Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ&A/Question4/ru

This page is a translated version of the page Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ&A/Question4 and the translation is 7% complete.

Каким вы видите вики-сайты, формирующие будущее Интернета, и как Фонд Викимедиа может поддержать вики-сообщества, чтобы воплотить это видение в жизнь?

Вопрос получен от участника сообщества на Метавики

Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)

The Wikimedia Foundation has as its purpose that it enables the sharing of the sum of all knowledge. It follows that collaboration may mean supporting platforms other than Wikis that are better suited at the job. Consequently collaboration between platforms makes for more sharing of knowledge growing of knowledge. An example could be the hosting apps like iNaturalist. The point is that it needs not be about Wikis but leveraging platforms enabling the sharing of knowledge in a Wiki way

Dariusz Jemielniak (Pundit)

Don't even get me started, as I have visions! :) I believe that wikis will need to embrace the AR revolution - users will need much smaller tidbits of knowledge, but better matching what they're looking at any given moment. We may also need to address the automated translation challenge: we already could translate en-wiki into other languages easily, but we know that it would be a grave mistake to dump millions of articles on a small community, which could not upkeep and curate it. Wikidata and Abstract Wikipedia are also attempts to look boldly into the future, in which wikis become the knowledge infrastructure for, well, everyone. Wikimedia Foundation has an enormous power of communication and fundraising for our goals. The way it should support the communities is by using this power to make sure it actually supports rather than directs them. Our sociotechnical system of volunteers developing and curating articles with the help of technology works and is better at refining content than anything else (we beat the likes of Facebook, Twitter or YouTube hands down). The role of the Foundation is to make sure it works and support the vision to grow. Pundit (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Scheepmans (Lionel Scheepmans)

Wikipédia est le seul site non commercial du top 50 des site les plus visité du Web. On comprend dès lors que ce qui se joue au niveau du mouvement Wikimédia n'est pas simplement le développement d'une encyclopédie, mais aussi le maintient d'un esprit de partage libre décentralisée tel qu'il fut imaginé par les personnes qui ont créés Internet et l'espace Web. Je pense sincèrement que le développement du mouvement Wikimédia aura un impact direct sur le développement du Web et que l'on doit en ce sens veiller à ce que cela ne soit pas les grand acteurs commerciaux qui influence le mouvement mais bien l'inverse. Soutenir le développement des espaces de partages que sont les projets wiki, c'est soutenir l'espace numérique tel qu'il a été conçu au départ.

Reda Kerbouche (Reda Kerbouche)

In the near future I see wikis following the AR revolution, the users with minimal knowledge will give a good amount of content. The translation of content from all languages must be facilitated / semi-automated. like that we're going to have a solid platform with good content.

The Wikimedia Foundation has tremendous power to communicate and raise funds for our purposes. however all the funds must be really light for projects which can help the community, it is also necessary to find and contact all the interested parties of the community to work together.

The most important thing is that the Foundation makes sure that whatever support works well and upholds the vision of permanent growth.

Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (Rosiestep)

Expanding the knowledge base of the Wikimedia movement to include other wikis and other collaborative content management systems is vital in order to support our mission of providing access to the sum of all notable knowledge.

Within the Wikimedia movement, I was an early supporter of Wikispore, a proposal for a “new project to develop test wikis to fill out the rest of the reference shelf with new genres of free knowledge.”

Outside of the Wikimedia movement, many wikis and other models of collaborative content management exist and new ones will follow. How does the Wikimedia movement fit within the greater universe of wikis shaping the future of the internet? How do we ensure equity in decision-making as we develop priorities that guide our actions? Beyond a SWOT (strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats) analysis, how do we assure an understanding of complexities, conflicts, synergies, and more? Have we addressed modeling and risk? How often do we need to conduct research? Where is the roadmap and how easy is it for Wikimedians to understand it? These questions, issues, and more fall within the scope of Movement Strategy Initiatives #6 (Engagement of third party ecosystems), #29 (Enhance communication and collaboration capacity with partners and collaborators) and #30 (Technology Council), as well as Recommendation #10 (Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt).

If I am elected to the Board, I will support these Initiatives with open discussions focused on how wikis are shaping the future of the internet, including new wikis within the Wikimedia movement and those wikis associated with other organizations, particularly/initially GLAMs, academia, and publishing institutions. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel (Mike Peel)

We've been seeing an increasing trend *away* from wikis and onto platforms like Youtube. Smaller websites typically use Wordpress. Text collaborations use Google Docs. Yet outside of Wikimedia, you do still see wikis being used, e.g., behind-the-scenes in academic collaborations - but often not MediaWiki. Partly that's because MediaWiki is not easy to install, partly because it's also not easy to use - particularly in today's image/video-rich online environment (not even the WMF uses the Wikimedia projects to share videos!). I think we need to think about this challenge more, and figure out ways to improve MediaWiki: I would like to see more affiliates join in with the development work, as Wikimedia Deutschland has, and things like the Community Wishlist to expand their capacity much more and become more ambitious in their goals.

At the same time, though, Wikimedia content continues to shape the internet as it always has - by providing useful information in an easily accessible fashion. We're seeing a trend towards mobile usage, which means it's important to have more succinct pieces of information but backed up with more details, so article introduction sections and short articles on a wide range of subjects are becoming more important than ever. Wikidata is doing interesting things to make individual facts available. It would be nice if Commons was doing similar with individual images (which Structured Data on Commons will help with - but needs to go further)! Disinformation is also becoming increasingly common, sadly, and the Wikimedia projects can do more to tackle that. Content on other websites (newspapers, journals, etc.) is also becoming increasingly paywalled, which doesn't help, so it's ever more important to have info on the Wikimedia projects and to support open access in general. WMF can support individuals that are leading work in these areas (via grants/affiliate events), and also provide leadership itself with some of these activities (e.g., using the weight of the WMF name to support open access activities). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wight (Adamw)

At one time, wikis embodied the future and promise of the Internet. They were one of the earliest examples of crowdsourcing, and radically democratic.

Crowdsourcing has clearly been embraced by the mainstream. The radically democratic promise is not thriving on the Internet, however. Hidden and corporatist algorithms mediate our experience and cookie-cutter culture dominates content.

Our movement is already modeling how bots and AI can be governed by the people, algorithms are made transparent, discussed openly, and changes are agreed upon by consensus. These efforts should be publicized by the WMF, to make others aware of this potential path forward. We are also at the leading edge of multilingualism, but the WMF could devote software and grantmaking resources to local communities creating content in non-colonial languages. Our language engine (e.g. plurals, grammatical case) could be extracted into libraries that can be reused elsewhere.

I'm not so sure that our on-wiki governance is ideal. I see it as a bold and unique attempt at grassroots organization, but there seem to be flaws that make our structures something of a technocracy, and it has proven hard to integrate newcomers. The WMF could provide resources to support a community-driven investigation into how we might evolve our governance structures, I imagine a process somewhat like w:participatory democracy in which an on-wiki group can hire its own professionals to do research and give recommendations for improvement, and then hold a public discussion using the materials gained.

Playing with new technology can happen organically, once we have a more responsive way of distributing resources we can develop appropriate software extensions as they are demanded. I don't see technological change as the most important aspect of the future Internet.

Vinicius Siqueira (Vini 175)

The simple idea that we should build an internet for and from all, in which knowledge is freely and openly shared, is already shaping the future of the internet. Now, we need to proactively support the onboarding of communities that have not had the opportunity --normally because they are in contexts in which resources are scarcer-- to join the movement.

I am hopeful that the Wikimedia Foundation, through the Grants Strategy Relaunch 2020-2021, will be able to support more Global South communities and underrepresented communities in the Global North. --Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yao Eliane Dominique (Yasield)

A site of Wikipedia's notoriety is certainly not to be presented anymore, but there is still work to be done regarding the apprehension that people have of its neutrality as a free knowledge sharing encyclopedia. Like Wikipedia, which is still the 5th most visited website, Wiki projects are revolutionizing the Internet today. The question is how to maintain this influence, how to increase the notoriety of our projects? And for me, this question is already answered in part by the actions planned in the movement's strategy for 2030. By 2030, I see an uncontested Wikipedia, with Wiki information that is unanimously credible. This will depend on the organization of our legal entity that is the WMF. And it will depend on good decisions and good management of the communities and contributors that make up the movement.

Douglas Ian Scott (Discott)

I can see Wikis shaping the internet in two significant ways. The first way we are already familiar with it the provision of free knowledge to humanity through volunteer effort which as grown to become a huge public resource/good. It goes without saying that the WMF, and so the board, must support the community in growing existing Wiki projects (in multiple different languages) and creating new Wiki projects. This ranges from building new technologies that make editing and reading/accessing knowledge easier to supporting the growth of our communities. The WMF (and the board) pay for and guide the development of many of these technologies and provides resources to the community through affiliates. All whilst keeping in mind that the WMF exists to serve the free knowledge movement and therefore the volunteer community that makes that vision a reality.

