If anyone finds the report biased, it would be helpful to share the excerpts or the absences that prove this bias. We are happy to amend any mistakes, but for that we need to identify them.

Also, it would be useful to know your perceived gravity of any bias you detect. In other words, the report supports our decision to commit to the long-term maintenance of the MS Forum. Based on your interpretation of the community review, would you still support this decision or would you decide something different (and what)? This helps knowing whether we are talking about details or high impact perceived bias.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 7:57 PM Mike Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:

With respect, I think you have a big selection effect in your report. I
guess you're getting most of your positive comments directly on your new
forum, and you're matching them against your initial viewpoint, rather
than being unbiased?

If you look at comments on-wiki, they seem to be quite negative, e.g.,
have a look through discussions at:

We have included the feedback of this page in the report. We already reflected it during the review period as we were publicly drafting the summaries of each question, week after week. We even re-posted some of that feedback in the corresponding forum discussion, to give forum users a glimpse of the discussion on Meta (example).

What feedback in that Talk page do you miss that is relevant and should have been reflected?

That discussion started after the community review ended but the feedback follows the same lines as the page on Meta. Still, same question, what ideas are missing in the report? 

I strongly suggest running a Meta RfC about the existence of this forum,
following standard community processes, and then decide on its future:

This is a forum to support the Movement Strategy implementation. The community review was advertised in all Movement Strategy channels and beyond. The feedback clearly reflects an overall preference to try the MS Forum further rather than shutting it down. Users will decide about this forum with their own feet (fingers), consolidating it as a community space or not.

Given that this Forum is especially conceived to better support those who can't or won't use Meta for discussions and collaboration, we don't think a Meta RFC would be the right tool for this task. 


Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation