Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/2019 Community Conversations/Capacity Building

Area of inquiry

Equity

I was misled by the use of the word “equity”. In Spanish it has two translations. Equidad (something like giving an equal part to every one) and Capital/Recursos propios (what a company or a person owns less what it owes, more or less). I understand that Wikipedia has equity knowledge meaning that knowledge has a value. Because Knowledge is an asset that can be used and that is difficult to find, it’s scarce, it has to be produced. And while Wikimedia is actively producing more and more usable knowledge, other traditional sources (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, Espasa, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana) have followed the way of the dinosaurs. It’ s not a victory to celebrate but a reality to worry about or at least to treat with due consideration. We are no longer a small player on a big game, we are among the owners of the stadium. B25es (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

So you mean, that we should be aware of it and do not play with it like children play with the fire? Juandev (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Current situation

Collaboraton wanted

Chapters should learn from each other. The yearly training session for Chapter boards members should be continued. Also local board member training should be possible. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And does it work now? Does the chapters learn from each other or no? What I see in my society is, that people and groups does not want to learn from each other. _{Juandev (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)}

Key questions of the Working Group to community members

Currently, the Working Group Capacity Building is gathering input, knowledge and experience from in- and outside the movement. Following are our working group's specific questions to members of the Wikimedia communities. Please answer here. (These questions will also be part of a community survey with questions from all working groups to be issued soon.)

What are the capacity building needs of movement stakeholders and their organizations? In other words, how can people and organizations be best supported so they can do their work and reach their goals?

• Sometimes we know, what we need, but we dont have funding. So having a possibility to request funds for traing would help. Also if people, who knows each other from online work meets each other and work together, they can learn from each other good things and it persists. Suprisingly WMF does not have finacial support for traveling to Wiki events. Juandev (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

What capacity building efforts already exist within any part of the Movement? Especially tell us about local ones we may not know about!

• In my community people does not want to learn much, does not want to change. But what works is when they copy come of our methods which looks to be easy for them. For example. We organise Wikiexpeditions - more day group photo walks. And we have a specific methodologies to work with bunch of files. While some people want to do it their way and they are continuously failing, other participants copy the methods we use and they learn new effective things. Juandev (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Which capacity building formats and methods have worked and which ones have not?

• Basically it can work almost everything if the person or group wants. If they doesnt want, its a problem. Years ago the local chapter was undergoing the training done by other chapter. It seem to me, the majority of the participants, where not interesting so they havent learnt it. So there are two groups. Those who want to learn (this seems to me much smaller) and those who dont want to learn. The second one, learns only when there is a barrier, when they must - the problem is, that in Wikimedia there are almost no barriers. Juandev (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

How much/what capacity building should occur locally, regionally and thematically, and how much/what should be organized and provided centrally?

• As we are not a centere oriented movment, I am not in favor of central CB, but some basic training could be provided that way. Basically every part of our movment have different needs in CB so these need should be targeted first. And this could be done just locally. Juandev (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anything else you would like to share with the capacity building working group?

• I have pointed it above two times. And it is the situation, when people are not motivated to learn something new. With staff it is easier, because sometimes they have negative motivation, but with community volunteers and members the beggist task is to find a motivation. Juandev (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please approve crowdfunding wishlist project

Dear Capacity Building working group, please approve Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Archive/Assist Wikimedians with crowdfunding for Foundation support. Thank you in advance for your kind help with the effort. James Salsman (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Competitive pay

Please approve remaining competitive with other top-ten website compensation by paying San Francisco-livable salaries for managers, staff, interns, contractors, and vendors at all levels. James Salsman (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Participation with a little experience

From my experience it is happening and sometimes there is a possibility to train those, who are not good in something. But the trouble comes, when day dont want to be trained.Juandev (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Prevent loss of the srongest Wikimedia generation

There has been a study that strongest Wikimedia generation is that which have born around 2007. Capacity building may protect this generation from burn out or other loss.Juandev (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Input and Feedback from Wikimedia Österreich

This is feedback from WMAT's expert group for international affairs, the input was also discussed with our board and community.

• The current structures and bodies put a heavy emphasis on the due diligence side that the WMF needs to justify how they spend funds in the first place. This necessity leads to a lot of paperwork and a funding model that values the justification of spending money more than the time of the volunteers and paid staff involved in writing this documentation in the first place. Effective capacity building surely should not work like that. The future relationship between the body that supplies resources (money, staff or otherwise) and the entities establishing themselves should take into account that we are all in this together. That we have the luxury of funding ambitious and unorthodox programs and ideas. And that we have the means to keep ourselves honest and learn from those mistakes in order to improve ourselves and the movement as a whole by sharing those experiences with each other.
• How do we make capacity building inclusive and equitable?
  • Peer to Peer learning in marginalised groups, instead of people from the outside stepping in
  • Support efforts for self-empowerment, highlight people from marginalised groups with the skills and passion to help others
  • Be critical of oneself and open up and learn from other groups. Promote self-assessment, be honest instead of trying to present a perfect facade on an international level -> Create channels where affiliates can ask for help without making it public if they do not wish to.

--Wikimedia Österreich (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Deutschland staff perspective

''Over the last weeks WMDE's Strategy Liaisons, Moritz Rahm and Cornelius Kibelka, have conducted interviews with 13 experts among our staff on the themes of the working groups. Mostly, the qualitative interviews were done with groups of 2 or 3 people, the texts provided are summaries of the statements.

Broad, good scoping – is it actually clear what ‘Capacity Building’ means?

The scoping looks good, it’s actually quite broad. However, it might not be clear to everyone what ‘Capacity Building’ actually means. It becomes clear though, that Capacity Building is a cross-cutting theme, intertwined with all groups’ themes. So either you follow this intertwining approach, or the group focuses on one aspect. Also ‘Communication’, which at first glance might not be actually part of the scope, does belong (process- and structure-wise) to this group, however it might be better not to call it ‘communication’ but ‘infrastructure’, since it is about the means of working with information. Furthermore, while elaborating a lot on the different aspects of Capacity-Building, it is not clear which capacities actually should be built.

Something that is worth taking into account when working on this topic: As soon as you work on the development of people (or establishing leadership roles), you create hierarchies quickly. There are people who impose themselves, while others are calm, in the background, but are suited as well. When working on capacity building you need to learn (or create a system to) be able to identify who is suited for what and to allow the same opportunities to everyone. Secondly, appreciation is something really important and shouldn’t be excluded from the working group’s scope. As soon as you a leader, you need to learn how you value other’s work, but also among each other, not only in (formal) hierarchies.

WMDE is sharing a lot – but for whom and for what?

At Wikimedia Deutschland, the efforts on capacity building have improved a lot over the last years. There is a strong commitment to learn from each other. We work with with impact-driven project management processes, which is constantly taught to staff. Same for our planning process, where our colleagues are involved, and where everyone learns a lot.

WMDE is reporting on its lesson learnt for years, we have produced kilometers of reports, shared learnings, etc. It’s a question if actually anyone was ever interested in learning from what we have reported. Before sharing and trying to build someone else’s capacities, it needs to be clear who and why it’s necessary (needs assessment). Without knowing that, it could be a waste of time for us and others. People use learnings when they need them. Follow the motto: Don’t try to find ideas for solutions, before you don’t actually know the problem. And even if you know the problems of others, it’s questionable how often our (WMDE’s) solutions can actually be helpful, depending on the context.

What capacities are these that emerging communities have, but non-emerging communities lack?

There is a sentence (premise): “We see many emerging communities that have important capacities that non-emerging communities generally lack”. Without any further explanation this sentence doesn’t really work, but it leads to other questions like “Are all communities equal?, What capacities are these that emerging communities but non-emerging lack? Why is important to transfer these capacities?”. Sure, as soon as we have people from different affiliates/regions/countries involved, their point of view needs to be included. However, it can be problematic to differ between “emerging” and “non emerging” communities. Also on who should do capacity building in the movement, it’s difficult to answer, as it’s strongly related to power questions within the movement. As alternative, looking at the processes and needs can be helpful. Look and assess the needs first, then you can decide who’s responsible for what. If the conclusion is that these processes are better organized centrally, so be it. But better not decide this without assessing the needs first.

We’re working in the free and open, that’s how we’re supporting the free knowledge ecosystem already.

The scope says: “In this context, stakeholders include […] anybody else who finds themselves a part of the Wikimedia Movement.” – it’s questionable if that really makes sense. The scope and the scoping questions of the group are already good. Making your scope even broader by trying to include even people outside of the Wikimedia movement (but inside the ecosystem of free knowledge) doesn’t help to find solutions on structural or systemic level. It would be too hard to assess even the wider ecosystem’s needs. However, as everything what we do is free and in the open, we should maybe ask ourselves how can we make our things easier to understand and easier to find. Partners can build upon our things and adapt them – that doesn’t need to be our task. That would be too much.

What’s missing?

There are already so many great things – but how can we learn to set priorities and a focus? We need to understand each other’s processes better, who’s working on what for whom.

The question on resources can only be answered when other questions are answered first.

If you have any questions, please let us know. Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)