People are being excluded. Inclusion is happening in very biased and inauthentic ways.

"A more distributed leadership, based upon the principles of subsidiarity and self-management, allowing those affected by decisions to participate and make decisions (particularly about governance and resources), will redistribute power throughout the Movement."

What is being said here is we need a new City Council. One that accurately represents the world and the world's knowledge. We need to mix up existing power structures that have been built on societal practices of power and privilege. Wikipedia should aim to be better than the biased practices present in our society which favors white, Western males. I totally agree with this proposed language. This is exactly what all these recommendations, Universal Code of Conduct recommendation included, are saying. Wikipedia is excluding folks from participating and if we are aiming for knowledge equity, this isn't it. We need to mix things up a bit, considering Wikipedia has been developed from a largely white, male perspective. This isn't a slight on anyone. It's simply a fact.

"It is not a valid argument to ignore all of that criticism by stating that there are people too afraid of voicing their support for it."

It is not a valid argument to ignore community voices because they're not communicating on a platform [meta] where you are comfortable.
Thank you Vermont for offering up yourself or another admin as a resource for people who feel harassed. I am glad you feel strongly about people feeling welcome and included. Some communities have a handle on harassment, but unfortunately, this has not been before people are alienated. We need to institute some supports to be sure there are agreed upon community norms in all communities (like not harassing folks). Harassment can be a sneaky thing and is viewed differently by each person and each culture. This is exactly why we need ways in which we can establish leadership and resources for the leadership to grow a healthy Wikipedia community. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Meta is the place designated by the WMF for global discussions. Thus, that is where the pre-consultation took place. It's results were overwhelmingly negative. If not there, where did people discuss it? Have you seen or heard of any instances of people being harassed over supporting a UCoC? Further, we can't address this as a societal problem. There is no invisible force called "harassment" walking around bothering people. It's individual editors acting in their individual capacity who are causing issues, and we have methods for managing those individuals when they are reported to the community members appointed to respond to such issues. Further, your answer implies that this focuses on the English Wikipedia, with the "our society" bit. Please take a look at the list of stewards. Please take a look at the list of meta admins, global sysops, and other users with advanced rights on meta and globally. We are an incredibly diverse group, with the exception of gender. If there are editors who fear harassment participating in this discussion and others, and they talked to you about it, they should know that harassment is taken seriously here. It is not, however, a valid argument to use the possibility of these people facing harassment as a reason to ignore everyone else. And I recognize your issue with the discussion medium; if they are not comfortable here, where I do not see any reason why they should not be, where would a consultation be better placed so that your argument to ignore everyone who participated cannot stand? Vermont (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Vermont, I can tell we are both on the same page about inclusive and healthy communities. You're right. Some communities are diverse and that's great, but at the same time, some aren't. Also, you're right. Harassment isn't the cause of harassment. People harass. And, you're right again, harassment isn't the only issue - I just mentioned it to simplify the discussion. If we listed every reason why there isn't already equal representation on Wikipedia, we'd be here a long, long time. The whole strategy process aimed to design recommendations to address these issues and that took years. Sorry if I wasn't clear with the "our society" piece. I am not only referring to English Wikipedia. Social norms and actions bleed into other communities and cultures. Unfortunately, one of the largest exports and influences is dominate culture. This is true for society globally, and also true on Wikipedia. I really hope these recommendations help us change some things so we really can be diverse and inclusive so everyone can feel the way you do about your community of admins. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
A City Council that accurately represents the world? City Councils never represent "the world", let alone "accurately".Mautpreller (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I know, right? I really hope these recommendations help us get closer to true representation. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, the "city council" was just from the speeding analogy, and all analogies break down at some point. Really, meta isn't where I'm comfortable, and I only learned of all this stuff by accident. I had to go tell the communities about the last round of it; the WMF didn't do anything but send out a very anodyne mailing list post about it, without any indication that they were discussing such massive items. It rather looked like they were trying to actively discourage input, and then pull the Hitchhiker's Guide "But the plans were on display...". If we're going to make changes to the English Wikipedia, we discuss that in one place: On the English Wikipedia. Changes discussed elsewhere, especially via backchanneling, are not valid and will not be accepted. On these projects, changes are to be discussed publicly. We've rejected such things before, and if need be we'll do it again. But I hope that won't be necessary, as it's been disruptive and damaging to do so every time. But rest assured, it will happen. If the community does not wish a change, it will not be shoved down our throats. Any "Universal Code of Conduct" will just be ignored, and we'll carry on using our own standards, which work just fine. Any attempt at enforcement by WMF, well, that doesn't end well either. So far as the rest, well, I don't even know the race, gender, etc., of 99% of the editors I deal with. That also indicates that there is no "excluding", since no one is required to state their race, gender, or a single other thing about themselves. Even if I were the world's worst racist and sexist, I cannot act on that if I don't know your race or gender! (Of course in my case, even