I feel much the same as Lodewijk, though it is possible that we differ in detail. As he
says the document is rather vague and open to divergent interpretation after the fact.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lodewijk
Sent: Friday, 20 October 2017 7:51 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement
direction and endorsement process (#25)
Thanks for the response, Katherine. I'm a little concerned that we can have such
"vastly different" interpretations of the same text. I tried to get some
Wikimedians to give me their take-away, and have not gotten a consistent direction from
those.
What I mostly remember after reading your response is that Wikimedia would be doing more
of the same, and more.
This is a two-folded concern for me. On one hand, it feels like the direction is too
multi-interpretable. While vagueness and leaving specifics open is only natural, I do
believe that a clear direction is essential to take the next steps.
Second, after reading your response I'm left with the feeling that we don't really
take a direction. Choosing a direction is also determining what not to do. This was also a
main criticism of the earlier version presented at Wikimania. Directions are painful,
because we're not satisfying everyone.
Currently, the WMF is asking people and affiliates to 'endorse' this text.
It has a high textual quality and says a number of things that resonate with my ideals and
those that I know to be Wikimedia's ideals. However, I don't feel it provides the
direction we need yet. I'm not keen on endorsing a direction, which may then be
interpreted in a vastly different way.
I should also note: I have little hope of changing the process. And it may very well be
that I'm alone in this concern. But I would suggest that you
(plural) select 25 (or more) random Wikimedians that were not intimately involved with the
strategic process, let them read the direction, and let them summarize their take-aways.
(that is working from the assumption you have not done so already) If their variance is
too large, that may be an indicator that unfortunately another cycle of labor may be
needed before we can enter the next round. Given all effort and resources that have been
invested in this process, such sanity check may be worth while.
Warmly,
Lodewijk
ps: just to state the obvious: I'm highly appreciative of all the work that went into
this. It could have turned out worse in many many ways, and I appreciate all the efforts
that went into involving the community. I'm always feeling guilty about not having
been able to spend way more time on the strategic process than I did in all the various
steps of the process - such rebut would be totally fair :).
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Katherine Maher <kmaher(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay in chiming in. It's been a busy few weeks, and
while I haven't made a public update about strategy in a while, work
has been continuing! We've now closed Phase 1, and we're heading into
Phase 2, in which our objective is to start thinking about how we make
the strategic direction into a plan of action and implementation. It's
an opportunity to create greater clarity about how we each understand
the direction, how we might set goals against it, what we may need to
change to achieve these goals, and how we can contribute -- as
projects, communities, and individuals. I’ll be sending my next weekly
update shortly but I wanted to acknowledge the contributions in this thread first.
I've read through this entire thread, and I've agreed, disagreed,
agreed again, and started emails only to see new ones come in and have
to scrap my drafts. While I found myself often agreeing with Erik, I
dig the challenges you all have put forward and appreciate the
diversity of opinions. Some of our differences stem from the unique
contexts of the groups and individuals responding and will result in
differences in implementation in each community. Other differences,
such as questioning the very concept of source credibility, will
certainly require additional discussion. But regardless of where we
end up, it has been a delight to follow such a rich, substantive
conversation. This has been one of the best, and most
thought-provoking, Wikimedia-l threads I've read in some time, and I
hope that it is the first of many as we go into Phase 2 of the movement strategy
process.
A few more responses inline:
2017-10-04 11:19 GMT-07:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>rg>:
I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards,
there
is
too much space for a variety of interpretation.
The one thing that I
take away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of
the free knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a
service. We don't expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10
years, but we do want that our work is being put to good use.
It's always helpful to read critique as a challenge to our logical
assumptions. Lodewijk, I see where your interpretation comes from
here, but it is vastly different than how I interpret from this
statement. To the contrary, I wouldn’t say "service" and "brand" are
mutually exclusive. I do think that Wikimedia should want to continue
to be known as a destination for free knowledge, and we do want to
increase brand awareness, especially in areas and contexts where we
are not yet well (or not at all) known. Our brand (including our
communities) and visibility are some of our most valuable assets as a
movement, and it would be strategically unwise not to build on them for long-term
planning.
When I think about knowledge as a service, it means that we want this,
*and much more*. It’s additive. We want to be who we are today, *and*
we want to provide a service to other institutions. We want to use
that brand and visibility to work with others in the ecosystem. We
also want to be present in new experiences and delivery channels, in
order to preserve the direct interface connection with Wikipedia's
contributors and readers that we have on the web. I see this as
essential - for our readers, it's about ensuring a core promise: that
the chain of evidence for the information they seek is unbroken and
transparent, from citation to edit. For our contributors, it's about extending ways
to contribute as our digital interfaces evolve.
