*Hi Everyone, On Thursday, we released an extensive research report [1] about Wikimedia’s role in shaping the future of the information commons. The report was created as part of the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process, as the Foundation engaged research teams to examine awareness and usage of Wikimedia projects and evolving information consumption habits. The consulting teams conducted desk research and spoke both with people familiar with and involved in the Wikimedia movement and expert observers who could inform the strategy process but who are not directly involved today. In one-on-one interviews, experts in geographic areas where the projects are most heavily used were asked to think about future trends in their fields and how the trends might apply to the Wikimedia movement’s strategy. This particular research focused on six broad topics that seemed most likely to further or frustrate the vision for growth that the Foundation embraces. In this report, the Foundation’s staff and its consulting teams present top-level insights from this global process. Perspectives from interviewees around the world are also provided with context about their region and area of expertise. The report draws from six comprehensive research briefs,[2] published on Wikimedia’s strategy website, which address these topics: - Demographics: Who is in the world in 2030? The report outlines global population trends, which project the highest population growth in places where Wikimedia has significant room to expand.- Emerging platforms: How will people around the world be using communications technologies to find, create, and share information? The report considers future technologies, from the imminent to the speculative, and examines what range of new hardware, software, and content production capabilities might mean for content creation and user access.- Misinformation: How will people find trustworthy sources of knowledge and information? The report explores how content creators and technologists can ensure that knowledge is trustworthy and also identifies threats to these efforts.- Literacy: How will the world learn in the future? The report forecasts that technology will transform learning and educational settings as well as expand the requirements for literacy beyond text and images.- Open knowledge: How will we share culture, ideas, and information? The report documents the global trend toward opening collections and archives to the public and making them freely available online, and explores ways the Wikimedia movement might partner with people and organizations to accelerate this sharing.- Expect the unexpected: How can we know what the world will look like in 2030 — and what the Wikimedia movement’s role will be in it?The report proposes that a study of trends can never be truly predictive and introduces alternative visionary tools such as scenario planning and speculative social science fiction.The consulting team published an additional research brief on the future of the digital commons,[3] examining the political and commercial forces that could lead to the contraction or expansion of the open web. Looking at the constellation of issues most important to the Wikimedia community, this brief identifies access, censorship, privacy, copyright, and intermediary liability as active battlefronts.The fate of the digital commons is the single subject that rises above and intersects with each of the other areas of research. The commons of the future will shape the environment that ultimately fosters or blocks all of the Wikimedia projects’ work. Thus, this report weaves research findings about the future of the commons throughout.Specifically, the report highlights growing concerns across civil society about the quality of and access to open knowledge online, as well as compounding threats to the Wikimedia movement and its open knowledge allies. Between now and 2030, open knowledge advocates face headwinds that include censorship by governments and corporations, internet shutdowns, surveillance of users, information monopolies, and troubling developments such as the arrests of scholars and journalists operating in closed societies.The Wikimedia movement is positioned to work toward potential solutions to these threats. Despite the trend toward a “darkening globe,” some leaders see the Wikimedia movement as among the brightest hopes and most inspiring exemplars of the global digital commons.The Wikimedia movement has immediate internal challenges to address, including adapting to an increasingly mobile internet, recruiting a new generation of volunteers, and expanding its partnerships with schools and “GLAM” organizations (i.e. galleries, libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural institutions that have access to knowledge as their mission). But Wikimedia and its open knowledge allies, working together, can lift up people everywhere, empowering communities through access and participation in knowledge creation and sharing. Across the interviews and salons, there was a clarion call for the building of this larger, more active, and multi-partner open knowledge movement.For extended narratives, many more citations, and community discussion of the research, visit the Wikimedia strategy page that aggregates into a single web directory not only this work but also the totality of the Foundation’s strategy process: 2030.wikimedia.org https://2030.wikimedia.org/.The report concludes with an analysis of cross-cutting themes that arose from the research, as well as a set of recommendations and discussion questions for the movement and its partners. The goal of these final sections is not to close the discussion. Instead, it is to set the stage for the next phase of work for the Foundation and the movement: to move from strategies to actions that not only will preserve what has already been built, but also make the projects useful and vital for billions of future Wikimedia users.We're grateful to the Wikimedia staff, volunteers, consultants, and interviewees who made this report possible. Best,Caitlin Virtue[1] You can read this on Wikimedia Commons (PDF): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strategy_2030_Wikipedia%27s_role_in_... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strategy_2030_Wikipedia%27s_role_in_shaping_the_future_of_the_information_commons.pdfOr Medium: https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-2030-fo... https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-2030-forward-and-introductory-notes-dac9ec013c72[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Str... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Strategy_2030:_Wikipedia%27s_role_in_shaping_the_future_of_the_information_commons[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Str... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Strategy_2030:_Wikipedia%27s_role_in_shaping_the_future_of_the_information_commons*
Caitlin, thanks for sharing this.
My general thoughts are below. These are not directed at Caitlin or anyone else in particular.
I think that the document does a generally good job of outlining trends and asking questions. I think that I agree with about 95% of what's in the document. I agree especially strongly that there should be more emphasis on improving the user experience for those who wish to contribute content using mobile devices.