The second is as an example of a space on the internet that has relatively less disinformation and toxicity than other parts of the internet. Over the past twenty or so years the internet as a whole has gradually drifted away from the vision early adopters had of a platform for social good and cohesion to become something that looks more like the opposite of that vision. Wikipedia and many of the other associated free knowledge Wiki projects have become one of the few places on where this vision of a pro-social public good internet based social project still exists. Key to this is maintaining and growing a welcoming community free of the toxicity and misinformation so prevent on social media. The WMF and the board is the most notable steward of this vision. Showing that this is still viable vision of the internet by leading by example.--Discott (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pascale Camus-Walter (Waltercolor)

Wikipedia is a strong project which made its way for two decades and gained a very special place on the Internet. What people catch from and bring into this project is completely different from the other interactions people have on the internet. Wikipedia is no more a vision, it is a well established reality. So I believe it is not necessary that the Foundation, which is younger than the Wikipedia project, takes the place of a mentor of Wikipedia.

I rather suggest that we make from this reality of the success of Wikipedia a vision for the future of the Foundation. This means, the vocation of the Foundation is perhaps somewhere else than just supporting existing wiki communities. It may be more : creating a completely new wiki project which could bring to free knowledge in the 2020’s as much as Wikipedia did in the years 2000. This new project could also bring a new impulse to parity and diversity that we failed to achieve in the Wikipedia project.

--Waltercolor (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Martínez (ProtoplasmaKid)

For me there is no possible future without a more diverse and inclusive internet. This includes the search for alliances with LGBTIQ+ communities, indigenous collectives and groups, groups organized outside of capacitism, among others. The future of the movement must include all people, not just those who have had the most privilege to be in it. It is essential that the Wikimedia Foundation redouble the investment of funds in critical regions such as Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

Victoria Doronina (Victoria)

Вики как технология уже формируют настоящее, заполняя пробелы, созданные ВП:ЧНЯВ. Например, wikiHow, согласно Wikipedia, «онлайн-сообщество в стиле вики, состоящее из обширной базы данных практических руководств».

Все мы знаем об «альтернативных Википедиях». Например, Conservapedia использует технологию Wiki, основанную на «консервативных принципах», что означает политическую предвзятость, искажающую общую картину. Есть и национальные вики-сайты того же направления, например, русский «Традиция».

К счастью, движение Викимедиа не имеет монополии на технологии. Вместо этого мы создали всемирное сообщество разных людей, которые стремятся создавать НТЗ, бесплатный контент. Относительно разнообразное сообщество и политика НТЗ - уникальные и ценные особенности в очень поляризованном мире.

Увеличение разнообразия за счет привлечения большего числа людей, поддержки сообществ Глобального Юга и небольших языковых сообществ Фонда гарантирует, что Интернет не распадется на полностью изолированные эхо-камеры.

We are all aware of “alternative Wkies”. For example, Conservapedia uses Wiki technology based on the “conservative principles,” meaning in-build political bias that distorts the broader picture. There’s also national Wikies of the same strand, for example, Russian “Tradition.”

The Wikimedia movement, thankfully, doesn’t have a monopoly on technology. Instead, we built a worldwide community of diverse people that strive to create NPOW, free content. The relatively diverse community and NPOW policy are unique and valuable features in a very polarised world.

Increasing the diversity by attracting more people, supporting the Global South communities and smaller language communities WMF will ensure that the Internet will not fracture into completely isolated echo chambers.--Victoria (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Losa (Laurentius)

The wikis are one of the few places on the internet where the community is in charge. They are based on principles like sharing our work with everyone in the world; being open to the contributions of everyone; a participatory governance structure. I think we can shape the future of the internet by setting an example; by being true to these principles.

Raavi Mohanty (Raavimohantydelhi)

The next level of interactive technology is already in vogue.  Both Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Reality are widely used. It's time that Wikimedia assimilates these. For example, Google Arts is using AR very effectively enabling users to collaborate AI & AR. This can be used by people who are not literate or don't have proficiency in the English language. Gifs, illustrations, and simple animations can make learning easier for children. AI at the same time can help researchers more effectively club similar topics together, this would also cover concepts for school children (where students can cover easy, intermediate, and difficult levels more effectively). 