We know from the Phase 1 research that many readers see Wikipedia as a
utility, whether we like it or not. We know that people reuse our
content in many contexts. My interpretation of “knowledge as a
service” is not that we vanish into the background, but that we become
ever more essential to people's lives. And part of our doing so is not
only enriching the experience people have on Wikipedia, but investing
in how Wikipedia can promote the opening of knowledge overall. Today,
MediaWiki and Wikibase are already infrastructures that serve other
free knowledge projects, in turn enriching the material on which our
projects can draw. What more could we do if we supported openness more systemically?
I understand that the direction may still feel too vague. A direction
for the 2030 horizon is bound to lack specifics. I actually think this is okay.
The direction comes from a small-ish group of drafters trying to make
sense of 8 months of thousands of perspectives. In that sense, a small
group can only do so much. It is now our responsibility, as movement
actors, to take this direction and interpret it in our respective
contexts, based on our respective experiences. This will be a major
part of Phase 2 of the movement discussions.
2017-10-09 17:44 GMT-07:00 Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com>om>:
With an eye to 2030 and WMF's long-term direction, I do think it's
worth thinking about Wikidata's centrality, and I would agree with
you at least that the phrase "the essential infrastructure of the
ecosystem" does overstate what I think WMF should aspire to (the
"essential infrastructure" should consist of many open components
maintained by different groups).
There is indeed an element of aspiration in that phrase. I knew it
would be controversial, and we talked about it quite a bit in
drafting, but advocated that we include it anyway. After all, our
vision statement is "a world in which every single human can freely
share in the sum of all knowledge." That's certainly inclusive (it has
no single parties or
ownership) but it is also wildly aspirational. But despite the
impossibility of our that aspiration, it has worked quite well: we've
made great strides toward a project that is "impossible in theory".
For each person who felt we should moderate the language of the
direction, there was another who wanted us to be more bold and
recapture this ambition. They wanted us to believe in ourselves, and
give the world something to believe in. As Wikimedians, we tend to
prefer matter-of-fact, sometimes plain and noncommittal statements.
While that works well for NPOV content, a strategic direction also
seeks to inspire ambitious efforts. The drafting group removed much of
the flowery language from the earlier versions of the draft, but the
goal was to keep just enough to inspire movement actors and external partners.
2017-10-09 17:44 GMT-07:00 Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com>om>:
Wikidata in particular is best seen not as the singular source of
truth, but as an important hub in a network of open data providers
-- primarily governments, public institutions, nonprofits. This is
consistent with recent developments around Wikidata such as query
federation.
Personally, I couldn’t agree more. I see federated structured data as
an inevitable (and very favorable) outcome of the concept of a
service-based model. Distribution enables greater flexibility in
implementation and customization across the network while improving
the resilience of the whole system. This is true in terms of technical
stability, political influence or censorship, and breadth and depth of
content. If one starts to understand Wikidata as a project, and
Wikibase as a platform, we start to really be able to see how a
broader adoption of open structures and attribution models can only enrich and increase
the open ecosystem overall.
I also think the Wikidata model is one that has been working very well
and one that others in our ecosystem could benefit from. Today, on our
newest Wikimedia project, we work with governments, the private
sector, and individual community members, in largely constructive
ways. And in many cases, the very existence of Wikidata makes it
possible for these institutions to be open, when they would otherwise
lack the expertise or resources to build their own open data infrastructure.
For me, “Knowledge as a service” means supporting those institutions
by providing the infrastructure that they can use for this purpose,
and also accompanying them through the social and institutional
changes that come with opening data and freeing knowledge. That
infrastructure could be Wikidata, it could be other Wikimedia
projects, or it could be other Wikibase instances, depending on what
makes the most sense for each context.
Anyway, there's a lot more to discuss, and thank you all again for
these excellent conversations!
I know that some folks were wondering about all the consultation
comments about features, interfaces, and product improvements that
didn't get incorporated into the strategy. We knew from the beginning
of the processes that we'd certainly get quite a few of these requests
that were too specific to be integrated into long-term strategic
thinking and planned accordingly to document them. The goal was to
consider how they might be taken up by either Foundation staff or
interested volunteer developers. As a result, we're publishing a
“Features report” written by Suzie Nussel that summarizes these
requests, and should be a useful starting point for specific improvements that could be
addressed in the shorter term.
