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 1.
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: 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