if I do know it, I don't care. But even if there were some kind of horrible ingrained racism or sexism, not that I agree to that mind you, one could sidestep that by just not disclosing it!) But really, no one's being excluded. Anyone can come along and edit. So, if someone feels they're being "excluded", well, what are they waiting for? Seraphimblade (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade, Thank you for joining the discussion. I am sorry to hear meta is not where you feel comfortable contributing. Sorry to hear you didn't know about the strategy process at the different phases. There is always room to improve communication. I'm glad to hear you work in a way to not exclude people. Sometimes exclusion is not done by an individual but can be done by power structures or other barriers. These recommendations are aiming to encourage us to be better. We're already a great bunch of folks doing great work. Now we just need to make sure everyone else is on board with us wanting to do the best work we can for free knowledge. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you're aiming at the wrong issues here. All actions, whether they be exclusion or inclusion, are done by individuals, for everything we do on-wiki is created and setup and maintained by individuals. If there is sexism, it is the result of individuals. If there is racism, it is the result of individuals. If there is inclusion, exclusion, harassment, or anything done on-wiki, it is the result of individuals making choices that they deemed to be most beneficial to them and/or provided them with the most utility. The collectivist approach to this is not going to work to actually fix anything; what will work is by permitting local projects to decide how they should manage issues on their project, within the current guidelines put out in the ToS. Seeking to eliminate local autonomy will do nothing but further normalize dissent against the WMF and, by connection, creating more conflict between the editors you refer to as being uncomfortable participating and those who opposed it's integration. It's a situation where some editors percieve that other editors, in this case people entirely unknown to them who refuse to engage in onwiki conversation, are attempting to remove their autonomy and self-governance. Vermont (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly what Vermont said. They seem to be intent on yet again picking a fight. The rest of us are left to stare in amazement, wondering how many times that must happen. The autonomy of the communities is not negotiable. Period. Now, we'd be happy to hear suggestions, but try it as a mandate, and it will be rejected, just like every time prior. I don't want that. The communities should see the WMF as a partner, not an adversary. But WMF once again seems hell bent on ensuring that will not happen. What must be done to get them to stop? Seraphimblade (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The above issues with both the UCOC and the idea that the sole and only platform specifically designated for that purpose is not the one that should make the decision. If you want to add an additional format (say, meetings at a conference), then per your own accessibility rules and recommendations, it should be made aware to the full Community, and it should be equally possible for any editor to attend an equivalent venue. Meta is the only channel I have been made aware of, and I put a major amount of effort into not missing WMF policy changes. @Jackiekoerner:, exactly how many people have supported, and how many opposed, the creation of a UCOC in every non-meta forum? Please can you, or a WMF staff account, provide evidence of that - transparency' was specifically stated as a key part of several recommendations and the WMF's general statements. That will let us know how the majority viewpoint stands. It's worth noting that as the UCOC recommendation hasn't changed substantially, the two prior consultations on meta should be included in the figures, except where that would cause a duplicate "!vote". Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nosebagbear, thanks for discussing the Universal CoC. I don’t have any number of votes because the process didn’t run that way. The number of ways in which people could share their thoughts was diverse and did not involved yes or no votes. You can certainly view the working group documents and other strategy resources on the meta page. There you will find links to full documents of outcomes from Working Group efforts, emerging recommendations throughout the process, and suggestions from community conversations, consultations, interviews, and fact finding. Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jackiekoerner: - that's a fairly substantive limitation - all it would tell us is a number of sessions, which is fine for user recommendations, but doesn't help at all for actually working out consensus on the Recommendations, so it would have to be entirely discounted - no reliable level of "weight" could be given, both through numbers and through discounting duplicate participation, since I imagine a reasonable number would not unreasonably attend more than 1 platform/sessions/event. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jackiekoerner: First of all, thank you for taking the time to answer to community feedback and questions. You wrote "I know it’s hard to see the logic behind something that was opposed in the place where you saw it." For me it's rather hard to see why there would be any other place where I wouldn't be able to see a discussion about myself and my community. The Universal Code of Conduct is supposed to apply to Wikimedia's online projects, not to any third party stakeholder. A good place to discuss the proposal would therefore be: those projects. Or, for practical purposes, the global central discussion place. Which is Meta. Which is where I saw it. Where else would such a discussion take place? Who else than ourselves and the platform owner, Wikimedia, would need to be involved in this discussion? Why would anybody else discuss our Code of Conduct somewhere else, without us? Wikimedia decided to only involve a very small portion of its online communities into a pre-consultation that then turned out to have no impact on the decision making process at all. None of the questions that the global online community raised in that discussion has been answered. Some of them were: What is wrong with the communities' existing "local" Codes of Conduct (Wikiquette)? How would a Universal Code of Conduct reflect and respect cultural differences between Wikimedia projects? How exactly would Wikimedia want to enforce violations of a Universal Code of Conduct? --Martina Nolte (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

“Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure”Edit

Quote: “By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge”. It is remarkable that this strategic direction is about the “essential infrastructure” and not just an “essential infrastructure”. We know that Wikipedia is popular and one of the top sites on the Internet. But as you state “Wikimedia will become [..]” you obviously expect more. Hence, this sounds like a missionary zeal where we have to cover anything in regard to free knowledge or a competition which we have to win. How important is it to be more essential than others? This gives the impression that growth and quantity are more important than quality. Shouldn't we focus on free knowledge projects which benefit from collaborative wiki processes and work on improving these processes and supporting those contributing to it? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • It's particularly concerning, as it suggests that should Wikimedia ever fall, there will be no free knowledge, at all. After all, if we're essential, no-one else could go-on without us. The arrogance. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It's also very unclear what the goal actually means, i.e. what are the essential parts of the infrastrucure that are not Wikimedia today, but should be in the future? With a narrow definition of "free knowledge", Wikimedia' projects have been the essential infrastructure for many years, so the goal would seem extremely unambitious. With broader definitions of "free knowledge" there are other projects (I use Stack Overflow, Quora, SciHub) that are important to today's infrastructure. I would hate it if they would vanish or be swallowed by Wikimedia in the next 10 years. --Tinz (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds more like a commercial party trying to dominate the market. Imagine by 2030, Greanpeace will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of nature preservation. It does not seem cooperative, nor inclusive. Zanaq (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Strategy 2030 in One PageEdit

 
PDF uploaded to Commons in one A4 sheet

The Wikimedia Strategy 2030 recommendations were published on January 20, 2020, but the language, size, and complexity can be a intimidating, even for native English speakers.

I've attempted to summarize the recommendations into ONE PAGE, highlighting key concepts, structures and processes mentioned in the 68 page document.

It's a work in progress, but I hope it helps to provide easier entry into the full document.

Feel free to provide suggestions, feedback and reflections. -- Fuzheado (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fuzheado, I just wanted to leave a public note saying thanks and let folks know that this one-pager has been added to the recommendation page as another way to consume these recommendations (along with audio versions!) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Downsides of using Hegelian epistemologyEdit

The content of these proposals demonstrates Hegelian epistemology. We need to be careful not to write rules that will turn away editors not accustomed to using Hegelian epistemology. To shed some light on specifically what I am writing about, I took a close look at the first paragraph of one of these recommendations here: Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Plan_Infrastructure_Scalability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Podcast episode on the strategyEdit

In the latest episode of Wikipediapodden I interviewed Nicole Ebber about the work on the strategy. You can find it on Wikimedia Commons or, if you prefer regular podcast players, on Wikipediapodden's website. (You can also find all episodes in English through this search or just by subscribing to this feed or looking in this list). Ainali (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Dialogue about the technology roadmapEdit

I think that the technology we use in the Wikimedia community will enable the community to become the ecosystem of free knowledge. So I hope in the next years we will start an open dialogue about the technology roadmap of Wikimedia. In the next year I think collaboration will be more important, maybe for creating an online encyclopedia the current technology stack suffice. But for other projects like learning or creating a plan for a better world, new technology is necessary. Timboliu (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this movement actually exist?Edit

Has anyone ever asked contributors to Wikipedia, Commons etc whether they actually consider themselves to be part of a 'movement'? Frankly, I'd be surprised if the majority of such contributors did. People participate for all sorts or reasons (some more legitimate than others), but having participants in something doesn't make it a 'movement'. That would imply a common goal..

AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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