Regarding missing alternatives to the GS _term_.
2013/8/30 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
'Global Strategy countries'?
I think this aligns with the intention of GS, which is to support initiatives that help make our movement more global by investing in areas/languages where editors and/or readers is low but potential is high.
I tend to say that it's not about areas/languages but about the challenges mentioned in Asaf's slides. "Global" -- in my opinion -- is a term that emphasizes _unifying_ aspects of a subject. At its core the GS initiative is about conditions (re: WP, accessing and contributing) that are _different_ between certain areas of the world and others. That's why "global" won't do the trick. The "challenges: factors" section in Asaf's slides suggests that this difference has its roots in * limited access to the internet and to materials, * diglossia and other language issues, * financial, political and cultural limitations.
...all of which are social issues (<-- terribly unscientifc oversimplification alert). In other words: The challenges have nothing to do with latitude (or longitude) but have an inherently social nature. Thus, there may not be a need to find a geographical label at all. What matters is a priority list which determines in which countries support is both highly necessary and most likely to be effective. With the countries listed in the aforementioned slides the WMF has such a list. I guess if Greenland[1] met the priority criteria (showing a huge community potential, having web access issues and specific cultural issues, and so on and so forth), it would probably make the priority list, wouldn't it? My point is: An alternative term for "global south" could be something based on _what_ is addressed instead of _where_ things are addressed. Could be something in the direction of "Social Access Initiative" or the like. (Really, just an example for illustration purposes, I won't defend it :-)
Best, Michael Jahn
[1] My apologies to Greenland. I know nothing about you, except that you're way up north! It's a shame. Don't mean to insult you.
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Aug 30, 2013 11:42 AM, "Balázs Viczián" balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu wrote:
What about making it simply global...?
Balázs 2013.08.30. 2:44, "Asaf Bartov" abartov@wikimedia.org ezt írta:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning.
No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South"
is
emphatically not on the agenda.
The term "Global South" is pretty awful and deserves a quick death.
Agreed...
But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead
yet.
...but what do we replace it with? This has been rehashed quite a bit,
but
no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably
concise
and is politically acceptable. (Personally I am happy with "developing world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are
euphemistic
as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)
I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a
list
of
countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some
uniformity
throughout all these countries. It is my understanding that most of
the
consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the
assumption
that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS countries the same. I hope it is by now evident we are not.
Once again, I find no point to debating this. All who _are_ interested
are
welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a shortlist) to WMF for consideration. If a superior term arises, I
promise
to make an effort to adopt it across WMF. Until then, let's focus on
the
actual work rather than the nomenclature.
I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil
and
India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on
the
ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a
discontinuation
of
the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements.
Does
the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff
will
be
working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future?
Full-time
staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia
Foundation
contractors?
There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the
world!)
means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in
progress),
no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic
organizations,
and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be
WMF
grantees.
Cheers,
A.
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe