Uchaguzi wa Shirika la wikimedia/Uchaguzi wa Baraza/2013/Maswali/1
Translate this page with Google into: Afrikaans (af) · azərbaycanca (az) · Bahasa Indonesia (id) · Bahasa Melayu (ms) · Jawa (jv) · bosanski (bs) · català (ca) · Cebuano (ceb) · čeština (cs) · Cymraeg (cy) · dansk (da) · Deutsch (de) · eesti (et) · English (en) · español (es) · Esperanto (eo) · euskara (eu) · français (fr) · Gaeilge (ga) · galego (gl) · Hausa (ha) · Hmoob (hmn) · hrvatski (hr) · Igbo (ig) · isiZulu (zu) · íslenska (is) · italiano (it) · Kiswahili (sw) · Kreyòl ayisyen (ht) · Latina (la) · latviešu (lv) · lietuvių (lt) · Māori (mi) · magyar (hu) · Malti (mt) · Nederlands (nl) · norsk (no) · polski (pl) · português (pt) · română (ro) · shqip (sq) · slovenčina (sk) · slovenščina (sl) · Soomaaliga (so) · suomi (fi) · svenska (sv) · Türkçe (tr) · Tagalog (tl) · Tiếng Việt (vi) · Yorùbá (yo) · Ελληνικά (el) · беларуская (be) · български (bg) · македонски (mk) · монгол (mn) · русский (ru) · српски / srpski (sr) · українська (uk) · հայերեն (hy) · ქართული (ka) · नेपाली (ne) · मराठी (mr) · हिन्दी (hi) · বাংলা (bn) · ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (pa) · ગુજરાતી (gu) · தமிழ் (ta) · తెలుగు (te) · ಕನ್ನಡ (kn) · ไทย (th) · ລາວ (lo) · ភាសាខ្មែរ (km) · 한국어 (ko) · 日本語 (ja) · 中文（简体） (zh-hans) · 中文（繁體） (zh-hant) · ייִדיש (yi) · עברית (he) · اردو (ur) · العربية (ar) · فارسی (fa)
Mradi dada wa Wikipedia
Ni nini maono ya wagombea katika kukuza miradi dada? Mimi ninafanya kazi na Wikiversity ya Uholanzi na wakati mwingine mimi kidogo huwa na wivu wa wikipedia kwa kile inachopata. Kwa maoni yangu Wikimedia ya(Uholanzi) inaweza / lazima kuwa na nguvu zaidi katika miradi ya kisu dada. Nitashangaa kama wagombea hawatana changamoto hii na ningependa kusikia kuhusu mawazo yao namna ambavyo miradi Dada itakavyokuwa katika uangalizi. Timboliu ( majadiliano) 05:51, Aprili 29, 2013 (UTC)
Uwezo wa miradi ya Wikimedia chochote zaidi ya Wikipedia na huru ni mbali na Kugundua. Nadhani kwamba miradi kama vile Wiktionary, Wikibooks Wikipedia, na Wikiversity ina uwezo kwa wasiwasi mkubwa wa kimataifa (kumbuka kwamba sitarajii miradi hii ya kiufundi kama MediaWiki na Wiki data ni kwa sababu yao na hata kimaelezo kunautofauti, na Wikivoyage, ambayo sana ni kwa vijana kama ile mradi wa Wikimedia).
Siaweza kufikiria kwamba Wikidata inaweza kubadilika kilugha na kujenga dunia ya mtandao wa picha bure vyuo vikuu ya lugha ya dunia, Wikihabari inaweza kuwa muhimu zaidi na chanzo cha habari katika dunia ya Wikiversity na kwamba inaweza kuwa kweli. (Moja ya ndoto zangu ni kuchukua kubwa zaidi iliyokuwa haitumiki katika serikali na kufanya hivyo ulimwengu kwa uhalisi wa Wikiversity.)
Kuchaguliwa au sio, mimi nadhani kwamba WMF lazima iwe na ujasiri wa kuchunguza uwezekano wa miradi mingine ambayo ni uwezo wa kujenga. Hiyo ina maana kwamba ni lazima kazi juu ya masuala ya mtandao na programu, lakini si kwa kuwa aibu na kuchukua hatua halisi ya dunia kama Wikimedia jamii na upatikanaji wa bure kwa maarifa ingekuwa faida kutoka humo.
Nadhani kuna mambo matatu ya misaada kwa kuzingatia:
- Anza (na mwisho) wa miradi mipya: Mimi ninatoa rai sana kwamba miradi yote ya Wikidata na Wikivoyage na kuanza miradi ya mwezi mwaka jana, na kuishia miaka ya muda mrefu ya mtego wetu juu ya kuanza miradi mipya. Hata hivyo, sisi bado wanakosa mchakato wa wazi na madhubuti na vigezo awali - na kufunga - mpya miradi. Kuna sababu nyingi kuanza au kumaliza mradi unaweza wanataka kupanua katika eneo mpya ya elimu ya bure, au mradi inaweza kuwa bora kuwa mwenyeji wa kujitegemea au na shirika jingine, au jamii inaweza kuamua mradi tu si mafanikio. Kufanya mchakato wa nguvu kwa sababu ni kitu ambacho Baraza linaweza kufanya kwa msaada wa Jamii ya meta.
- Msaada wa makala Mpya: Miradi dada yote inahitaji huduma, na kugawana thamani ya upanuzi na ubunifu ambayo umekuwa na maendeleo hivi karibuni. Umuhimu wa uhandisi, viongozi wa kila lugha Wikipedia au miradi dada anahitaji kuwa na eneo la kati ambapo wanaweza kupata makala mpya (kama maoni ya makala, au mabadiliko inasubiri) kwamba Kama wao kuomba inaweza kufanywa kwa mradi. Kwa ajili ya makala desturi, sisi pia kuwa bomba katika upande mwingine, ambapo miradi wanaweza kufanya mahitaji yao inajulikana na maombi. Maombi hayo kwa sasa ni kutumwa na Bugzilla, lakini sijui ya mahali ambapo maombi baina ya mradi inaweza kujadiliwa na kupewa kipaumbele na jamii ya mashirika yasiyo ya developer. Kwa mfano, ni ya kuvutia kutambua kwamba kuna mambo mawili kumbukumbu Wikimania mwaka huu juu ya Wikiversity, wote wawili kusema ya makala muhimu, kuwe na nafasi nzuri kati ya kuwasiliana mawazo haya. Mchakato huu lazima mkono na WMF uhandisi, pamoja na kujaza maombi hayo si kitu mtu anaweza WMF, kwa kutumia watu wa kujitolea na kuungwa mkono na sehemu ya jamii ya waendelezaji pia inahitajika.
- Uelewa na matangazo: miradi yetu midogo pia inakabiliwa na ukosefu wa utambuzi wa umma na ufahamu msaada. Tena, hii ni kitu nadhani kwamba ni walau inafaa kwa jamii kubwa ya kujitolea sura, na mashirika ya ufadhili wa kufanya kazi kwa msaada wa ruzuku, ni si kitu ambacho WMF unaweza au wanapaswa kufanya peke yake.
- Kutoa ushauri juu ya jinsi ya kujenga miradi yote
- Kushawishi wadau kujua umuhimu wa miradi hii
- Kutoa mafunzo juu ya aina ya miradi na kuwezesha ukuaji
Binadamu wengi maarifa ni maalumu: si kwa sasa kufunikwa na Wikipedia, na ilichukuliwa na interface tofauti na data mfano. Tunahitaji kusaidia miradi dada, au kuruhusu ni pamoja na portaler maalumu katika Wikipedia. (Kwa mfano wa mwisho, kumbuka jinsi Ujerumani Wikipedia ina jumuishi data moja kwa moja katika aina WP badala ya kuchangia Wikipedia)
Kama jamii, sisi tunapaswa kukaribisha aina mpya ya weledi, na ni lazima kuwasaidia kupata nafasi katika wasimamizi wetu wa miradi: mradi mpya dada, au kwamba wachapishaji na nyumba zao wenyewe na viwango vya ndani mradi zilizopo.Kama Shirika, WMF itahimiza mawazo ya ubunifu kuhusu kufanya mpya aina ya maarifa bure. Na kwa ajili ya miradi dada sisi Wamepitisha, sisi shoulds kusaidia kawaida kipengele na maendeleo ya dhana, kusaidia na kushiriki curate Hiyo maarifa. [Kama Wale makala kuendelea kutumika katika mradi tofauti dada, au kupata amefungwa ndani ya Wikipedia au nyingine pamoja mradi, ni jambo tofauti.]
