Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Resource Allocation/A

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". :)

Joining the movementEdit

Thanks. Principle 2 "Anyone who joins the movement". What constitutes joining the movement? Does making a first time edit while unregistered constitute joining the movement? If so, then they will "agree to participate in the generation and allocation of resources". This will change the anyone can edit model. Will the anonymous editor have to tick a box declaring they will participate in the generation and allocation of resources before they can save their edit? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What will change?Edit

Reading principles 4 and onward, I wonder what will change. Those principles are and will be applied by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Funds dissemination committee, affiliates of all sizes and other grantees. Can you be more specific about how resources are allocated now, and how resources will be allocated in the future after your recommendations are implemented? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ad - I suggest also reading Resource Allocation's recommendation D, which also proposes a very different structure for allocating resources (and is in line with one of the possible directions for structural change that Roles and Responsibilities is looking at) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Anyone who joins the movement agrees to participate in the generation and allocation of resources." , there are some editors who will not agree to this. but they are part of the movement. better would be consensus allocations.

Hello Slowking4 and thank you for your comments. I would like to understand better what you understand in this sentence "anyone who joins in the movement agrees to participate in the generation and allocation or resources", so as to better understand your comment. Thank you! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i understand the attempt to build consensus, and start a conversation. while i might agree with a resource allocation by this working group or WMF, making agreement a precondition for movement membership is a barrier to entry. some may not approve of banners or large donor development; or not wish to participate in resource generation, but that should not be a barrier to membership or collaboration. better to say "movement members should be aware of resource generation and allocation, and we welcome their participation." Slowking4 (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
principle 4 and 6 conflict. "Resource allocation will allow for regional and local autonomy" will conflict with "are movement resources and can be allocated" to the extent you drive local resource-raising, they will own it, not the movement. autonomy implies a loss of control to allocate. better would be adjusting allocations at WMF level to provide more equity.
"All resources recipients will be held accountable against a set of criteria," accountability is more of an ethos, than a checklist, i would like to see more norms socialization, and training, than "sanctions for non-compliance".
"Resources will be allocated to support not just the creation of free knowledge, but also the consumption and distribution of free knowledge"+1 and the growth of users from knowledge consumers to knowledge producers, and curators.
Thanks ofr this comment. I find it important to tie it back to the people. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i would like to see more discussion about resource abundance and people scarcity, rather than resource allocation equity. because past resource decisions have impacted past content creation. if you force more local resource autonomy, then you will have less influence over that portion of the movement.
I am not sure I understand this Slowking4, would you mind clarifying? Can you give me an example to illustrate resource abundance and peope scarcity and how past content creation has been impacted by resource decisions? Also, am I understanding right the fact that you are saying that centralizing the resource allocation allows for better control/influence of where resources go? (reversing your "resource autonomy/less influence sentence)? Thank you! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the WMF has never raised less money than plan, and is stopping banners early, so much so that you might miss them. and increasing cash over normal non-profit needs. WMF has never spent over budget, while there is an editor plateau in large wikis, a vast need for GLAM editors, and star performer editors with unfunded grants. we have certain photographers with photos in the can who are not uploading to commons, because they are not feeling the love, (burnout)
more resource autonomy is good, but zero is a bad practice. if you force those privileged regions or star performers to go raise money from other foundations, then the influence will go to those foundations, not WMF. "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing" - maybe a taper of resources towards autonomy, matching grants, or even expense accounts for stars that train more diverse partners ? Slowking4 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slowking4This is super helpful, thank you. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you could fill resource gaps to foster equity, but that would require a resource team to coordinate among movement groups. you should consider providing metrics of existing allocations with financial statements, before making broad numerical goals. you will need to resource capacity building using lessons learned from privileged regions, to build more equity. Slowking4 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be missing a key principleEdit

Note: As a member of another working group, and as a participant in some of the strategy discussions (including this one) that were held at Wikimania, I have already mentioned this point to some of the members of this working group. I am posting it here for transparency, and because the point was not raised within the more formal, documented discussions held at Wikimania.

I note that there is no principle that says anything about the "first" allocation of resources will be to ensure that the knowledge gathered to date will remain accessible, and that resources will be dedicated (at whatever point) to ensuring that the necessary infrastructure will be resourced to promote the growth of the knowledge collected; in short, to make sure that the first funds go to keeping the lights on, and hopefully to allow the lights to shine on an ever-growing collection of knowledge. It was a bit surprising to me that this didn't even appear to be included in the assumptions on which the recommendations are based; it seems to fit in with the "physiological" level of Maslow's hierarchy as applied to organizations. Risker (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for documenting this here Risker, we have discussed this in the group and will be working to see how to best integrate this notion. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
related to archivists mission: "select, preserve, and make available" open knowledge. [1] -- Slowking4 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From Catalan SalonEdit

Original text here.

In general terms, writing is a bit agressive here.

Point 1: How to "restore" equity if it is the place we want to ho? If equity is our objective, then our depart point is a scenario where there is no equity to restore We are concerned about point 2: either it is a too restrictive view of what the movement is, or it is a vision too intrusive in the activity of volunteers. A little far-fetched

Point 8, paragraph 1: we believe that the alignment should stick to the vision of the Wikimedia community and not the vision of wiki-community+ strategic direction. There may be affiliates or users who do not completely agree, for example. Are they excluded from the allocation of resources?

Point 8, section 2: it can generate contradictory situations depending on which contexts

Return to "Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Resource Allocation/A" page.