I am interested in community strategy to tackle such things as 1) exposing missing, confusing, or outdated local policies by using policy comparisons cross-wiki 2) handling multi-language issues such as highlighting article-for-deletion discussions for each language in which the article exists, not just the local one 3) defining an "embedded system" factor by automatic checking of similarity of metadata of articles across languages and projects 4) how can we emphasize techniques that attract contributions that are 100% non-controversial and fun at the same time? 5) how can we organize local x-language meet-up days across the globe using our international network of chapters? 6) how can we set up a new "Wikicouch" project whereby Wikipedians can couch surf (I mean more group editting rather than sleeping) with other Wikipedians' across the globe On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; wrote:

Balazs, It's interesting that you feel that way, because I disagree entirely. Out of curiosity, have you ever met another Wikipedian in real life, and do you feel that meet-ups are beneficial to the movement? Jane On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Balázs Viczián &lt;balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu > Bear in mind WikiPedia =/= WikiMedia. > > Imo all of the below and about 70-80% of the topics previously brough up in > this thread can be solved/actioned/discussed/amended/etc by the community > solely through Village Pump (or other relevant forums) without a single > person involved (ever) from WMF or any of the chapters. > > Balazs > > 1) exposing missing, confusing, or outdated local policies by using policy > > > comparisons cross-wiki > > 2) handling multi-language issues such as highlighting > article-for-deletion > > discussions for each language in which the article exists, not just the > > local one > > 3) defining an "embedded system" factor by automatic checking of > similarity > > of metadata of articles across languages and projects > > 4) how can we emphasize techniques that attract contributions that are > 100% > > non-controversial and fun at the same time? > > 5) how can we organize local x-language meet-up days across the globe > using > > our international network of chapters? > > 6) how can we set up a new "Wikicouch" project whereby Wikipedians can > > couch surf (I mean more group editting rather than sleeping) with other > > Wikipedians' across the globe > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Anders Wennersten < > > mail(a)anderswennersten.se> > > > > I am interested in community strategy but have very different topics in > > > mind > > > *how should we handle the 50-100 projects that today in practice are > > dead. > > > They are open for anyone (besides vandals that already infest these) to > > > hi-jack > > > *how should we handle the 5-10 projects that are already hi-jacket and > > > spreading info contradictory to our values? (think belarous wikipedia) > > > *Could we find means to help struggling communitiies, there are several > > > having a hard time neutrilizing POV, internal fight and even having > > problem > > > neutralising vandal attacks > > > *how could we spread best practice to make certain our project do not > > > unnecessary diverge > > > *and the complex of bot generation over several projects - wikidata > where > > > efforts for the moment are not harmonized as they ought to > > > etc > > > > > > Anders > > > > > > Pine W skrev 2014-07-14 09:25: > > > > > > Hi community members, > > >> > > >> I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC > > meeting > > >> regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially > developing > > >> our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past > few > > >> days I've heard some defense of WMF but mainly criticism and > pessimism, > > >> especially people recalling past hurts and feeling powerless to > > negotiate > > >> with WMF. Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own > > >> strategic plan and develop strategic options. > > >> > > >> Please note that this would be a long-term planning meeting and we are > > not > > >> likely to make major decisions, but we would start brainstorming and > > >> laying > > >> some foundations. > > >> > > >> Topics of possible discussion regarding our relationship with WMF: > > >> > > >> 1. Strategic options, such as finding alternative organizations to WMF > > for > > >> hosting Wikimedia sites or creating a new hosting organization that is > > >> aligned with community values. > > >> > > >> 2. Activism at the Board and grassroots levels. > > >> > > >> Topics of possible discussion regarding other strategic issues: > > >> > > >> 3. Internal reform of the community, such as a fresh look at > Wikimedia's > > >> founding principles and the Five Pillars, including civility. > > >> > > >> 4. What we can do as a community about our active editor statistics. > > >> > > >> I expect this would be an interesting meeting if people are interested > > in > > >> participating, and I hope that we would brainstorm some ideas about > how > > we > > >> want to move forward on all of these questions and others if we have > > time. > > >> If there are many participants, which would be *great*, then we may > need > > >> additional meetings or to move the conversation on-wiki. > > >> > > >> If you're interested, you can respond on list but feel free to respond > > to > > >> me off-list also. I'm just trying to get a sense of the interest level > > of > > >> the community. I hear a lot of people being upset but what I feel we > > need > > >> to know is how many people would be interested in creating a long-term > > >> strategic plan and brainstorming strategic options. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Pine > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > , > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >

Balázs Viczián, 14/07/2014 13:53: So you're confirming that they're on topic for the proposal :) which was «Perhaps it's time that we in the community create our own strategic plan and develop strategic options». Interestingly, no topic so far was mentioned by more than one person among those who replied so far. Such a list of topics would therefore result in everyone talking past each other. To avoid that, maybe topic proposals should be about generic issues and medium/long-term goals rather than about your pet peeve or pet proposal. As a reminder, thousands of such "atomic" items are already best collected on our wikis, for instance * https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Issues * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposals where I encourage you to add stubs for each idea you have. The problem is always identifying a common ground where to actually meet and build a shared understanding of the way forward. (Or even just a self-consistent summary of all opinions.) Read https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force subpages again, 5 years later, if you doubt. Nemo

On 14/07/2014, Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: We have very different views of the world. I have no expectation that Wikimedia donations should pay for me to go to local Wikimeets/meet-ups (which cost me about £3 in bus travel). Similarly, as a member of the Steering Group for the GWToolset, I was happy to have several significant strategy meetings via Google Hangout, which cost the participants precisely nothing and Wikimedia nothing in expenses, even though we were deciding how to invest a few hundred thousand euros. Yes, some people may get scholarships to travel to Wikimania or other conferences, however my understanding is that this would be limited to those presenting. A lot can be done using virtual tools, and we should all be experts in making this work well. I would much rather virtual discussion be used for maximum effect and the default choice, so that flying people around the planet is kept for special events with high measurable returns for the money spent. I still regret that for every Wikimania so far, we have not cracked the virtual participation problem by live-streaming and accepting questions via live-chat or similar. Anyway, this is a bit tangential... Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

On 07/14/2014 10:39 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: I don't believe that's where the value lies. While I am certain we have a number of contributors who write for the sake of writing; ultimately we are *all* beholden to the readers. Collecting the world's knowledge and making it available only has value insofar as it is, in fact, used as such. The servers running, the editors editing, the coders coding are all necessary components but all, in the end, subservient to the actual objective of serving the readers. Everything else is replacable. In my long stint on the meta-side of the biggest project (and keeping abreast of what goes on elsewhere) I saw a very great deal of self-important navel gazing, but very little actual consideration that the "community" (if there is such a thing) is only a means to the actual end. The WMF certainly does not do everything perfectly, but at the very least it actually /attempts/ to keep an eye on the prize. -- Marc