Kwa uzoefu mdogo wangu mwenyewe pamoja na kufanya miradi mingine, mimi najaribu kwa kiasi gani kuingiliana kati ya wakazi wa mchapishaji. Miradi ya kukuza nyingine inaweza uwezekano kuwa alifanya kutoka zaidi-up, kama unataka, lakini mimi daima waliona kwamba kukuza bora ni upande, na wachapishaji kazi wachapishaji kuwaambukiza jamii katika mwingine kama wewe kusamehe mfano - na si kitu ambacho inaweza kubeba. Kama mimi kujifunza zaidi kuhusu shirika, mimi ajabu nini kifanyike ili kupunguza pengo kati ya Shirika na wachapishaji katika mwili miradi yetu yote. Kama, kwa mfano, Shirika (mimi kutumia muda mwingi na bila kufafanua na kulingania) ulikuwa na wazo nzuri ya nini wahubiri wamekuwa na kazi katika mradi huo, na "kazi" Nina maana kwamba watendaji wa kuu, hawakuweza kuwafikia kirahisi wachapishaji hawa kukuza ushirikiano upande. Kwa mfano, kama udhaifu ni kutambuliwa katika huru, itakuwa muhimu sana kama neno anapata nje kwa ajili ya wataalamu wa lugha hai juu ya Wikipedias, baadhi ya ambayo inaweza kamwe kusikia ya iliyo huru. Kama sidenote, Mimi hivi karibuni kujifunza darasa la lugha ya ngazi ya juu na kukuta kuwa huru ni nzuri kabisa, bora kuliko mimi ilivyotarajiwa, hivyo sasa mimi ni kushikamana na wanafunzi wote. Matangazo bora ni neno la mdomo.Nadhani jukumu hapa kwa sura na thorgs (mashirika ya ufadhili) kama vile mfereji katika pande mbili - na kutoka Shirika na kutoka kwa wachapishaji. Nadhani ni hizi ngazi ya kati mbelewele mafanikio zaidi ya kuchukua mahali, tangu kwamba ni mahali ambapo sisi ni zaidi uwezekano wa kupata wahariri uzoefu ambao kujua zaidi ya mradi mmoja, na hii ni maswali (juu ya masuala ya kiufundi na mahitaji, kwa mfano) wanaweza kukutana majibu, au maswali yanaweza makali na kisha kupelekwa kwa Foundation. Hivyo tena, na uhusiano wa karibu (r) kati ya Shirika na wachapishaji hutoa nafasi nzuri ya mafanikio.
Maoni yangu ya mhariri mpango wa ushiriki ni kwamba ni lazima kwa kiasi kikubwa kuwa uratibu na mhariri zilizopo mabwawa ya kujenga mazingira ya kukaribisha kwa watumiaji mpya. Dada miradi ni muafaka matunda, na stramare jamii wanahitaji kwa mhariri mpya na sheria mara nyingi chini pamoja na elimu (moja ya vipengele ngumu ya Kiingereza Wikipedia ni mfululizo wake wa sera).
hakuna kipengele kingine umakini unahitaji tahadhari ni rasilimali msaada wa kiufundi ni kujitoa kwa maendeleo muhimu Wikipedia na huru, dada miradi kushoto kidogo nje katika baridi. Hii ni asili ya kutosha, Wikipedia ni mradi mkubwa na kunyoosha muda mrefu. Lakini nadhani itakuwa ni sahihi kwa ajili ya Shirika kuzingatia angalau baadhi ya juhudi katika kuboresha miradi dada. Vinginevyo, sisi kuona mduara wa Wiki maalumu inajitahidi kuvutia tahariri kutokana na ukosefu wa zana.Wikidata inakusudia kwa hatua ya kwanza, na ningependa kuona zaidi timu ya kimataifa kufanya kazi juu ya makala mpya na zana kwa ajili ya miradi ya dada.
</ Br>Kwa ajili yangu, miradi midogo na uwezo mkubwa. Na kwa Maegemeo mapya mifano, nadhani suluhisho liko na wanajamii wenyewe kuwawezesha kuangalia kwa ufumbuzi wa ndani. Sidhani WMF ina ufumbuzi kamili, hivyo inaweza kutoa msaada, nadhani suluhisho liko katika wanachama wa jumuiya.
Hivi karibuni kumekuwa na maendeleo ya kuvutia na kuhamasisha kwa suala. Timu ya ruzuku na dhamira ya mtu binafsi ambayo mimi ni sehemu unaofadhiliwa mawazo ni kujitoa kwa miradi non-WP/Commons (ikiwa ni pamoja na " Kuendeleza maono ya kimkakati Wikipedia" ). Wakati tulipoanzisha mipango ya kimkakati ya mchakato, napenda kwa ajili yetu ili kuweka miradi mbalimbali "juu ya meza" na kwa ajili ya kila mtu kuwa na nafasi ya kutambuliwa katika gloals ngazi ya pili. Hii basi inawapa haki na haki ya kupokea makini hasa kwa kufikia malengo haya.
If you care about sister projects, please vote for community members who have actively contributed to sister projects. Too often candidates say they support the sister projects, but don't do anything to support sister projects once elected.
I would like the sister projects to be included in all levels of WMF reporting (monthly, quarterly and annual), and strategies developed for how sister projects can be used to assist the WMF reach their strategic goals of increasing participation and quality.
Software engineering resources should be dedicated to improving the sister projects, including Product Manager roles.Mobile apps for each of the sister projects should be established and/or existing volunteer created apps should be reviewed and funded.
Kuhusiana na maeneleo ya Wikimedia
Hello. Kwa sasa, bajeti ni kujitoa kwa maendeleo ya MediaWiki, kuongeza makala mpya na kuboresha zilizopo. Ambayo nafasi unapendelea bajeti hii ni alitumia? Kwa mfano, baadhi ya makundi ya haja ya zana, uboreshaji kama vile mawakili ambao ni wakati mwingine wamesahau na bodi, lakini jukumu muhimu katika uratibu kati ya miradi. Ni nini maoni yako kuhusu hilo? Asante. - Quentinv57 (majadiliano) </ sup> </ dogo> 06:40, 5 Mei 2013 (UTC)
Kwanza, ninasema kwamba ninatambulisha katika mgao wa fedha kwa ajili ya maendeleo MediaWiki Kwa upande mwingine, kama atachaguliwa, kuna uwezekano ikawa ni kazi yangu ya kusimamia WMF,masuala ya kiufundi kama miundombinu ya kitekinolojia na mpango, wa maendeleo na taaluma yangu. Hivyo nitasema kitu cha heshima hapa :)
Mimi ni wakili na - ingawa mimi si mmoja wa wale ambao ni wanashiriki kikamilifu katika vita dhidi ya Spam - Najisikia vizuri jinsi ya muhimu ni kwamba suala hilo. Nadhani, pia, kwamba sisi wanahitaji makala mpya programu katika MediaWiki kuwa ya kuvutia kwa vizazi vipya.
Kutoka mazungumzo ya uhaba mkubwa na watu mbalimbali kutoka miaka michache iliyopita WMF, najua fedha kwamba si suala muhimu zaidi katika uhusiano na maendeleo mbalimbali (sio tu programu-kuhusiana) mipango. Muhimu zaidi, ni juu ya uwezo wa shirika.
Kwa sababu hiyo, Wiki data ni muhimu kama jinsi masuala haya yanaweza kushughulikiwa: Sura tayari kutoa msaada wa vifaa kwa ajili ya mipango mbalimbali ya programu lazima kuchukua hatua. Na si nzuri tu kutokana na mtazamo WMF, lakini kutokana na mtazamo wa afya harakati: tuna (ni lazima, si tu wazo nzuri!) Ili kujenga tofauti na failsafe mtandao harakati. Alisema hivyo, ni muhimu kuamua kama ni bora ya maendeleo WMF waliokabidhiwa wakili-kuhusiana na programu na ni nzuri kabisa kuondoka kwa sura ya nia.Kwa ujumla, nadhani WMF na jamii inapaswa kuwa na njia za wazi kujadili mahitaji ya programu, ikiwa ni pamoja na sehemu muhimu zaidi ya hiyo. Inaweza kuwa ni wazo nzuri ya kuanzisha kamati ya kuchukua sehemu nyingine ya defunct Maalum Kamati ya mradi, kuhusiana na programu ya maendeleo. Kama sisi kwenda hatua ya chini, nadhani ni nzuri ya kufungua mjadala juu ya kuundwa kwa shirika hilo na / au mbinu kwa ajili ya mawasiliano kati ya WMF na jamii.
- Mawakili ni muhimu sana kwamba mpya ya maendeleo ya Wikimedia na miradi yake, kwa maoni yangu, njia ya haki hapa ni kuhakikisha upatikanaji wa mawakili mpya na wazee wote ni tooled
- Kitu muhimu zaidi ni kujenga tabia ya kutembelea jumuiya Wikimedia kuondokana na matokeo ya sekta hii kukua
Tunaweza kugawa baadhi ya maamuzi kuhusu "ambapo mapenzi ya fedha kwa ajili ya makala kwa kuwa alitumia" kwa jamii sisi msaada, na kuwapa kila moja bajeti ndogo. Swali la jinsi sisi kushirikiana katika vipaumbele na malengo ni kitu ambacho Bodi inapaswa kufikiria. Hii itakuwa kuboresha uwazi kuhusu jinsi ya kutoa maamuzi, na kutoa kila jamii ili kufikia makubaliano ya ndani juu ya nini wanahitaji zaidi.Tunaweza pia kufikiria njia mpya kusaidia makala ndogo ya maendeleo kwa jamii msingi: bodi fadhila kwa ajili ya matatizo ya wazi, mpango mpya wa ruzuku kwa ajili ya miradi ya teknolojia, au kikundi cha generalists kwamba kazi tu juu ya mambo kama hayo.
Kwa kuwa, nini imekuwa fun ni kiasi gani upinzani kuna mabadiliko mpaka sisi tuanze kutumika kwayo. Mfumo wa taarifa mpya, kwa mfano, ilitangazwa kwa Wikipedia ya Kiingereza, lakini wachache sana walikuwa na ufahamu wa hivyo (suala la kutafuta maduka bora kwa ujumbe vile), na haraka kuwa mengi kukosolewa. Mimi pia miss ya zamani machungwa bar ambapo snap imesababisha diffs wote. Nadhani tutaweza kupata kutumika yake haraka sana. Wiki moja na Upendo, kuchukuliwa kijinga na wengi wa wahariri wakubwa, lakini ambayo inaonekana wanaonekana kuwa maarufu kutosha. Katika kesi zote, ilionekana kwangu kuwa msingi wangefanya kazi nzuri ya kutangaza mabadiliko haya na kuuliza kwa ajili ya pembejeo, mimi nina uhakika kwamba tu wanaweza daima kufikia kundi kutosha mpana wa wahariri. Na wahariri (mwenyewe pamoja) wanadhani kwamba Foundation wanapaswa kutuma kila mhariri barua iliyoandikwa kwa mkono. Kwa maneno mengine, ni kidogo ya pengo kati ya jamii na ya msingi, na nadhani ni behooves Foundation kujaribu kuboresha. Hivi karibuni, nimeona hatua zaidi vile kwenye Wikipedia na imekuwa ni nzuri kuona. Kama mimi, sina mapendekezo mengi kipaji katika wakati huu wa jinsi ya kuboresha mawasiliano, lakini iwapo atachaguliwa, moja ya mambo nataka kufanya kipaumbele kwa mwenyewe.
- Kamati ya kiufundi, ambayo ni sawa na mbalimbali zilizopo wetu mpana wa kamati, ambayo kusaidia gari teknolojia ya mkakati kwa ajili ya harakati. Inaweza kuwa rahisi kama inayofuatilia, au kuwa na zaidi ya moja kwa moja udhibiti katika kuamua kazi bajeti /.
- Zaidi ya kazi ya kujenga uhusiano kati ya Timu ya Maendeleo ya Jamii. Baadhi ya mambo ya baridi tunaweza kufanya ni:
- Kutafuta njia kwa ajili ya timu ya kiufundi kwa kufanya kazi zao zaidi ya umma, hasa spec na hatua ya iteration, ambapo wajumbe wa kikundi inaweza kuwa aliingia katika mchakato wa majadiliano.
- Kuleta maendeleo / maoni kutoka wiki mradi (labda meta)
- Kuhimiza kujitolea timu ya kujenga zana huduma, na Plugins - pamoja na mradi wa msaada kutoka katika Shirika
The WMF initiative to merge all user accounts will save stewards a lot of time if it is implemented well, or cause the stewards enormous headaches if it the implementation is botched. I pray that it goes well.
After the 'big user account merge' happens, I believe the WMF should start working on allowing Wikimedia accounts to be created more quickly using OpenID (and other similar systems) and allow Wikimedia accounts to be publicly linked to those identity management systems, thereby allowing people to have their Wiki identity linked to their other identities (facebook, twitter, etc).Longer term, I believe Semantic MediaWiki and Distributed MediaWiki are going to be necessary, and WMF should play a part in ensuring they are production ready.
Hivi sasa, hakuna kazi pamoja na kuongeza idadi ya vifaa upya ili kuwa na ubora wa juu au juu sana kwa asilimia 25, kulingana na 2015 mpango mkakati. Katika dawa mradi ni moja ya malengo yetu muhimu kimkakati kwa kuwaajiri vyama vya kitaalamu na kitaaluma na wataalamu wa somo binafsi jambo kusaidia katika kupitia upya na kujenga maudhui yetu ya matibabu, na sisi ingekuwa kweli kufahamu kuwa na mtu juu ya wafanyakazi ambao kuelewa na pengine kutusaidia kufikia, si malengo yetu ya pamoja ya kimkakati kuboresha ubora wa makala yetu, picha, ufafanuzi, nk Unaweza kuamini kwamba Foundation lazima kujitolea rasilimali ya kuboresha ubora wa bidhaa zetu? - Anthonyhcole ( majadiliano) 06:52 11 Mei 2013 (UTC)
Nadhani kwamba Wikimedia haiwezi kuchunguza uwezekano wa ushirikiano utaratibu na asasi za kisayansi. Kuna aina mbalimbali ya asasi za kisayansi na idadi yao ni wazi "upande wetu", kufahamu kikamilifu maudhui bure. Hivyo, kama mawasiliano na taasisi zaidi ya jadi ya kisayansi inaweza kuwa chungu, tunaweza kufanya ushirikiano manufaa kwa wale ambao wana uelewa mzuri wa mwenendo wa kisasa.
Sehemu kubwa ya mipango ya kimkakati imekosekana. Nadhani wazo la SP ni kujenga mfumo wa wengi kwa ujumla, lakini viumbe ushirikiano wa mpango wa kimkakati bila viumbe ushirikiano wa mipango ya kazi (ambapo inawezekana, na katika kesi hii inawezekana) - si kuwa na mengi ya akili. Deadend ya sehemu hii ya SP ni ukosefu wa wahariri kuhusika katika uumbaji wa mpango wa biashara (kama kulikuwa na mpango wa kazi kwa ajili ya sehemu hii wakati wote).Kwa maneno mengine, kama hatua ya kwanza, nadhani WMF lazima kuanzisha mjadala kuhusu mahitaji ya miradi, kama yako ni. Mimi nadhani kwamba bila kusababisha nafasi ya kudumu ya wafanyakazi, ambayo bother ushirikiano kati ya wahariri na asasi za kisayansi. Lakini nadhani chaguo bora zaidi (ambayo ni pamoja na kutaja) lilipatikana katika majadiliano ya wazi kati ya WMF na wahariri husika.