See you soon with the next strategy update.
Katherine
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe
<jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Wikidata has its own problems in that regard that have triggered
ongoing
discussions and concerns on the English Wikipedia.[1]
Tensions between different communities with overlapping but
non-identical objectives are unavoidable. Repository projects like
Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons provide huge payoff: they
dramatically reduce duplication of effort, enable small language
communities to benefit from the work done internationally, and can
tackle a more expansive scope than the immediate needs of existing
projects. A few examples include:
- Wiki Loves Monuments, recognized as the world's largest photo
competition
- Partnerships with countless galleries,
libraries, archives, and
museums
- Wikidata initiatives like mySociety's "Everypolitician" project or
Gene Wiki
This is not without its costs, however. Differing policies, levels
of maturity, and social expectations will always fuel some level of
conflict, and the repository approach creates huge usability
challenges. The latter is also true for internal wiki features like
templates, which shift information out of the article space,
disempowering users who no longer understand how the whole is
constructed from its parts.
I would call these usability and "legibility" issues the single
biggest challenge in the development of Wikidata, Structured Data
for Commons, and other repository functionality. Much related work
has already been done or is ticketed in Phabricator, such as the
effective propagation of changes into watchlists, article histories,
and notifications. Much more will need to follow.
With regard to the issue of citations, it's worth noting that it's
already possible to _conditionally_ load data from Wikidata,
excluding information that is unsourced or only sourced circularly
(i.e. to Wikipedia itself). [1] Template invocations can also
override values provided by Wikidata, for example, if there is a
source, but it is not considered reliable by the standards of a specific project.
If a digital voice assistant propagates a
Wikimedia mistake
without
telling
users where it got its information from, then
there is not even a
feedback
form. Editability is of no help at all if people
can't find the source.
I'm in favor of always indicating at least provenance (something
like "Here's a quote from Wikipedia:"), even for short excerpts, and
I certainly think WMF and chapters can advocate for this practice.
However, where short excerpts are concerned, it's not at all clear
that there is a _legal_ issue here, and that full compliance with
all requirements of the license is a reasonable "ask".
Bing's search result page manages a decent compromise, I think: it
shows excerpts from Wikipedia clearly labeled as such, and it links
to the CC-BY-SA license if you expand the excerpt, e.g.:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=france
I know that over the years, many efforts have been undertaken to
document best practices for re-use, ranging from local
community-created pages to chapter guides and tools like the
"Lizenzhinweisgenerator". I don't know what the best-available of
these is nowadays, but if none exists, it might be a good idea to
develop a new, comprehensive guide that takes into account voice
applications, tabular data, and so on.
Such a guide would ideally not just be written from a license
compliance perspective, but also include recommendations, e.g., on
how to best indicate provenance, distinguishing "here's what you must do"
from "here's what we recommend".
> Wikidata will often provide a shallow first
level of information
> about a subject, while other linked sources provide deeper
> information. The more structured the information, the easier it
> becomes to validate in an automatic fashion that, for example,
> the subset of country population time series data represented in
> Wikidata is an accurate representation of the source material.
> Even when a large source dataset is mirrored by Wikimedia (for
> low-latency visualization, say), you can hash it, digitally sign
> it, and restrict modifiability of copies.
Interesting, though I'm not aware of that
being done at present.
At present, Wikidata allows users to model constraints on internal
data validity. These constraints are used for regularly generated
database reports as well as on-demand lookup via
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ConstraintReport . This kicks
in, for example, if you put in an insane number in a population
field, or mark a country as female.
There is a project underway to also validate against external
sources;
see:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase_Quality_
Extensions#Special_Page_Cross-Check_with_external_databases
Wikidata still tends to deal with relatively small amounts of data;
a highly annotated item like Germany (Q183), for example, comes in
at under 1MB in uncompressed JSON form. Time series data like GDP is
often included only for a single point in time, or for a subset of
the available data. The relatively new "Data:" namespace on Commons
exists to store raw datasets; this is only used to a very limited
extent so far, but there are some examples of how such data can be
visualized,
e.g.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Graph:Population_history
Giving volunteers more powerful tools to select and visualize data
while automating much of the effort of maintaining data integrity
seems like an achievable and strategic goal, and as these examples
show, some building blocks for this are already in place.
> But the proprietary knowledge graphs are
valuable to users in
> ways that the previous generation of search engines was not.
