Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Discuss/Cluster H

Questions to discuss

Since there was a limited time for discussion at the Global Conversations, and not everyone who wanted to participate was present, the same discussion around this cluster can continue here on Meta (the focus would be, ideally, on the same questions that attendees tried to answer during the events - pasted below) --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC).

• Guiding question: What are the immediate steps we need to take to implement this initiative cluster?

Supporting questions:

• Who needs to be involved and what does their involvement look like?
• What do we want to achieve more specifically in 18 months?

Identify the impact of Wikimedia projects & content

Some relevant comments were directly copied from the previous recommendation 8 discussion space

•  Support this initiative as a priority. We collaborate with Wikipedia and other projects because we think our contributions will in some way have a impact in the world. And as some topics have more impact than others, having a list of most impacting topics can make the volunteers focus their contributing in those topics and not spend too much time in topics that has low impact. Danilo.mac talk 17:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Wikipedia has already impacted most of the whole world. Due to Wikipedia, number of print encyclopedias have been declining for years. Not only that, some repressive governments have interfered people's activities on Wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia has impacted governments, prompting them to suppress further impact on their citizens. Hopefully, the Movement can measure the impact that sister projects have made on people and their daily activities. Otherwise, I would find this initiative completely redundant. George Ho (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Improving the coverage of topics relating to the digital transformation of society and the economy in the context of the UN Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. --IBits (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

List of high-impact topics

Some relevant comments were directly copied from the previous recommendation 8 discussion space  Support this initiative as a priority. Some entertainment related topics have many volunteers editing, but they does not necessary make who read the article more intelligent. On the other hand, some scientific, academic and educational topics that do have potential to make the readers smarter persons have fewer volunteers contributing. That is a gap we need to pay attention if we really want to improve the abilities of our projects to impact the world. Danilo.mac talk 18:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose I appreciate the attempt to close the gap. However, I found this initiative too redundant, isn't it? We already have high-impact topics, like w:iPhone (and w:iPad), w:Apple Inc., w:Google, w:smartphone, w:tablet computer, w:Arab Spring (unless it wasn't, despite related violent events), w:Iraq War, w:Cold War, w:World War II, etc. Those topics are highly influential among and highly focused by many editors. The category is "high-impact" topics is very broad IMHO. Furthermore, the "high-impact" category is too impossible to narrow down, isn't it? George Ho (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  Another thing: this is an attempt to change content on the above topics that I brought up, isn't it? Any attempt to implement this initiative would invite more bias and more possible falsehoods than other attempts to invoke bias and falsehoods have. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Oppose Individual encyclopedia articles should not, ever, have impact; a significant or major effect. That Wikipedia itself has contributed significantly and positively to society is beyond dispute, but we describe subjects, we do not attempt to change them. Vexations (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the immediate steps we need to take to implement this initiative cluster?

This question assumes that at some point there was consensus to implement these initiatives. When and how was this consensus achieved? To answer the question: Demonstrating that there is indeed consensus to implement would be the first step. Vexations (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Curiously, what's your clear definition of "consensus", and how does yours differ from WMF's? If your definition can allow opposition, seems to me that WMF is as always no longer allowing room for opposition, does it? George Ho (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the WMF's definition of consensus is. My use of the term is referring to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus. You're right about one thing: "oppose" was never an option. Imagine the same process, but this time about something abhorrent, like the prioritization of the execution of people on death row. We're given a say in who we're going to kill, and everyone gets to discuss and express their preference. There's no option that says that says all killing is wrong and we should abolish the death sentence. Some folks decline to participate because they can't bring themselves to doing such a thing. The rest pick their top three and we go ahead with the executions. Is the execution of the inmates whose killing was prioritized after consultation with the community now just, and supported by consensus? I don't think so. A choice architecture that allows such an outcome should not be used in less consequential cases such as identifying topics for impact either. Vexations (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 20 December 2020‎ (UTC).

Death sentences are obviously not similar to the "Movement", and comparing them is not something I would want to do. Well, the way you put it is metaphorical, isn't it? Something tells me that they may have reasons (most likely very bad) to not give room for opposition, but they don't tell us why. As I can speculate, opposition can hinder their plans and stifle development and ruin their agendas. Isn't that right, WMF-ers? George Ho (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)