Swali lako, jibu fupi ni nadhani jukumu WMF iwe ya kuunga mkono wale kujenga ubora maudhui. Ina maana mambo mengi wa utafiti katika mikubwa ya tathmini ya bidhaa, kujenga zana kwa ajili ya wahariri mpya na uzoefu na watu binafsi msaada na juu ya ardhi-timu Mradi Wiki Kwa wanaohitaji michango na vifaa vya kufanya kuwafikia. WMF kufanya mambo haya sasa, ingawa kuna chumba kwa ajili ya mjadala kuhusu, kusema, jukumu la mradi wa mafunzo, au jinsi ya kufanya kazi na Umoja, au kiasi gani kujishughulisha na utafiti. Na napenda kuwa na hamu sana katika mawazo yako mradi kuhusu njia inaweza kusaidia zaidi ya wafanyakazi, Mradi Wiki Kwa kufanya kazi ya ajabu.
Swali lako kubwa ingawa, nadhani mkono WMF vipaumbele haraka uwezeshaji na miundombinu ya kiteknolojia imechukua nafasi juu ya kipaumbele kiwango, mapenzi kwa muda labda kutokana na kudhani kuwa mhariri jengo msingi na miradi ya miundombinu (kama amefanya hivyo mbali) inaongoza kwa maudhui ya shaba. Hii pengine ni busara kudhani, lakini pia nadhani ni muhimu kwamba sisi kuweka wimbo wa tano vipaumbele wote kimkakati. Kabla ya kuuliza WMF kujishughulisha rasilimali za kutosha kwa miradi mpya, kama meneja napenda tathmini ya uwezo wetu wa sasa na ambapo sisi ni pamoja na kuajiri mhariri, lakini mwaka huu kama sisi kuangalia kuelekea mzunguko wa mwezi mipango ya kimkakati ni wakati muafaka wa kupima wote wawili ambapo sisi wote ni vipaumbele kwa kujitolea muda kubwa kufikiria juu ya jinsi ya kusaidia kila kipaumbele katika siku zijazo. Na, kama meneja, napenda kuuliza kwa ajili ya tathmini ya mara kwa mara wa utendaji wetu dhidi ya vipaumbele wote.
- Wikimedia kama mhimili Wikipedia na miradi mingine tu kuandaa taasisi mbalimbali za kielimu,
- Kila mtu ana wajibu wa kuhakikisha kuwa dunia lina ujuzi mtaalamu kwa njia ya kielimu,
- Kila idara ya kwamba zitapatikana atakuja na kupanga mkakati wa kusaidia jamii,
- Je, si kuchukua Wikipedia editing sekta ni kukua kwa kasi hivyo ni muhimu kwamba sisi kujiandaa na kufanya utaratibu wa kudumu kwa kuwa na chombo cha kusaidia kizazi hadi kizazi,
- Zaidi muhimu kuvutia wataalamu katika jamii ya matibabu ya kuwa sehemu ya Wikimedia,
- Ni lazima kuamua sasa kutumia masomo zilizopo ili kufikia MDGs,
- Support mbalimbali watafiti washiriki kufikia malengo yote haya sisi kutarajia,
- Support utafiti na wanasayansi katika maeneo mapya ambayo itasaidia kupanua jamii Wikimedia.
WMF lazima pia kusaidia maendeleo ya zana kusaidia examiners kazi kwa ufanisi zaidi.
Hii ni pamoja na uratibu wa utambulisho wa viwango vya ubora, ambapo zipo, kuwatia moyo wakati wao hawana, na ikiwa ni pamoja nao katika kadi ya ripoti yetu ya ndani na utafiti. Baadhi ya miradi kina mradi wa ubora (km Wikipedia: Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment), ambayo inastahili utangazaji katika jamii zetu.
Kuwafikia, kimataifa, ni bora kufanyika kwa watu juu ya ardhi - ambayo ina maana ya washirika. Ningependa kuona lengo mfuko juu ya kutoa msaada (fedha, bila shaka, lakini pia vifaa na kitaaluma) kwa ajili ya uchangishaji na kufanya kazi katika Orgs Affiliate maendeleo. Hatimaye, haya ni mifano lazima binafsi motisha, na mfumo wa kimataifa ilikubali kuwafikia.
Tunahitaji mema machache viashiria vya utendaji (KPI) muhimu kwa maudhui, ni lengo letu muhimu zaidi, na mimi kuhisi ya kwamba sisi si kuwapa kipaumbele. Mara nyingi watu wanasema "Wikipedia ni kazi katika maendeleo," na inanihuzunisha kwamba njia wanasema maana maana yake ni kwamba wengi wa Wikipedia ni duni na kwamba ni sawa. Pamoja na miradi Milhist na kuwa na mafanikio makubwa katika maandalizi ya wahariri na kuwafanya kuzingatia majukumu ya uboreshaji - lakini hii ni sehemu ndogo tu ya somo juu ya Wikipedia. Sisi ni wenye nguvu katika maeneo haya, lakini dhaifu kwa wengine wengi wengi.
Ni lazima kutafuta njia za kufikia molekuli muhimu ya wahariri nia zinahitajika kwa ajili ya aina hii ya vikundi na kufanyika katika maeneo mengine. Maudhui mema linatokana na jamii, na tunahitaji msaada huu mwili katika kila njia imaginable. Gani ambazo zinahitaji wafanyakazi wa kujitolea? Si wafanyakazi wa kushiriki katika michakato ya jamii / hiari (kwamba itakuwa jambo baya, kwa maoni yangu, kwamba kazi ya akaanguka wafanyakazi kama wangeweza basi kutegemewa sana - kufanya mfumo wa serikali kuu dhaifu). Lakini, ndiyo, tunahitaji wafanyakazi wa kuendeleza mipango ya kuwafikia kwa liase moja kwa moja na washirika na bootstrap vikundi vipya ndani ya harakati.
Wa matokeo ya kila kupanga mikakati hii ni nini mimi imechanganyikiwa. Si kwamba ni wazo mbaya - bila shaka "bora zaidi maudhui" ni jambo zuri - lakini kwa sababu ni bila kufafanua inavyoelezwa na kwa sababu hatua kutambuliwa kufanikisha hili (/ Wikimedia_Harakati_Mkakati_Mipango_Majumuisho / Imarisha_Kiwango waliotajwa hapa) hawaonekani zimefuatwa. Karibuni "lengo" ya WMF kumechochea hii. Tangu maeneo ya ulimwengu kwa Wikimedia ambayo mimi wengi wanaohusika na (kuwafikia elimu, glam ushirikiano) kimsingi ni juu ya kuboresha ubora, mimi kufikiria suala hili moja kwa moja. Nimekuwa kufikiria jinsi gani tunaweza kuongeza ubora na ushiriki wa wataalam katika njia ambayo wao ni starehe na kwa muda mrefu (mfano [post http://wittylama.com/2009/09/12/wikipedia-journal/ hii kwangu] kutoka 2009 kupendekeza ufumbuzi iwezekanavyo.
[p.s. I've modified my original answer in response to a clarification of the question left by its author (Anthonyhcole) on my talkpage]
In answer to your specific question - I think that the WMF does have a role to play in helping improve the quality of content, but not directly... I think that thematic coordination (e.g. Wikiproject Military History or Wikiproject Molecular Biology) is the perfectly placed vehicle for supporting quality content and therefore I believe that the WMF should investigate how to support the capacity development and stability of these organisations. The advent of "thematic groups" as a mode of formal affiliation with the Wikimedia movement is an interesting and welcome step - and I suspect that it is through this model quality can be best targeted. In terms of facilitating direct access between world experts and key Wikimedians I believe the "Wikipedian in Residence" model that I pioneered is also particularly useful. It would be very interesting to see the WMF help develop a system whereby a Wikiproject/thematic group could commission a quality audit from experts, or gain accreditation from recognised authorities for particular content at a certain time. Imagine if we could have the technical and procedural systems in place to be able to say that (for example) a particular revision number of a Feature Topic on "Malaria" was formally "approved" by the World Health Organisation. That would be very powerful.
Foundation's long-term vision
What major issue(s) do you think the Foundation should focus on over the next 10 years? 22.214.171.124 04:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Over the next ten years, I think the biggest challenges for the WMF, and the areas it should focus on, will be:
- encouraging community leadership: both on the projects and within our many organizations (including the WMF). We must get better at providing clear paths to leadership, opening up governance, and encouraging and recognizing new leaders; and there must be meaningful paths for volunteer participation in the work of the WMF.
- recruiting and retaining editors for all of the projects: we must stabilize our editorial base and make sure that new editors feel both welcome and excited to be a part of the Wikimedia projects.
- maintaining the visibility of free knowledge in all spheres: education, the law, government, the technical world. This means everything from supporting a free and open internet to supporting sane copyright law. The Wikimedia projects depend on a technical and legal ecosystem that is often threatened; we can and should lead the world in demonstrating the importance of free knowledge.
- long-term financial planning: we have no problem raising the money we need, but we currently plan for the short term, and we are a long-term knowledge project. Our technical and financial planning should reflect a view towards being around for the next ten years and more.
- increasing and maintaining information quality: for example, I often think that, with 4 million articles, we are just now getting started on "phase 2" on the English Wikipedia -- that is, keeping those articles up to date and making them all high quality. This can seem impossible; like any long-term editor, I've watched articles I've worked on go through IP-address churn, and not always come out better than when I left off with them a few years ago. And I see our quality backlogs slowly growing, and I know that system isn't sustainable either. I think the next period of growth for all of our projects will require innovative quality maintenence tools and mechanisms -- tools that I don't think we've thought of or developed yet.
- Defend the basis of its existence since its inception in 2003,
- Carrying out its program of work and see what has been put in place and has not been implemented,
- Seeking new ways to monitor the system, and community participation in all Wikimedia projects,
- Check how to be a special department headed by considering academic achievement,
- Invest a lot of energy in a region that does not know the importance of Wikimedia projects especially in the continents of Africa and Asia,
- Put the best way to resolve conflicts between WMF and other organizations, but also by users,
- WMF and watch how the current will be the bridge between them and all other stakeholders in the creative sector companies and all other disciplines,
- Shorten the time of the establishment of a chapter in the country and encourage countries that are not yet supporting Wikimedia
- WMF to support individual users who spend a lot of time to develop the personalities of the Wikimedia worldwide
The Foundation should facilitate the community's work, and focus on long-term planning. This includes expanding who is part of the community, and working with global groups to increase acceptance and recognition of Wikimedia projects, throughout the world.
- Long-term planning
- Financial - We should develop long-term investing, a community of recurring donors, and an endowment.
- Society's vision - We should build a network of partners and supporters that sustain and expand our work. Wikimedia should be part of global discussions about how we develop laws and social norms around sharing knowledge. And the WMF should ensure that this happens: through partnerships, and through recommending thoughtful community members to represent our ideas in forums around the world. Our goals for access to knowledge should be part of every major plan for global development. (At present these plans tend to discuss 'education' but do not think about the generative effects of free reuse or collaborative development.)
- Movement strategy - We need a shared map of where all of our projects and communities are heading. This means a strategy that includes both the WMF's goals and those of all of our projects, which is continuously updated. The WMF should lead the development of such a map.
- Community empowerment: Major Wikimedia initiatives should be developed in collaboration with the community -- each one an opportunity to expand who we invite into our technical and content communities, and to update our goals and priorities. Some of these will be driven by the WMF, some by individuals, some by other entities. The WMF should help to coordinate all of these efforts, keep them in line with a shared roadmap and vision, and channel support to projects that need it.
- Channeling funds to local projects: We should be implementing the best available tools for crowdsourcing technical help, funds, and other resources, within our community, for specific projects. We should become better at supporting individual projects, and not simply large chapters.
- A strong MediaWiki community: We should focus on building a strong network of MediaWiki developers, and supporting work on it as a general tool. It should work to support new developers, through training and publicity. Hiring out of the volunteer community should be balanced by expanding that community. We should actively cultivate new communities of mobile developers, and those working on other new platforms, giving them recognition for their work and space to lead.
- Support for new types of knowledge: We should become an incubator for new knowledge-projects of all kinds: including many types of knowledge not currently covered by our projects. We should learn how to spin off projects that would do better on their own, and how to adopt other projects, with minimal overhead. And in our role as grantmaker we should become a source of support for free knowledge projects that further our mission, regardless of where they are currently hosted.
Broadly my view is that the Foundation should become leaner, and more tightly focused on technology and core support, rather than outreach and advocacy. A long term strategy should be to evolve the affiliates model into a lean, centrally supported system of loosely integrated local (both geographically and topically) groups - and it is to these that the task of outreach and content generation should fall. This model is elegant in that it incorporates extensive community support, helping bridge some of the gap that seems to be growing between the Foundation and some areas of the community.
I'd like to see a well-defined strategy for this model, along with documentation and procedures for quickly bootstrapping, supporting and promoting new affiliates.
Aside from this one of the key focuses of the Foundation over the next decade should be securing its long term position. I think that the board and senior staff should, with community support, work on codifying the guiding principles in some form. We can help this guide the movement and affiliates in the coming years by creating a broad guiding concept, similar to the five pillars.
There are other long term considerations too:
- Finding ways to ensure financial security over the longer term
- Creating a guiding strategy for the long term (multi-decade) to help ensure the Wikis will still be here in 100 years!
Over the short to mid term the Foundation needs to build more professional links to the communities. I feel that there is opposition from within the movement to some of the things the Foundation is doing, and some communication issues (in both directions). These need to be ironed out so that we're all actively pulling in the same direction.
- One of the major issues we face has to do with the concept of a free internet. Threats are multiplying, and we need to be on top of that. Many of us were very surprised by what happened in France (France!) recently, for example. And there are even more recent cases. We also have copyright laws that are undermining the projects, for example Commons, which has to adhere to a highly restrictive CL (which impacts those projects which do not have Fair Use and heavily depend on Commons for files). Thanks to Wikipedia, the WMF is in a unique position to take action against these threats, which in the end are a symptom of a larger problem. The Board will need to make this a priority for the Executive Director(s), which in turn will apply resources (legal, financial, human) to strategize how to best protect our interests, and in a larger scale, the internet, within our capabilities (there is a limitation on engaging on lobbying, as defined by the US, that could make the WMF lose its non-profit status, so we need to be careful).
- Another major issue is to continue to diversify and increase our editor base: we need to empower local volunteers to aid us in this. Catalyst programs are fine, but we need the support of on-the-ground volunteers to achieve this. Perhaps it would be worth to examine what the WMF could do to aid this with human/financial resources.
- Ten years ago, there were no such things as tablets or smartphones. Ten years from now, who knows what new cool gadgets will be available. Whatever the platform, we want users to be able to access and edit Wikimedia projects easily. It makes sense to continue to focus our efforts on the Engineering team, so they can keep making the reading and editing experience simpler and easier, and keep making the projects available throughout the world (like with the Wikipedia Zero project). And from reading, to editing, of course. The translation tool on Meta is an example of how a technological tool helps volunteers. In due time, the Visual Editor will be another.
- I think we are on the right track empowering volunteers. We need to continue doing so. The IEG, AffCom, FDC, these are all volunteer-run committees that support the decision-making of the WMF. They are all pretty new (even if AffCom was previously ChapCom), and we need to keep building on them and on the idea behind it. The new models of affiliation (thematic orgs and user groups, in the future movement partners -without forgetting the chapters, of course, which are maturing and in some cases vis a vis with the WMF) will develop and hopefully thrive, create cooperation networks like Iberocoop, and become strong allies supporting the WMF vision. We need to give them time and resources to develop, mature and thrive.
- Growing and enabling the contributing community. No matter what hppens, the projects go nowhere without an active contributing community; ultimately the Foundation must be working to enable and encourage that. This is multifaceted: it means developing tools that make it easier to bring people in, it means reaching out to comunities that are underrepresented, it means studying the social trends of the projects and figuring out how those interact with people's ability to contribute.
- Connecting with related communities. We've started over the past few years really building connections to other groups with common goals, figuring out how to work with each other--other free knowledge organizations, academics and cultural institutions, scientists and researchers. We have mny, many common goals, and if we can figure out more ways to work with each other, and make working with each other part of our regular ways of achieving what we set out to achieve, all of us are stronger.
- Having a more active role in the free knowledge ecosystem. We've figured out that we are a powerful and influential voice, when we speak up for free knowledge. That said, we can't do blackouts all the time, maybe not even more than once. But we spent a long time building up our credibility as a project promoting the ideals we believe are important; we should figure out how we can most effectively use our resources to speak up more directly for them, without compromising our core focus.
- Using our resources to empower others doing our work. One focus we've had over the past few years is grantmaking. Wikimedia gets a lot of resources because of its visibility. But not everything we want to accomplish, that's within our mission to accomplish, can or should be located within the boundaries of the Foundation. We can do better at figuring out where we can let others who have more trouble getting the resources achieve those goals by giving them what they need to do so.
Here are just four key trends that I think will continue and become increasingly important. This is not a comprehensive list of trends, and it is not a prioritied list of things the WMF should do first, but it's something:
- Mobile (and touch/augmented reality) will continue to grow - and dominate the way that large proportions of the globe accesses digital information (particularly in the developing world). Wikipedia Zero is an excellent project to address this trend but it doesn't help increase editorship, only readership. There is the real possibility that we have a "two speed internet" - those who create content and those who only read/see content.
- Legal and structural threats to the Open Web. This is actually the issue that Sue Gardner identified in her message announcing her leaving her role as Executive Director. The stakes are increasingly high for control over the internet as a place where "the people" have control. There are increasing trends to make "walled gardens" online (like Apple's iOS) and to control the way content is delivered (e.g. laws like SOPA etc.) How we as a movement chose to deal with this has not been fully determined. On the one had we are clear that we are neutral and not a political advocacy group, but on the other hand, delivering free access to knowledge to everyone is an inherently political activity (in some countries more than others).
- Community demographics changes will become an increasingly important are to monitor. We need to simultaneously become more open to new members of the community - and the different needs and perspectives they bring (especially from countries that are currently not well represented) - but we also need to stay true to our culture and "the wiki-way". More people for the sake of it is not a good goal, but equally we cannot design our processes so that we only listen to people we already agree with.
- More money and more capacity is both a good and a risky thing. It is fair to assume that we will be able to continue to increase the size of the organisation in financial terms for several more years. Even under the current system of fundraising we are obtaining our increasing annual budgets in decreasing amounts of time. This means we can do more things each year but also means we have the increasing risk of losing our way. I would advocate that we aggressively delegate responsibilities to the most local competent group. Doing this helps to ensure diversity and organisational flexibility.
We need to build strong affiliates (including chapters), and that starts with nurturing the small affiliates. I believe the practical approach is to establish 'core' funding for all of our affiliates based on their needs and maturity.More at User:John_Vandenberg/WMF_BoT_candidature_notes#Right_to_fork_and_long_term_planning
Communication and activity level
My concern is about communication, and engagement level. For example - Kat, you've made ~6 edits on Meta this year, and a bit over 12 the last. Your mailing list stats aren't any better, while you've been a trustee for around 6 years, there is a big drop-off 2 years ago (and understandably people become busy, but then why seek re-election). Those stats alone might not mean much about substance, but they do clearly display the engagement level with the community that elected you. Trustee especially community elected ones, should value direct conversations - Considering all the unpopular decisions in the last few years, do you think your level of activity and communication will be a problem? The same question I'd frame to everyone is, how will you make sure you are in touch with the community especially when unpopular decisions are brought up? Will you just ignore the majority of the voices and do what you think is right? I'm trying to ask if there is a mechanism or a way, to keep yourself in-check in these situations and not lose sight of what the community wants completely. A strong-handed "I always know best" approach displayed by a few board members is worrying. Theo10011 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
In relation to the community, my answer is known and clear. As a Board member, I'd have to do my best to keep organization healthy. However, my mandate would come from the community and I'd be politically responsible to the community. If the community and Board would be in confrontation and the long list of possible solutions wouldn't help, my responsibility would be to resign.
But the role of a trustee is also to make decisions on behalf of the whole system -- decisions that will affect all of the editors of all of the projects (not just those who speak up on wikimedia-l), and all of the readers (not just the ones we meet), and all of the donors (not just the ones who leave messages). There will never be perfect consensus or agreement among all these interests, so while every decision has to take many points of view into account, trustees also have to realize that most decisions will make someone unhappy, and will sometimes be very unpopular indeed. Being unpopular doesn't necessarily mean that decision is bad -- but only if the reasoning behind the decision, the process, and the outcome can hold up to scrutiny.My ideal for Wikimedia governance is one where anyone from the community feels they can participate in governance discussions: where the process, problems to be solved, and ways to get involved are transparent. We sometimes achieve this, but not always. The trick for the Board, I think, is to try to make sure that the problems, the logic and the sense of the discussion behind a decision are communicated, to make that an open process when possible, and to always be willing and answer questions. Speaking personally, I'm not afraid to stand behind my decisions, including the unpopular ones; I'm also not afraid to change my mind -- and change course -- when I'm convinced by good arguments that I made a bad decision. And though I don't always live up to my own ideals of open process, I do try, and am always willing to talk.
The Board should not (does not) ignore public input; and we regularly consider topics that were proposed on Meta or by community groups. All community members are welcome to participate in governance threads, and should know that their input is valued and considered. And elected Trustees are responsible as well to the community that elected them, so they should always be available to respond to questions and suggestions.With regard to unpopular decisions, controversial topics are an opportunity to learn from one another. Individual decisions may be unpopular - as phoebe says, that doesn't mean they are wrong, sometimes there is no popular decision. But the discussion that goes into them, and the willingness to keep an open mind and correct decisions that turn out to be wrong - is the most important part of that process. Part of the role of every Trustee, and particular the elected Trustees, is to facilitate these discussions and help improve communication, between the WMF, chapters, Projects, and other parts of our community.
More interesting, for the nonce, is your question "Will you just ignore the majority of the voices and do what you think is right". It's never smart to ignore the majority, but it's also not smart to ignore the minority. I've closed a number of Requests for Comment on Wikipedia, besides a ton of Article for Deletion discussions, where the idea is that the closing admin doesn't count votes but rather weighs arguments pro and con, and the head count is only one of many factors. (I learned this a long time ago when I studied the work of Frans van Eemeren
As to controversial decisions.. It's worth saying that to some extent the board is elected with community support to make decisions. Furthermore, decisions that are unpopular with some often create vocal outrage on the mailing lists (which is always disappointing to see) that, whilst loud, doesn't represent the view of the majority! Any board member should not be afraid of sticking to a decision that they have weighed as correct just because they get shouted at.
However. The board should actively display the capacity to question their decisions in light of objection. Hopefully criticism can be anticipated and mitigated before that stage, but we live in an imperfect world. When some or all of the community raises objections that should generate dialogue both within the board, and with the community. In some cases those objections may not change the decision, in others it may be factored in. Either way the board should be seen engaging with the affected sections of the community, and responding to the issues raised. Certainly I think there should be deeper engagement by the board with the community, and I would aim to lead by example in that area - I am always accessible to anyone who wants to talk! And that will never change.Without a specific example, though, it's impossible to give my idea of how it should have been addressed.
It may well happen that different communities will be at odds between themselves or with the WMF, and a decision has to be made or a window of opportunity will be lost. In that regard, I would hope the Board would make a decision based on all available information, that they truly felt it was the best possible one and would advance the mission. A board paralyzed by indecision or by fear of being unpopular wouldn't be desirable. In ocassion, decisions may be unpopular, granted. The board can and will make mistakes, since no system is infallible or perfect. I would want the Board to explain how and why a particular decision was made, and if shown incorrect, to learn from it and improve its processes where needed, so it can reduce its fallability next time. And I would like community members to assume good faith and remain approachable as well, so we can keep improving our communication possibilities (communication goes both ways, after all).
I would like to see the Board initiate more focused discussions or asking questions (on Meta, or wherever applicable) in advance of issues becoming controversial and requiring major action. Equally, I would like to see the board publish draft statements to seek comment before actually passing resolutions that then have to be clarified. I would also like to see methods introduced for the community to formally petition the board to discuss a topic.As for me personally, I have been steadily involved in many mailing-lists for many years now. For example, I can honestly say I've read every single email to Foundation-l (now Wikimedia-l) since at least 2007, and through my GLAM work have been fortunate enough to attend Wikimeetups (and therefore meet the local communities in many, many countries. Of course my direct involvement has increased or decreased depending on real-world factors but I have been watching, listening, podcasting, blogging, editing, debating and researching (my thesis was about Wikipedia too), and plan to continue for many years still!
The only board member who has done a good job of engaging with the community is user:Sj, who will be my role model should I be elected.
I think we need to change the structure of the board of trustees so that all positions are community elected, and are term limited. See User:John_Vandenberg/WMF_BoT_candidature_notes#Board_of_Trustees for details.
I would like all proposed resolutions to be drafted on meta with community involved.I will try very hard to remain in touch with the community, but I will also do what I think is right in order to effectively carry out the responsibilities of being a Board of Trustees member. Whenever my vote goes against the opinion of a sizable cohort of the community, I will do my best to communicate my rationale.
Distance to the community
What is your view on the current distance between the Wikimedia Foundation and the editing community? How (if at all) would you like to change that in the next 2 year: what would be a realistic goal and what would you personally do to accomplish that. For candidates that have occupied a board seat in the past: why did you not do this already / were you unsuccessful at this in your previous term? Effeietsanders (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
While I wouldn't say that there is bad faith on the side of Board and top management, while it is possible to see positive trends from their side, I don't think that they put enough effort to solve the issue more systemically. I still see that WMF is struggling between the mentality of an Bay Area NPO and the lead organization of the global movement. Fortunately, present situation is significantly better than it was a couple of years ago.
There are a couple of very realistic goals which could be achieved during the next two years:
- Promoting the culture of the global movement among the staff. Even it's about of San Francisco, from time to time the provincial mentality is striking. WMF's employees should be the persons of the world and it's not so hard to learn it.
- Promoting active and responsible approach in dealing with the community. Those in position of power are more responsible for their actions and WMF's staff is constantly in such position (this is not related just to WMF staff; the same applies to all volunteers in the committees, for example). Passive decision-making process is not enough when it comes to handling the issues of one global movement.
- Board members, regular volunteers, highly involved volunteers (members of the committees etc.) and staff should have as equal treatment as it is possible during the conferences, as it's the most visible inequality. I understand that it's not so easy to achieve, but it would be possible if it would become one of the priorities. We don't suffer from a lack of creativity and I know personally a couple of very good organizers from within the movement.
- On the community side, WMF should promote mutual understanding. Everybody can be upset because of personal issues, everybody can have a bad day; who does can be wrong, but it is extremely important that that person actually does. That especially applies to staff, which job is volunteers' hobby.
- Promoting more active and less fearful approach on all movement levels. Significant part of the problem inside of the movement comes due to the instinctive passivity.
There will always be distance: the WMF is often working on different things from the editing community, and we rely on each other for different things (the editing community relies on the WMF to keep up the servers, deal with lawsuits, etc.; and the WMF relies on the editing community to maintain the projects). But I think when we talk about distance between communities what we're really worried about is losing the value system that holds all of Wikimedia together. The WMF and the editing community shares core values -- openness, free information, meritocracy -- and we must continue to share these values, not just as a philosophical matter but also as a practical part of how we work. I am always worried that we are in danger of losing our most important values (through becoming too "corporate" or focusing on the wrong things) and I think this is always something to watch for.Personally, as a Board member, I tried and would continue to try to model good behavior, consistent with our values. I tried to report out and internally, to be open, and to recognize good ideas. For the next two years, I think some practical ideas include: strengthening WMF staff training in how the rest of Wikimedia works, especially for new folks (and vice versa, sharing what the WMF does with the rest of Wikimedia); spending serious energy improving our RfC/beta testing process so that it is easier to iteratively develop software & features with the community (rather than in opposition to it); centralizing discussion and making multilingual commenting easier so that it is simpler for all of our community members to participate in RfCs and decisions; supporting community leaders and leadership, both with tools and processes (such as building the steward tools mentioned above, but also recognizing great outreach efforts). None of this is something the Board can do alone, but trustees can advocate for these changes.
1. In the board level, it is really a personal choice of board members, they can be step away from the community to think hybridly, or get into the community to bring back the opinion from the community, I think we need both to develop healthly.2. I I think why we feel WMF is out of touch, may due to quite a part of work are transfer to the staffs. A number of staff really get involved into the community and serve us for a long time, which is incredible. But in a number of area, our staffs seems come and go very quickly, seems changing all the time. Although this may be "normal" for a "Charity in the US" (at least I was told), but these constant changes, always come with communication backlogs & problems, make us feel more and more apart. I think we need to also stablized the HR in WMF, as well as we need some role like a community receptionist, whom is the community familiar with, to deal with situation when the community members need help from the staff.
What I find most interesting about this distance, is that it is not a lack of regard or respect; but a disconnect in worldview. For instance, in some circumstances the community feels the WMF makes decisions without community input; while WMF staff feel that their work is beholden to the community and will be scrapped if the community does not like it. Similar problems, at smaller scales, can be seen in the distance between some individual chapters and related editing communities; and between the WMF and chapters.
In my time on the Board I have tried to publish as much as I can about our work, and advocated for staff liaisons focused on providing this sort of support; each community and affiliate could use a community member focused on this as well. I have voted against proposals that I thought widened this gap, and fought as much as I could within the Board to avoid sudden changes in the Foundation's positions. I have not always succeeded in part because I am seen as an extreme voice on these issues; even though within the spectrum of positions in the rest of the community I do not think my positions are particularly extreme.
The WMF is planning to hire 2 people in such roles over the coming year. Together we should also clarify the role of community and WMF in decision making in different situations. Some decisions are made entirely by the community, others by the WMF, others require collaboration and joint approval. Other ways to address this problem over the next two years include
- making community groups part of the planning process for decisions that affect them, not simply part of feedback after the fact (this is a feature shared by the 'good examples' to date)
- supporting and empowering community decision-making, by investing in better collaboration tools
- investing significantly in multilingual communication, so that non-English speaking communities can be part of these conversations.
*Of course Jimmy Wales is not really our boss, or anyone's boss. He also hasn't written as many articles as I or ErrantX have.
The specifics of your answer are difficult to address: measuring a metaphorical distance is a hard enough thing already. The ultimate goal is easy, as far as I'm concerned: that the Board help editors write better articles (dictionary definitions, software, courses, etc), and that editors feel that the Board, which makes such important decisions that affect the long and the short term, is not a stranger to them. Our Strategic Plan, the way I see it, mandates an improved relationship since participation and quality can be directly affected by it. What I'm interested in right now is what kinds of things I'll hear from editors on Wikipedia and other projects, what it is that they want done. That is what matters for me in this process.
More than anything I'd like to start to encourage a new culture, or viewpoint. The Foundation should be serving the needs and requirements of the community, and so the community should be more deeply involved with strategising. I'd like to see a corporate culture where everyone is accessible to community members with constructive views and input. I'd like to see the Foundation employ staff to pester community members with known interests to give their views.I would come to the board as a long term English Wikipedia editor, with numerous friends within the movement. I have a decent list of written articles, wide participation in community policy discussions and a passion for free culture. The point being that I have deep ties to the community, and so would be able to bring the board a taste of the current culture, and the community a taste of the board!
(I also think chapters have helped a lot here too: local organisations formed by volunteers and editors who in some cases acted as mediators or facilitators or just plain explained what the WMF was going to do in the next few years. So while there is a distance, there has been progress as well.)What would I change? Nowadays, it takes some effort to keep on top of what is going on in the movement. A discussion started on some page on Meta is moved to another page on Meta and then jumps to the Wikimedia-l mailing list. Or a discussion on WikiResearch-l is forwarded to Wikimedia-l and then continued on Meta. It's very difficult to follow all the existing mailing lists (scratch that, it's impossible, you need to choose). We need to be able to keep conversations in one place so they are easier to follow (and translate). Maybe we need to lay a heavier emphasis on the use of Meta. Perhaps that would help the WMF be more approachable. I think the irc office hours help, much more than mailing lists at any rate, and are more interactive and fun, but I realise it's difficult for one or two staff members to answer questions of dozens of Wikimedians simultaneously. Regarding enhancing communication between WMF and project communities in languages other than English, I favor broadening the scope of the "community liaisons" the Foundation is hiring right now, so that they focus not only on technical issues but are able to provide a two-way communication link between the Foundation and the different communities, by both translating or making known the relevant news and discussions Foundation-wise, and transmitting to the staff any significant worries or proposals they could receive or detect in their home wikis.
A lot of the breakdown in communication stems from, in my opinion, the anonymous nature of online communication. It's a bit like road rage: it's much easier to get angry at the car in front of you if you cannot see the driver's face. Once you are seeing an actual human it is far harder to be angry. So, I think that the best way to break down the barriers is to find methods to increasingly humanise the WMF and the Board.For the "one realistic thing": I would like for the agenda for each Board meeting to be published in advance - and the issues on the agenda clearly described - with the proactive soliciting of comments in advance of the meeting from relevant parts of the community. Ideally this will result in an outcome where no one is genuinely surprised when the WMF makes a decision on an issue. Individuals might not like the result of a decision, but for individuals who are making every effort to follow what is happening, we need to make sure that they are at least not surprised that the decision is being made. A reduction of "surprises" and an increase of "humanisation" should help reduce the present distance between the editing community and WMF.
The agenda of board meetings should be open for community participation.
The board should champion a process of defining 'core' funding for all affiliates.Please see User:John_Vandenberg/WMF BoT candidature notes.
Network of chapters (affiliates)
The statement of purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation reads:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
In coordination with a network of chapters and individual volunteers, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
(for the ease of conversation I will replace 'chapters' with 'affiliate organizations')
Could you please explain how you see this (...) coordination with a network of [affiliate organizations] and individual volunteers (...) two years from now? Will that be on equal footing, will all have their very specific roles (which?), will the role of the Wikimedia Foundation (and with that its budget & staff size) increase/decrease because of expanding/reducing task packages? Should that be (if so: how) that different in 5 or 10 years? Effeietsanders (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
We have also started delegating part of donor communications and relations, and microgrants, to affiliates where they have the capacity to manage them. I expect this to accelerate as we reach a critical mass of groups who have done these things successfully and can share their experiences.Finally, I hope to see much of the currently-centralized outreach programs the WMF manages, particularly to expand awareness and engagement of communities in places with little infrastructure or community support, to be picked up by regional umbrella groups such as Iberocoop or (one day) Wikimedia Asia or WALRUS. These are tasks which are best handled by groups with strong regional connections, and the WMF should shift to providing background support and global promotion of that work, rather than coordinating it directly.
To specifically answer the question; affiliate organisations have a key role within the movement. I talked to Lane Raspberry yesterday, and we discussed this exact issue - where the chapters have important geographical links, the new thematic organisations have key ties to professional bodies/groups. Both types of affiliate are strongly placed to conduct outreach and education in a way the Foundation simply cannot manage. So in the future I see the role of these groups growing stronger and stronger, with deeper community support and funding.
This is why I am tentatively in favour of the FDC; although I have specific criticisms of the current model, it is nice to see that body beginning to include the Foundation in its funding decisions. This helps promote the idea that the Foundation and Chapters have a somewhat equal footing in the field of outreach.
How this growth in importance directly affects the Foundation I don't know. But I don't think it really affects the staffing :) Unlike the chapters, the Foundation has a key role in hosting, developing and supporting the Wikimedia wikis. This core role is very important.So in summary; I see a greatly increased importance for affiliate organisations in conducting outreach, with the Foundation tightening its focus on the technology and support aspects of Wikimedia.
The WMF should support all affiliates, providing them will advice and templates, assisting them meet financial and reporting requirements. Lots of carrots.
The WMF should work with affiliates produce a 'Wikimedia' annual report, and maybe quarterly updates too, encompassing the work of all affiliates. We need to increase the sense that 'we are all working on the mission together, under the same brand.'
The management of the 'brand' needs to be overhauled to put the community ahead of 'the Wikimedia Foundation assets'.Please see User:John_Vandenberg/WMF BoT candidature notes.
2012-2013 Annual Plan, Narrowing Focus, and Fundraising
In May 2012, the Foundation's Fundraising team indicated they were concerned that fundraising in 2012 might not substantially increase, possibly because of a misinterpretation of measurements which showed a seven-fold increase over the best performing appeal from the December 2011 results. In July 2012, the Board adopted the 2012-2013 Annual Plan which included a substantially slowed rate of growth amounting to over $10 million less than the historical rate of growth would have provided, and stating that they had "reflected on the ... rate of growth, and how that impacts our ability to focus on the movement's mission. Therefore ... the Executive Director should present options for adjusting the annual plan, potentially reducing or eliminating lower-priority programs and capabilities." In October 2013, the Executive Director presented such recommendations for "Narrowing Focus" and the Board accepted them.
The Board's July resolution adopting the 2012-2013 Annual Plan stated that, "If, during the year, management anticipates the annual reserve at each quarter-end will differ materially from the plan, the Board directs management to consult the Board Treasurer promptly." In 2010 the Board had passed a resolution which stated that, "Fundraising activities in the Wikimedia movement should generally be directed at achieving the highest possible overall financial support for the Wikimedia movement, in terms of both financial totals and the number of individuals making contributions."
Actual fundraising in December 2013 far exceeded the diminished expectations, and was proceeding in line with the historical rate of growth before it was halted after only nine full days, less than a day before it would have exceeded the diminished goal. What, if anything, would you have preferred to have happened differently during the 2012 fundraising projections, annual plan adoption, and fundraising processes? And what corrective action, if any, would you recommend? A4BQ (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- to pay a respect to the Wikimedia Foundation rules,
- a truly identification to public of users,
- a royal of every one representing the Wikimedia to the public,
- to show an example of being royal to our contribution to public,
- to come closer in free discussion of the non community of Wikimedia,
- to accept the rights of each other,
- to obey on the rules regarding the rights of your neighbor,
- to accept that challenge might be faces,and
- the problems must be solved
When you do strategic planning, or prepare a budget, or something similar, sometimes you need to update it before the period it applies to is through. Not because something has gone wrong, but simply because the context has changed or you have achieved your goals before schedule, and you are flexible enough to adapt it to the new circumstances.
Narrowing the focus, on the other hand, makes sense, even if there will never be 100% agreement on which programs to support and which to let go. I was sad to see some go, but through the Grants program (GAC, IEG, FDC, Participation Support... and let's not forget the affiliates and their capabilities) there is the potential to resurrect some of them in a new form.
We need to ensure we dont betray the financial donors by raising money that we don't use effectively and transparently.
We need to ensure we dont betray the content contributors by raising money that we don't use to further our mission in accordance with our values.
Too much money, if distributed unfairly or inappropriately, will destroy us.
I agree that Wikimedia Foundation needs to narrow focus, and it needs to nurture the affiliates to take on the areas that the Wikimedia Foundation is discontinuing.The community needs to define 'core' funding for all our affiliates, allocate money to establish affiliates where they are needed, and determine the size of the pool available to the 'Funds Dissemination Committee'.
Should the Foundation raise an endowment? If so, how large? Large enough to sustain operations at current levels from investment income alone without the need for additional fundraising? A4BQ (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Currently there is an advocacy proposal pending which has received only support but has stalled because nobody has asked the community for comments. Does the Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline imply that it is the Foundation's responsibility to create such an RFC? Ideally, about how many times per year would you prefer that the Foundation request comments from the community concerning various advocacy actions? A4BQ (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
As it happens, this particular RfC is up and running (started by Samuel Klein--whether he did so privately or was wearing his Trustee shirt, I don't know); it's not exactly causing a drain on the servers yet but it's there. It's worth noting, looking at the list of still-open RfCs, that they don't attract that much attention on Meta, that not all of them seem to be a Meta-matter, that it might be a good idea to set some boundaries on how long they ought to run, and that someone needs to go down the list to close a bunch of them (this one hasn't been commented on in over a year, and three are still open from 2009). On the English Wikipedia we have a couple of editors who hound the admins to take care of overdue RfCs (are there time limits on Meta for RfCs?) and that needs to be done here as well. It's all fine and dandy to support community involvement and all, and RfCs are a great tool to do what with, but if they're not dealt with properly there is little point to them.
'Core site operations only' initially, so we no longer use "the servers are burning" fundraising messages.
A larger endowment should be considered after we've guaranteed the survival of the content.See User:John_Vandenberg/WMF_BoT_candidature_notes#Right_to_fork_and_long_term_planning for more.