> Interacting with a device like you would with a human being
> ("Alexa/Google/Siri, is yarrow edible?") makes knowledge more
> accessible and usable, including to people who have difficulty
> reading long texts, or who are not literate at all. In this sense
> I don't think WMF should ever find itself in the position to
> argue _against_ inclusion of information from Wikimedia projects in these
applications.
There is a distinct likelihood that they will
make reading
Wikipedia articles progressively obsolete, just like the
availability of Googling
has
dissuaded many people from sitting down and
reading a book.
There is an important distinction between "lookup" and "learning";
the former is a transactional activity ("Is this country part of the
Euro
zone?") and the latter an immersive one ("How did the EU come
about?"). Where we now get instant answers from home assistants or
search engines, we may have previously skimmed, or performed our own
highly optimized search in the local knowledge repository called a
"bookshelf".
In other words, even if some instant answers lead to a drop in
Wikipedia views, it would be unreasonable to assume that those views
were "reads" rather than "skims". When you're on a purely
transactional journey, you appreciate almost anything that shortens
it.
I don't think Wikimedia should fight the gravity of a user's
intentions out of its own pedagogical motives. Rather, it should
make both lookup and learning as appealing as possible. Doing well
in the "lookup" category is important to avoid handing too much
control off to gatekeepers, and being good in the "learning"
category holds the greatest promise for lasting positive impact.
As for the larger social issue, at least in the US, the youngest
(most
googley) generation is the one that reads the most books, and
income/education are very strong predictors of whether people do or
not:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly-
fewer-americans-are-reading-print-books-new-survey-finds/
> The applications themselves are not the
problem; the centralized
> gatekeeper control is. Knowledge as an open service (and network)
> is actually the solution to that root problem. It's how we weaken
> and perhaps even break the control of the gatekeepers. Your
> critique seems to boil down to "Let's ask Google for more
> crumbs". In spite of all your anti-corporate social justice
> rhetoric, that seems to be the path to developing a one-sided dependency
relationship.
I considered that, but in the end felt that given
the extent to
which Google profited from volunteers' work, it wasn't an unfair ask.
While I think your proposal to ask Google to share access to
resources it already has digitized or licensed is worth considering,
I would suggest being very careful about the long term implications
of any such agreements. Having a single corporation control volunteers'
access to proprietary resources means that such access can also be
used as leverage down the road, or abruptly be taken away for other
reasons.
I think it would be more interesting to spin off the existing
"Wikipedia Library" into its own international organization (or home
it with an existing one), tasked with giving free knowledge
contributors (including potentially to other free knowledge projects
like OSM) access to proprietary resources, and pursuing public and
private funding of its own. The development of many relationships
may take longer, but it is more sustainable in the long run.
Moreover, it has the potential to lead to powerful collaborations
with existing public/nonprofit digitization and preservation efforts.
> Publicise the fact that Google and others profit from volunteer
> work,
and
give very
little back. The world could do with more articles like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/
2015/07/22/you-dont-know-it-but-youre-working-for-facebook-for-free/
I have plenty of criticisms of Facebook, but the fact that users
don't get paid for posting selfies isn't one of them. My thoughts on
how the free culture movement (not limited to Wikipedia) should
interface with the for-profit sector are as follows, FWIW:
1) Demand appropriate levels of taxation on private profits, [2]
sufficient investments in public education and cultural
institutions, and "open licensing" requirements on government
contracts with private corporations.
2) Require compliance with free licenses, first gently, then more
firmly. This is a game of diminishing returns, and it's most useful
to go after the most blatant and problematic cases. As noted above,
"fair use" limits should be understood and taken into consideration.
3) Encourage corporations to be "good citizens" of the free culture
world, whether it's through indicating provenance beyond what's
legally required, or by contributing directly (open source
development, knowledge/data donations, in-kind goods/services,
financial contributions). The payoff for them is goodwill and a
thriving (i.e. also profitable) open Internet that more people in
more places use for more things.
4) Build community-driven, open, nonprofit alternatives to
out-of-control corporate quasi-monopolies. As far as proprietary
knowledge graphs are concerned, I will reiterate: open data is the
solution, not the problem.
Cheers,
Erik
[1] See the getValue function in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:WikidataIB , specifically its
"onlysourced" parameter. The module also adds a convenient "Edit
this on Wikidata" link to each claim included from there.
[2] As far as Wikimedia organizations are concerned, specific tax
policy will likely always be out of scope of political advocacy, but
the other points need not be.
_______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Katherine Maher
Executive Director
*We moved! **Our new address:*
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
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(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:
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.