Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations

Active discussions

Might as well start off the commentsEdit

I'm very happy with many of the ideas. There is a lot less vagueness than I had expected, especially in this one, and the recommendations lay out many agreeable and tangible goals to work towards. The new focus on global coordination is also quite beneficial as it's obvious to anyone that many projects have been, for lack of a better term, rogue from the Wikimedia mission. Currently existing global systems are not able to address those in a timely and efficient manner, if at all. Vermont (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Vermont Thank you so much for your feedback and also for kickstarting the comments :) We are committed to increase global coordination all across the Wikimedia Movement THasan (WMF) (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Innovate in Free KnowledgeEdit

After all this discussion, the recommendation about innovation makes selling Wikipedia's soul a key point. It's an utter shame. Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair question. Currently, reliable, secondary sources are required for writing Wikipedia articles so no original research is required. Instead of exploring possibilities for the inclusion of knowledge in a way that doesn't conflict with Wikipedia's core policies the option presented is to change core policies and the five pillars itself. Working with primary oral sources requires original research which would be a violation of the five pillars. The community is Wikipedia's heart, but the five pillars are it's soul. Under rational they write "Wikimedia" but the context makes it pretty clear that they mean Wikipedia. Natuur12 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Natuur12, thanks for reading the recommendations. Innovate in Free Knowledge is very much about "exploring possibilities," like new projects and partnerships. It's giving us the historical context of Wikipedia's development and begins with "consult with communities and experts," as was requested during the previous conversation with the movement. For existing projects, it recommends encouraging communities to create new policies where relevant. This will require open discussions, such as around non-traditional sources of knowledge, rich media content, and technological advancements. With projects like Wikidata, various sources, formats, and experiences of knowledge are increasingly coming together more coherently, so encyclopedic hearts and souls can remain encyclopedic if that is what the community prefers. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello User:MPourzaki (WMF). Oral sources do not meet the requirement for verifiability, and are thus unreliable. Though many cultures had their history passed down orally for long periods of time, most have written them down by now, and even then the initial history is definitely mangled and is not used as a source. If oral sources are considered valuable, which insofar as they still exist I believe they are, it's something that would be better off uploaded to Wikisource in a text format. Using something as a source and preserving human knowledge are two different things; one assumes the source is reliable, verifiable, and secondary, which I can assure you no oral sources are (or can be in good faith), and the other simply assumes the source is valuable. If it's especially valuable, as in if it's notable, we can have an article about it on Wikipedia projects. Preserving an oral source is already a feature of our projects, namely Wikisource provided someone writes it down or records it, but relying on it for reliable information is inherently impossible. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, speaking as a global sysop, adjusting the reliability bar to allow unreliable (oral) sources and other non-traditional methods of sourcing wouldn't promote growth on developing projects as the recommendation intends. There are basically no Wikipedia projects except the top 7 or so (by active users) that have sources (or require them) on every article; the communities on all but the largest Wikipedias have not developed to the point of having sources being a hard rule. Unsourced stubs are the norm when you venture outside of the primary world language projects. Best, Vermont (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Vermont, I really appreciate this information. Having articles or stubs about the existence of oral and non-traditional sources and partnering with repositories of such knowledge for preservation, access, or