Hoi, You do not provide arguments so it is an opinion. Having said that, I did not say that the attention for the English Wikipedia did not serve English Wikipedia well. It did. Your opinion can be easily translated in "we do not care and do not need to care".
What I am saying is that English Wikipedia is less than half our traffic and it serves some 30% of our potential public. Given that there is a bias in research and interest, we did not even give a thought on how to grow the bottom 250 Wikipedias to be more useful for their public. For most of them we do not need university level articles, we need to start with good enough articles and start probably on a college level or the level of the last year of primary school.
We do not have the content relevant for many cultures in English Wikipedia so even the thought of translating what exists in English Wikipedia is too much of a good thing. We do not have the data in Wikidata so we cannot even suggest what to write in English.
The notion that thanks to English Wikipedia we have the standing the funding is correct. Now lets do our job for the other 70%. If this is not a diversity issue what is? Thanks, GerardM
On 25 June 2017 at 12:42, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects
On 25 June 2017 at 18:03, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we
going
to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission seriously. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <
teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi
wrote:
Hej,
Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an
opinion
:-)
is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south
are
under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
reasons,
but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
large
majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the
en-Wikipedia.
If
WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would
be
great.
-Teemu
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com kirjoitti 24.6.2017
kello
13.00:
Hoi, The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
Wikipedia
receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1].
This
bias
can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
educational
effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
developed,
tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000 articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
viable
Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia
because
otherwise it will not get published [2].
A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
projects
other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
readers
that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
projects
and
there is no research into its value.
The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
collaboration
between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
habitually
get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
served
but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
driven
approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global
south
in
English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
process
so
far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
message
and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions. Thanks, GerardM
[1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the
WMF
traffic. [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies
on
Wikipedia..
On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
wrote:
> > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com: >> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
people
> who >> are not involved with affiliates? > > > > Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
the
> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real
life
> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
carefully,
> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that > coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my
particular
> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
weeks
> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time
to
> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material > available in the strategy process. > > > I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
was
pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite
some
feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially
ignored.
None
of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
time.
Round
2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions
opened
i
n
different places, meaning there is no possibility to really
discuss
anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding
pages
on
3
projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
but I
have
not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in
Round
May
be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not
really
looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
completely
failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form
a
considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
to
be
heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
next
process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe