Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Partnerships/Q1 R4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)

Comment

I can't see how this recommendation would hurt anything. However, it has no context. Have there been occasions where a lack of shared knowledge hurt the Wikimedia movement? -- Llywrch (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Llywrch:, yes indeed we don't exactly have a lack of shared knowledge :). OK so for context our work on partnerships in particular often doesn't value documentation or the accessibility of that documentation. As a result knowledge about methodology and techniques is often silo'd into a few individuals or groups. What I see our proposal as getting at is that if funding or resources are allocated to a partnership, more of that should be about sharing its details in a way which is accessible to:

• non-English speakers for a start
• in a way that doesn't assume specialist knowledge (though I fully accept that specialist knowledge is often required)

At the moment we, as a movement, are accessible to English speakers with technical skills, and this puts up huge barriers to being involved with our movement. So to me an ideal vision of accessibility in terms of partnerships, would be someone in say, Mozambique, being able to better access our movement documentation, explain to an archive some technical processes of sharing data in a partnership, all in Emakhuwa, all without needing to be an experienced developer.

Battleofalma (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Battleofalma, your explanation helps justify this. But any explanation could only help. This recommendation addressed only a single point -- the conclusion -- & provided no rationale for it, let alone a discussion about it. It was presented to us in terms of "here it is; take it or leave it." Ironically, the group making this recommendation provided an example of lack of accessible documentation. -- Llywrch (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Llywrch I see the irony. These are still drafts, and the format these have been published on meta in is not in full and doesn't show our responses to various questions about the recommendation, what it changes, does is change things? What its logic is and so forth. More to come. Battleofalma (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)