to upload to Wikisource or Commons have come up in discussions, and will surely continue as we transition to implementation. Thanks for the reflection on smaller Wikipedias, really useful to learn, and for your point on valuable and verifiable sources. WikiOral has also been discussed for some time by communities and Wikidata will continue to make it easier for information from various sources to come together for those accessing knowledge. Here is an overview of the feedback we received on the pre-final version of this recommendation. Considering the incredible attention we have received on keeping the world informed about the covid-19 pandemic and given the significance of reliable and verifiable information in today's world, we would not wish anything to tarnish that in any way. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Natuur12: yeah this looks pretty serious, thanks for pointing it out, really does not bode well. Hopefully that is reconsidered. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
"Instead of exploring possibilities for the inclusion of knowledge in a way that doesn't conflict with Wikipedia's core policies the option presented is to change core policies and the five pillars itself." - that's clearly untrue. The actual language of the recommendation is "Create pathways to new projects, create new functionalities, or encourage communities to create new policies that address these barriers." How is that not exploring possibilities? I don't think it's fair to object to even considering and discussing policy changes, while pretending that what you are objecting to is having those changes forced on you. --Tgr (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I cannot share your optimistic interpretation of what is written. The first bullet point
Consult with communities and experts to identify policies in Wikimedia projects that act as barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities (e.g. Notability).
The second bullet point:
Create pathways to new projects, create new functionalities, or encourage communities to create new policies that address these barriers. The goal is to allow the inclusion and preservation of all forms of human knowledge in all socio-cultural contexts (e.g. encourage refining reliability criteria to provide guidelines to identify reliable sources from oral or non-Western knowledge resources, encourage ensuring that notability criteria are relevant in all contexts).
The first bullet point is about Wikipedia since notability is a Wikipedia only concept. (Not for Commons, not Wikibooks, not Wikisource etc.). Notability is nothing more than a easy to interpret incarnation of Wikipedia's pillars neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. This has nothing to do with exploring options but is about changing Wikipedia's core. I'm not objecting discussing policy changes, I'm objecting to discussing changes that will compromise Wikipedia's pillars. If there will be a choice or not, only time will tell. I can support the second bullet point, but not the first. Natuur12 (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The first bullet point says “e.g. notability”, as in “for example” ; so I think it’s quite clear that the point is not specifically about Wikipedia.
(Even then, there is at the very least d:Wikidata:Notability ; and arguably “Notability” could have been used as short-hand umbrella term for “inclusion policy on content-projects” such as eg. Commons’ Scope (that’s the lingo in d:Q4657574 for example). Jean-Fred (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It's true that they also have a notability policy but it wouldn't make sense to refer to Wikidata's policy in the recommendation because they allow almost everything. If it was meant as an umbrella term they should have written “inclusion policy on content-projects”. (That interpretation doesn't have preference per Occam's razo). It would make it a lot easier to believe that this isn't about Wikipedia's notability policy or Wikipedia in general if a different wording was used or more examples would have been provided. (One or two would do the trick). Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Seriously though, they say “policies in Wikimedia projects”. Fairly sure that “Wikimedia projects” is meant to mean “Wikimedia projects”. If they meant “Wikipedia”, they would have said “Wikipedia”. No? Jean-Fred (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes that's what's written, but we already covered that earlier in this discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