My most significant concern is with the question that the document asks staff: "How will the Wikimedia Foundation assert and balance leadership of the Wikimedia movement with its role fostering a robust volunteer culture?" WMF's role is that of a public service organization, not a central management agency, and "assert(ing)" leadership is the opposite of what WMF should do. Wikimedia's culture is collective rather than monarchical. Staff and Board members should be trained to understand that their role is to serve the public interest, and not to manage or supervise the community.
Leadership of individual projects, initiatives, and teams happens in many ways inside and outside of WMF, and leadership skills are important. However, I believe that leadership of the entire movement is not and should not be WMF's role. WMF can be the facilitator, but should not be the manager. In the recent past we had a vivid demonstration of what happens when there are governance problems in WMF.
I think that good questions would be:
1. How can WMF better align its internal priorities with those of the community? There has been progress on this during the past few years, and I would like to see continued progress.
2. How can WMF evolve such that if WMF became dysfunctional or inoperable, the remaining organizations and people in the Wikimedia ecosystem could continue to thrive?
I also would like to see questions about the governance and financial transparency of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example by asking questions such as "Should WMF decentralize some of its current functions?", "Should WMF become a membership organization?", and "Should WMF increase its financial transparency?"
After reading the document, I'm left wondering how to make progress on some of the issues that the document outlines. We've known about some of these issues for years, and in a number of cases WMF has funded efforts to address them, but in multiple cases we have had limited success.
Even when we have agreement about the nature of challenges and that we'd like to address them, we don't necessarily know how to address them effectively. I think that the document does a good job of asking us questions that we should explore, and probably will continue to explore for many years.
We need considerably more human resources than we have now on many fronts, including more contributors in diverse languages, contributors with the skills and tools improve the visual experience of Wikimedia content, and contributors who can protect the sites from interference from people who harm the integrity of the information on Wikimedia sites. I am not sure how we make that happen, or that it will happen. I fear that it will only happen after AI takes over a considerable number of jobs that humans do today, so that there is a significant increase of global unemployment and under-employment of people who have the skills and the will to contribute to Wikimedia. I hope that I'm wrong.
I realize that this email sounds a bit pessimistic. I think that there are numerous significant challenges for us. I am hoping for the best. In the short term we are doing okay, and we continue to numerous incremental successes. In the long term, I am worried.
Hoi, Nina Simon wrote a blog post [1] that I think has a lot of merit for what we could do to gain relevance. Nina is big in the GLAM world and the museum she works for has an approach that will have a big effect when we consider it carefully and implement it in the best way we can. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://museumtwo.blogspot.nl/2018/02/are-participant-demographics-most.html
On 19 February 2018 at 01:26, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Caitlin, thanks for sharing this.
My general thoughts are below. These are not directed at Caitlin or anyone else in particular.
I think that the document does a generally good job of outlining trends and asking questions. I think that I agree with about 95% of what's in the document. I agree especially strongly that there should be more emphasis on improving the user experience for those who wish to contribute content using mobile devices.
My most significant concern is with the question that the document asks staff: "How will the Wikimedia Foundation assert and balance leadership of the Wikimedia movement with its role fostering a robust volunteer culture?" WMF's role is that of a public service organization, not a central management agency, and "assert(ing)" leadership is the opposite of what WMF should do. Wikimedia's culture is collective rather than monarchical. Staff and Board members should be trained to understand that their role is to serve the public interest, and not to manage or supervise the community.
Leadership of individual projects, initiatives, and teams happens in many ways inside and outside of WMF, and leadership skills are important. However, I believe that leadership of the entire movement is not and should not be WMF's role. WMF can be the facilitator, but should not be the manager. In the recent past we had a vivid demonstration of what happens when there are governance problems in WMF.
I think that good questions would be:
- How can WMF better align its internal priorities with those of the
community? There has been progress on this during the past few years, and I would like to see continued progress.
- How can WMF evolve such that if WMF became dysfunctional or inoperable,
the remaining organizations and people in the Wikimedia ecosystem could continue to thrive?
I also would like to see questions about the governance and financial transparency of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example by asking questions such as "Should WMF decentralize some of its current functions?", "Should WMF become a membership organization?", and "Should WMF increase its financial transparency?"
After reading the document, I'm left wondering how to make progress on some of the issues that the document outlines. We've known about some of these issues for years, and in a number of cases WMF has funded efforts to address them, but in multiple cases we have had limited success.
Even when we have agreement about the nature of challenges and that we'd like to address them, we don't necessarily know how to address them effectively. I think that the document does a good job of asking us questions that we should explore, and probably will continue to explore for many years.
We need considerably more human resources than we have now on many fronts, including more contributors in diverse languages, contributors with the skills and tools improve the visual experience of Wikimedia content, and contributors who can protect the sites from interference from people who harm the integrity of the information on Wikimedia sites. I am not sure how we make that happen, or that it will happen. I fear that it will only happen after AI takes over a considerable number of jobs that humans do today, so that there is a significant increase of global unemployment and under-employment of people who have the skills and the will to contribute to Wikimedia. I hope that I'm wrong.
I realize that this email sounds a bit pessimistic. I think that there are numerous significant challenges for us. I am hoping for the best. In the short term we are doing okay, and we continue to numerous incremental successes. In the long term, I am worried.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org