Future technology AI and NLP should be implemented more widely to support all communities in their respective regional languages across the globe. A high-end technical team is required to monitor, analyze, and develop a more effective system for gratifying users' reach easily in all Wiki projects.    Raavi Mohanty  [[Raavimohantydelhi (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)]][reply]

Ashwin Baindur (AshLin)

Citizen-participation projects like the Wikimedia projects are a novel innovation of our times. What was derided as an unrealistic idea in early 2000s made itself a huge success, thanks to the millions of people around the world who shared their time, effort, and work for the greater good, as enshrined in the words of Jimmy Wales, “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.”

In addition building an encyclopedia in their language, for many languages and communities, Wikimedia projects are also the living archives regarding their language, culture and social measures. How our projects welcome and work with them will shape the future of their internet.

People are willing and eager to participate in citizen participation efforts from the sentiment that they are doing something worthwhile for humanity. Whether it is proof-editing (Distributed Proofreaders), or classifying galaxies (Galaxy Zoo - Zooniverse), or collecting biodiversity-related information (eBird). This is bound to expand in the future to new forms of cooperation, new technologies, new kinds of activity, and new ways of rewarding contributors.

What is important as we go on are what are the rights of contributors? What facilities, what information, what kinds of protection should they be provided? What are the means of encouragement, reward, ensuring safe and open spaces, what code of conduct should be enforced and how.

It is here that Wikimedia’s significance comes through because the stance and positions Wikimedia takes in the future, the actions it does for the people who are stakeholders in the times to come, that will serve as a model for the citizen projects of the future. As of now, quite frankly, there is more lip service than action in this regard. All the intellectual property on the Wikimedia projects are created by unpaid volunteer editors. However, the rights and privileges of the editor are sorely lacking. For example, if an editor were to be legally prosecuted by his country’s laws for his contributions, the Foundation provides no legal support as a matter of right. That is, as of now, the WMF is happy to benefit from that person’s labour, but does not recognise any right of that editor to support from them in this regard. That has to change.

The future of internet is not a monochromatic image of networks and high speed downloads. The future of internet for Dagbani will be very different from the idea of future of internet for Tulu, as it would be different for the future for Germany. Hence reflection around understanding the 'future' will be necessary, and will require engagement between WMF and Communities to create a common vision to ensure that the future is good.

We need to as a community of citizen-participation need to think and debate on these issues, because the world is becoming more complex as time passes, and the Wikimedia movement’s policies and practices will be used as a reference point or benchmark in the future. From my side, if elected to the Board of Trustees, I promise to push for this dialogue and to progress this as much as possible.

Pavan Santhosh Surampudi (Pavan santhosh.s)

Currently, Knowledge creation, curation, and dissemination are changing the course of the world. Of course, Wikimedia projects are supporting this change already. (For a small example, the Grammarly app that I am using right now to correct my spellings is giving me definitions from Wikipedia and Wiktionary) Having said that there is a lot to do in two directions - expanding our impact to newer avenues, taking our current project's impact to next level.

  • Embracing emerging and existing technologies would help us to open up new possibilities. Several languages do not even have basic Computer-assisted reviewing tools like spell-checkers, Grammar checkers, etc., This might sound like "Not-our-work-to-do". But, existing machine translation plus Computer-assisted reviewing can reduce the human effort to a great extent in translating articles from En-wiki to a Language Wikipedia where active users are very low. There are many such improvements which can be possible if we invest in the right technologies. Although Wikimedia foundation or communities might not be able to do many of these things on their own, we can and should think with other stakeholders and contribute our part to make this happen.
  • Expanding our impact is also important along with improving our existing projects. Several languages and communities in under-developed and neglected areas exist all around the world. Supporting the growth of Wikimedia communities and projects in those languages can make a great change for those communities.

Ravishankar Ayyakkannu (Ravidreams)

Instead of ambitiously wishing that Wikimedia projects and our communities would shape the future of the internet, I am concerned that we may slip out of that future and lose even our current position. The web and the internet are evolving rapidly. We are frozen in the text while the future is moving towards videos, Artificial Intelligence, and real-time experiences. We need to heavily invest in our movement strategy priority of innovating in free knowledge. We should also have an open mind to port our existing content and move to different platforms and collaboration models instead of being tied to the MediaWiki platform forever.

Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak)

Collaborative online platforms are a vital component of the Internet. Wikis are only one of the tools available for online collaboration. While I believe wikis to be the best model, the Wikimedia Foundation should assert that by continuing to work on the usability of MediaWiki and expand its offerings of wikis. Wikipedia is by far the largest end-user facing wiki (with WikiData and Commons being more behind the scenes). The continued success of these projects will ensure that wikis will shape the future of the Internet. --Fjmustak (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]