DocumentsEdit

From the message of Katherine Maher I understand we're moving from recommendations to implementation. I read that as the Wikimedia Foundation has accepted the recommendations, and the board and/or c-suite have decided to implement all the recommendations. The 10 recommendations ask for (among other things) the creation of documents in almost every recommendation:

  1. Revenue generation policy
  2. ...
  3. Universal Code of Conduct (includes a draft proposal by Pine)
  4. Movement Charter
  5. Shared documents:
    1. Advocacy (That page describes the Wikimedia movement's advocacy agenda.)
    2. Capacity building
    3. Partnerships
    4. Product
    5. Technology (interwiki redirect to mw:Technology, a page on the mediawiki.org site.)
    6. Spaces for Communication:
      1. Partners
      2. Third-party developers
    7. Technology Council
  6. Leadership development plan
  7. Internal Knowledge Management (reinvent meta)
  8. ...
  9. ...
  10. ...

To get things started, why not do it the wiki way? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi Ad, always great to hear from you, and thanks for your "let's get it done" attitude. There is certainly not enough resources (human or otherwise) to undertake all the initiatives proposed in all of the recommendations right away or at once, it's for the road to 2030 after all. In Katherine's message I note, "the Wikimedia Foundation is intending to host a series of virtual events that will help us transition to the implementation phase. The goal will be to produce a plan to begin the implementation — to identify what initiatives must come first, and in what sequence, and with what resources and support," that's key. Given the current global situation, we have to be savvy with our collective resources, and sequencing and prioritizing with communities the initiatives put forward in the recommendations will be the best way to proceed together. I look forward to working with you during the forthcoming implementation discussions. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ad! Further to Mehrdad's comment I'd say - if collaboratively editing documents on Meta was a great way to set up these kinds of documents, then we would not be in the position we are today. So while it'd be great for people to gather thoughts on these topics, there are going to be many other inputs as well, many of which will come from sources other than Meta. Thanks, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@The Land: My list shows the number of documents the recommendations ask for. Luckily that number is smaller than the number of documents asked for in draft recommendations a year ago. It just shows IMHO the areas where this whole process did not come up with proposals and/or did not do research or consulting. Most prominently, analysis of external environment is lacking. But please do also note it looks like there happen to be two areas with draft proposals, so people can get a clue what it is about people are thinking of. And yes, I am fully aware hundreds of people have spent countless hours in the past two or three years in this process, which resulted in the current set of more or less comprehensible recommendations. The previous set was really incomprehensible. So, some progress has been made. Some of your ideas about decentralisation/decentralization do have survived the review processes. With pleasure I do read Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure_Equity_in_Decision-making#Enable_the_empowerment_of_local_communities. Please do continue to encourage empowerment of community members. And I know very well these documents are going to be the outcomes of processes, involving dialogues with all stakeholders. So the big question is: who will take the initiative to start these processes of engaging all stakeholders in dialogues? Who is going to do the research and the consulting? Who will own these processes? Whose problem is it any way? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ad Huikeshoven, we are still very much figuring that out - how and with who to take the initiatives forward, engages other, and build commitment for implementation. Design options are being discussed and considered, but it will be inclusive, representative, and transparent. First major step will be organizing the virtual events in lieu of the Summit so communities and affiliates can express what recommendations and initiatives matter most to them and how we can forge partnerships to work collaboratively around the ones we prioritize and sequence. Details will be shared soon. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update @MPourzaki (WMF):. Wikimedia Summit in the past was invitation only, and only for affiliates. I would be pleased if the virtual events will be open to all editors/contributors/users as well as affiliates. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You are bulls eye, spot on Ad Huikeshoven. That's very much the plan. Now that the Summit was postponed, the vision and design is for a series of virtual events that greatly expand participation opportunities, particularly inviting online communities, previously excluded voices, and emerging communities and do it all iteratively so we make sure everyone's connected. I am glad we are aligned :) MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
"particularly inviting online communities" - I am looking forward to that. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CommunicationEdit

How has the publication of these 'recommendations' been publicised? EddieHugh (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And in how many languages has the WMF translated these recommendations? They have more than enough money and should do some useful things with it instead of trying to rename Wikimedia. Translations of this are far more worthwhile then throwing money at private marketing businesses to do useless and unwanted renaming stuff. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The strategic recommendations have been translated to Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish. Summaries are available in some more languages. All of this and additional material is published on meta. Informations about these documents have been published on many village pumps, forums and tea houses of the wkiverse. --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
In terms of publicity, I have, retrospectively, found a single line on the English village pump, in a new tab that almost no one looks at. Maybe there's more, maybe the situation is better on other projects, but it does look like another example of radical proposals being barely advertised. This approach has backfired before.... EddieHugh (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @EddieHugh:, in your opinion where would be the best place to post this notice on English Wikipedia? How can we boost our outreach? MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This has been brought up so many times and nothing's happened. And, every time, someone asks 'oh, people don't know? How can we change that?' and then nothing happens. Go to each place where you want to get word to people, and ask there, in advance. On the English Wikipedia, there's a list of places to ask questions here. Bots can be used to send the same message to different groups, including WikiProjects; you could ask about that here. Other bots can be used to notify editors individually. But these things need to be planned. The fact that the same thing happens repeatedly makes me believe that there's little desire to increase participation here (this has been confirmed during previous versions of these 'recommendations', but shouldn't be the case for this version). EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a 'recommendation'...Edit

Stop claiming that there is a 'Wikimedia movement'. It doesn't exist, except as wishful thinking.

People who use Facebook aren't part of a 'movement'. Trainspotters aren't part of a 'movement'. Heroin addicts aren't part of a 'movement'. How are Wikimedia contributors any different?

People contribute to the projects for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't make them a part of a 'movement' - which would imply a common purpose. I have seen precisely zero evidence that the majority of contributors have any such purpose in common. And without such a common purpose, a 'strategy' is entirely devoid of meaning...

AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right in that the movement is very diverse and also quite disparate, with individual editors and other contributors sitting at home all alone, never meeting other Wikimedians and not even using talk pages. Elsewhere, however, there is a rich life of common activities: regulars' tables, GLAM meetups, participation in chapters and user groups. All of us have one goal in common: to create reliable and free knowledge and share it with all of humankind. --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
So exactly how did you determine that 'All of us have one goal in common'? Please provide verifiable evidence, rather than simply stating it as a fact. Because without such evidence, I shall continue to assume that it is pure and unadulterated wishful thinking. And that there is no 'movement'. And no, what goes on at meetups is in no shape or form evidence of any 'goals' shared by the vast majority of contributors who never participate in such activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You are of course entitled to have your own opinion on this. For me, though, I support this statement and believe it correctly state how we active in more than only editing see things, and also very many only editing.Yger (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion. As are all the other people who contribute to the projects. Projects that promote themselves as being available for 'anyone' to contribute to. 'Anyone', including people who don't share the supposed common purpose that the WMF has decided to pretend exists amongst such contributors. You cannot simultaneously claim to be 'inclusive' and also impose a 'strategy' based around an assumption that everyone thinks the same way. This isn't 'equity in decision making' in any shape or form. It is the WMF deciding on behalf of contributors what they think the contributors ought to be supporting. It will fail. It deserves to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I see "the creation of free knowledge" as an umbrella term rather than a sole purpose. A study on motivations for contributions from 2014 summarized them "in 5 strongly interrelated categories: education (learning about subjects by editing articles), help (wanting to improve and maintain Wikipedia), responsibility (responsibility, often a professional responsibility, to provide good quality health information to readers), fulfillment (editing Wikipedia as a fun, relaxing, engaging, and rewarding activity), and positive attitude to Wikipedia (belief in the value of Wikipedia). An additional factor, hostility (from other contributors), was identified that negatively affected Wikipedians’ motivations." The study clearly shows that the model of “knowledge philanthropists” is not applicable to all. Nevertheless I would argue that many people know what Wikipedia is all about, even if fighting vandalism is mainly about having fun. --CJackel (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
So a study of 32 Wikipedians (31 of which were male, I note, and likewise were hardly representative in other ways) who contributed to 'health-related articles' on the English-language Wikipedia is sufficient evidence to assert that there is a 'Wikimedia Movement', and then to impose a 'strategy' based around what the WMF thinks this supposed entity's objectives are? So much for 'equity in decision making'. The WMF has no mandate in any shape or form to impose an ideologically-based 'strategy' on contributors based solely on what it thinks the contributors want (or more likely, what it thinks the contributors ought to want), and any attempt to do so would be entirely contrary to its stated objectives as a charitable institution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
This strategy is not created by WMF, neither is it WMF who will turn them it into implementation. Please accept and acknowledge the broad scope of people from all type of stakeholders in the Movement who has put in time and energy to produce these recommendations.Yger (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Not commenting on the main topic, but the strategy documents were created entirely by WMF appointees, 40% of which were staff. --Yair rand (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to 'accept and acknowledge the broad scope of people from all type of stakeholders in the Movement' as reflecting any mandate whatsoever to make 'recommendations' on behalf of anyone else. It is gross hypocrisy for these documents to claim to be promoting 'equity in decision making', since the vast majority of those who participate in the projects have had no input into the process. No amount of vacuous management-speak is going to alter that fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi AndyTheGrump, there were 3 rounds of open conversations with the Movement and many online contributors participated; August 2019, September 2019, and our recent grand engagement from January to March 2020. You can look at the summary of what a wide variety of Wikimedians had to say about Movement Strategy. More information is provided in the detailed table as well. Many activities define what it means to be a Wikimedian with diverse needs and priorities, and many vibrant individuals and communities comprise this Movement. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
