User talk:The Land/Tensions facing movement strategy

Focus on the structured part of the Wikimedia Movement

There's also the fact that it now seems almost entirely focused on the "structured part of the Wikimedia Movement". Not only it is not granted at all that that "structured part" has any relation or contact with the projects themselves, and are therefore unable to understand them even at a basic level, or at least facing very serious challenges on that - I have a few examples - but I also suspect that any strategy construct that starts by alienating its very object is doomed to irrelevance and failure. The blatant indifference with which the Strategy Rounds were received at the Portuguese Wikipedia last year is a symptom of that.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Darwin - just to be clear, this essay is about the content of the movement strategy, not the process. However, I sort of agree with your point - the working group phase is very affiliate-heavy, and while affiliates are important stakeholders in working out things like accountability and resource allocation frameworks they aren't the only ones.... Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the indifference, it may be well worth rereading some of the sources, e. g. Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/German Language Kurier discussion. --HHill (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I largely agree with your analysis and your questions, that should be addressed. I also agree with DarwIn: my fear is that the structured part will come up with ideas that reflect only partially the diversity of the movement. In this, part of the blame is also of those who didn't want to take part to the survey - but are we sure we took into consideration why certain parts of the community didn't want to take part to it? Because I can almost explicitly state that most of those who don't want to engage any "WMF thing" think it's useless to do it or do not see any concrete sense in doing it - i.e. it's not just a lack of information about the processes, it's a somewhat more profound distrust to the whole thing, sometimes dictated by previous actions, sometimes dictated by seeing some people getting involved into it. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 14:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been meditating on this for some time, and I keep having mixed feelings. On one hand, I do not believe that the "onwiki community" is able by itself to keep the projects from falling into a decadence, mainly motivated by a kind of Rule of the Elders, which constantly burn the newbies (and some Elders too). The "structured part" is essential to provide a connection with the real world, to reach the people and the cultural/educational institutions abroad and provide a smooth and nice path for the newbies incoming from those real world activities, helping the projects to grow healthy. On the other hand, there seems to be a (sometimes severe) disconnection between parts of that structure and the projects themselves, which becomes evident in the incredible amount of closed and opaque discussions and decisions that seem to thrive there. The onwiki folk obviously feel highly suspicious of that, which at the same time keeps them from joining that structure, and affects their relationship with that structure. I do believe there is a lot of work to do to mend that relationship, but it is feasible, and it's a win-win. I believe that making the structured part of the movement more transparent, and actively connecting with the onwiki communities in a positive, empathic, non-paternalistic way would be two very significant steps towards that objective.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)