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: 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
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