So 'a [not actually very] Wide variety of Wikimedians' had 'conversations', before these 'recommendations' were arrived at. How convenient. No actual evidence that those having the 'conversations' (let alone the much wider variety of 'Wikimedians' who didn't participate) then actually participated in the decision-making process. Please stop making silly claims about supporting 'equity in decision making', it isn't going to fool anyone, if this is how it is going to be done. And cut out the vacuous drivel about how 'vibrant' people are: it makes this supposed 'movement' look more like some sort of dingbat quasi-religious cult every minute. At least, it would if any such movement existed. It doesn't. There is no movement. The only 'common purpose' shared by contributors to the projects is to add whatever it is they want to to whatever it is they are editing. If a small minority of over-enthusiastic contributors want to pretend otherwise, that's fine. Just as long as their fantasies aren't imposed on everyone else. Which is what this 'strategy' purports to do, with its grand claims about the supposed objectives of this group of imaginary friends. That it clearly isn't going to work is its only saving grace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your views AndyTheGrump. Good thing that nothing is being imposed on anyone. Those that like to contribute to the projects or topics of their desire can of course continue to do so, perhaps with better user experience, and everyone is grateful for their contribution. And for the enthusiastic ones that like to build and strengthen communities or join existing ones, work with peers, mentor others, attend in-person events, and get involved in decision-making, the recommendations offer more and clear options for them that we will co-create as we go forth. It's an ambitious strategic direction and a bold set of recommendations. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
So, if nothing is being imposed on anyone, how exactly are the 'enthusiastic ones' involved in decision-making? Do their decisions have any effect, or don't they? And are their 'decisions' limited to choices amongst the 'options' offered in this 'strategy', or aren't they? There seem to only be two possibilities, as far as I can see: either the 'strategy' consists of nothing but recommendations that nobody is obliged to take any notice of, or it is going to be imposed on contributors, whether the agree with it or not. If it is the former, it is nothing but an exercise in bureaucratic waffle-generation, conducted at the expense of donors who might well think that funds could be more usefully employed, and if it is the latter, it is entirely incompatible with any claim to support 'equity in decision making'. Actual equity would begin by asking 'anyone' (i.e. the contributors to projects that 'anyone' can edit) what they think such projects should be doing, and what (if any) 'strategy' should be formulated by the WMF. That hasn't happened. Instead, the WMF has (assuming what Yair rand says above) appointed a select group of individuals to come up with a 'strategy' based apparently on the premise that all the contributors to all the projects constitute some sort of 'movement' with a clear set of common goals, around which a 'strategy' can be constructed. An utterly ridiculous assumption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi AndyTheGrump. Implementation of the recommendations will be much more nuanced than the possibilities observed here. Virtual events over the coming months will bring communities together from the affiliates, online contributors, and the Wikimedia Foundation. In open and participatory discussions, we will discuss the priority and sequencing of various initiatives in the recommendations and the required resourcing. Movement strategy will bring the movement together to move forward and come up with an implementation plan. Looking very much forward to input from online contributors. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that this set of 'recommendations' by a small set of individuals appointed and/or employed by the WMF is going to be 'implemented' without the prior express approval of the contributors it concerns. As I suspected, the claim in the 'recommendations' that the WMF supports 'equity in decision making' is a complete and utter falsehood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
As someone who co-wrote and defended this recommendation in a long and painstaking process, I have to say that reading this comment is quite disillusioning. --Gnom (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Did it never occur to you that people might notice that the WMF was 'recommending' other people do something it is entirely unwilling to do itself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd invite you to read this nice information page on the Wikimedia movement that we happen to have (created in 2009, during the previous round of movement strategy), or the Wikipedia article on the same topic. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, and free to present any facts that demonstrate it is not a fringe one. Merely repeating it is unlikely to produce anything fruitful. --Tgr (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Given the lack of 'facts' in the articles you have provided, I will stick with my opinion. The WMF certainly likes to claim that everyone who contributes to the projects shares a clear set of common values around which a common 'strategy' can be built. It appears to have no verifiable evidence to back up this implausible claim however. And that will remain true, regardless of how many times it makes the claim, and how many articles about itself it hosts repeating the claim. Were the Wikipedia article on the supposed 'Wikimedia movement' about any other subject, I have little doubt that it would fail to pass a deletion discussion, given that almost all substantive content is sourced to the WMF or its affiliates. Credible articles should be built around independent sources, and that one certainly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not somthing created by WMF neither is it WMF who has slected the paricpant (as you alread been told).Yger (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
So who selected the participants then? Please give a direct and unambiguous direct answer, which makes clear how the selection process what carried out, who was invited to participate in this process, and how the selection was made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/People.Yger (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have already seen that. It asserts that "The core team are employee of WMDE" who were involved in selecting participants. How exactly does WMDE, or anyone selected by WMDE employees, have any mandate whatsoever to make recommendations regarding anything concerning any project outside of Wikimedia Deutschland's direct scope? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Chart with three question marksEdit

 
How will the cooperation beteween Board and Council will look like? How will the Council be elected? How will the Charta influence the movement?

Hello, I have created a chart of the future movement as envisioned in the document. Ziko (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You should probably retitle it 'equity in decision making', since it so clearly illustrates how this actually works in practice. Top-down... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Well. There are top-down-elements, as it is not totally absurd in a movement, but there are also buttom-up-elements. The balance between both directions will depend on... those 3 question marks (and other questions). Ziko (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - how the question marks work in practice will be very important! Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Influencing the Trustees on whether to implement the recommendationsEdit

Since the drafts of recommendations are final, now the process is reached to the implementation stage. Since our feedback would no longer influence how the recommendations would be rewritten, is there a way for communities to influence the Trustees' decision on whether to implement the recommendations? George Ho (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi George Ho, thanks for your comment. Just wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has been very much involved throughout the whole process. Each of the original nine thematic working groups had a Board member present in them. The Board has also been updated at key milestones. Regarding the final set of recommendations, the Board reviewed the pre-final version in February - concurrently with communities, affiliates and other stakeholders - and provided useful feedback and guidance on how to improve them, as well as this statement of support. They also had a final review at the end of March before the recommendations were shared with the movement in their current and final state. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey there. I'll put this another way. Can we contact the Trustees about the recommendations? George Ho (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi George Ho. My suggestion would be that when the Board of Trustees makes official statements about strategy and implementation, folks engage with them on the respective talk pages. That would be the most direct and wiki way that I can think of. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean the time when the Trustees would announce their official implementation on recommendations? Can our feedback prompt them to rescind their implementation? George Ho (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The only way I know of to officially contact the Board is here: Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard. I'm unsure whether any feedback from individual community members at the moment will change their minds about how they are reacting to them. (Of course the recommendations have quite a lot in them that is aimed at improving dialogue between the WMF and the community ;) ) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
In most cases the implementation will be a long process that will itself include consultations and discussion, so I'm sure there will be plenty of chances for giving feedback before, during and after the choices will have been made on how to to translate the current abstract recommendations to specific rules, practices or tools. --Tgr (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
And will there be an opportunity for contributors to reject the 'abstract recommendations' in their entirety, as having been cobbled together by a small group of individuals appointed by the WMF, in direct contradiction to the recommendation's own supposed promotion of 'equity in decision making'? A simple yes or no answer would be fine... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
As already stated, the people participating was not appointed by WMF, ref Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/People. And you as contributor is free to ignore these recommendations and not take part in its implementation. But please, as it seems you are all uninterested to be part in the implementation phase, let this talkpage be a space for constructive discussion among those of us who are enthusiastic in turning them into reality.Yger (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The page that you have linked states unequivocally that "The core team are employee of WMDE, the rest are volunteers. It started with a request for people interested to be part. The core team then selected from those who shown interest". Which makes them all either employed by the WMF (Or one of its affiliates. Why is WMDE involved in determining strategy for the global Wikimedia organisations?), or selected by people employed by them. Which means that that what I stated was correct. And no, I am not going to withdraw my objections to this WMF-created 'strategy' being imposed on contributors without consent, in gross violation of its own stated objective to promote 'equity in decision making'. If you don't like people disagreeing with the 'strategy', I suggest you amend it so it doesn't make such bogus claims, and instead states that the WMF is going to decide such matters without the consent of project contributors, as is clearly the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The strategy is now finalized, nothing more will happen with this text. So your talk of amending it is irrelevant. And do you want to be part of its implementation or not? If not your comments here will do noting to these document neither will it effect how we implement it.Yger (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
We implement it? Who is we? Natuur12 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
We who are enthusiastic to work in direction the recommendation points to. I am part in discussing how it will be implemented in the community I am part of, with my fellows there (we need no decision from the Board to start this and no input from WMF). I am also (but a bit more passive) supporting the way "my" affiliate is changing in order to become an implementation of the recommendation.Yger (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
What about those who disagree? Won't they have a say when possible implementations are explored? Natuur12 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That is why we have a discussion in my community, where everyone can participate. And most do not give a damn what the text in the recommendation says but only the actual concrete changes in our policies and recommendation for our community which will be the end result (and possible new "bodies/roles within our community). And there will, as always, be a difference of opinions in the nuances in how we will do our implementation.Yger (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
So, there are going to be 'concrete changes in our policies' as a consequence of 'recommendations' arrived at by a small group of individuals with no mandate whatsoever to represent ordinary contributors to the projects. 'Recommendations' that purport to promote 'equity in decision making'. Gross hypocrisy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No trust - no safety. It was de:Walter Ulbricht, who saidː "It must look like democracy, but we (the communist leaders) need to hold all cords". The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bahnmoeller (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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