Thank you for this. Could you elaborate on the definition of knowledge, please? This is something I've long been interested in. On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:04 AM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Mark, Benjamin and me we had a Skype conversation about this topic. Maybe he can elaborate with his insights? Regards Micru On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, 19:11 Mark Rousell, <mark.rousell(a)signal100.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 08:27 Amir E. Aharoni, <amir.aharoni(a)mail.huji.ac.ilwrote: In my opinion, the informal definition would be: all the information that the Wikimedia community allows into their projects. Regards, Micru

That would be a fair operational definition in our context, but it does not predict well for all instances. Cheers Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Amir E. Aharoni Sent: 22 February 2019 10:39 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives ‫בתאריך יום ו׳, 22 בפבר׳ 2019 ב-10:30 מאת ‪David Cuenca Tudela‬‏ <‪ dacuetu@gmail.com‬‏>:‬ OK, that makes sense. It can even be formal :) Do the people to whom you speak have the same understanding of what our definition of knowledge is? -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com ‪“We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

Those instances where we don’t know yet whether the information would be acceptable in any of our projects, as the decision is generally made by consensus, and consensus can change and can vary between projects. Edge cases are not easily predictable. Also it is possible that new projects may accept information unsuitable for existing projects. Cheers, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Cuenca Tudela Sent: 22 February 2019 12:57 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives Hi Peter, Could you please give an example of the instances that it wouldn't predict well? Regards, Micru On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 10:44 Peter Southwood, &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Bodhisattwa, *Governance recommendation * I assisted to a session on sociocracy organized by the Transition Network that basically blew my mind. The speaker explained how for her it has been always difficult to participate in decision-making because she feels that she is a very vocal person, and she felt that with democracy it was mostly about taking sides and wining or losing, which was quite disappointing for her. Then she started to explain the sociocratic principles of decision by consent, and what does that mean. What is interesting about sociocracy itself, is not the process or the method, but how it challenges the participants to truly understand the meaning of a decision, and their own relationship with it. Objections are seen as a gift that will help improve the proposal, once they have been properly understood. Normally it takes effort from the participants to address their own personal issues as well, because they have an impact on how the group can operate. Trust can be built during in person sessions, and it is necessary for the group to operate smoothly. Sociocracy is not for people who like to accumulate power, or are not able to share power with others, and that can drive people away. On the other hand, those who stay feel more included and supported by the organisation. There is also an element of celebration, which sometimes we forget. Taking decisions is hard work, and we should celebrate when we reach one. Sociocracy it is easy to grasp, but difficult to master. The members of the Transition Network had to undergo a training during a long time at the Université de Nous, to become proficient in this method. There is also a software that assists self-organization: https://www.holaspirit.com/ Regards, Micru On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:45 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal < bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

@Benjamin: It is already there, as answer to Farkhad. @Ziko: I have no idea where to store this. If you find a suitable place, please go ahead and let me know. Regards, Micru On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:11 PM Ziko van Dijk &lt;zvandijk(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

@Benjamin: I tried to put it into words, but I have realized that what I have to say doesn't fit well into a short text. If you are really interested, send me an email with your availability and we can have a video call about it. @Chris: Thanks for the recommendation, but I don't feel like pasting it there without proper context, and it is not my priority right now. If you or any of them want more details they can contact me any time. Regards, Micru On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:08 PM Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non

Hi Farkhad, *External perception of the movement* The Wikimedia movement is seen as a very complex entity. Most participants knew about Wikipedia, not so many about the other projects. Even for those who knew Wikipedia, it was not so clear how decisions are taken or what is allowed to do. I explained the concept that the more you work with any of the projects the more you will find out about its inner processes, or other people will make you aware of them (because you will do something wrong or you will try to find out or "invent" how to do something). Participants did not understand what are the roles that are available for them, or what to do in them, they felt that with so much freedom to do anything, they were incapable of participating. In a way they were marveled that just by having guidelines created and enforced by the community, it is enough to have a working project without any visible leadership. Leadership does exist, but it is exercised in different ways (for instance, by participating in conversations about policy, behaviour, or strategy). Another thing that surprised participants, is that you can do anything that you want, that there are no restrictions other than your own interest to do something and respecting the policies. Participants did not know about the WMF, and did not know where the fundraising money goes. They did not understand how the community can participate in allocating the resources. I told them the my opinion, that the WMF still hasn't learned how to share its leadership together with the community and that they are operating as a company, which alienates me because they are not respecting the spirit of the projects. Also it was unclear to them how to interact with the community, affiliates or the Foundation. They were not certain that they would be able to find the right person or the right place to ask questions. It that regard they saw the movement as a walled garden that can be contemplated from outside, but it is very restricted to participate in. Some participants they mentioned that Wikimedia is a faceless project, that we are very good at presenting the faces of many important people, but that we fail miserably at presenting our own. A participant suggested to use the yellow banner to recruit new people instead of using it only to raise money. The reason being that many people would be interested in participating if they were asked to and if they were shown how to (preferably with videos recorded by Wikimedians explaining what they do). Regards, Micru On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:44 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin < frhd(a)yandex.com&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non