Hello, I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not based on actual discussions about the forum. Nevertheless, even if the summary was good, which is doubtful, the data presented in the discussion (https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/ms-forum-community-review-report/1436…) is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the axis isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in percent but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something in these graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as a percent makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people participating in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world region where it seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in Sub-saharan Africa. But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5% of the Meta Users are from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users. But 12,5% of the Meta users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33 people. Is to say, there are more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan Africa using Meta than MS Forums. The graph is misleading also in this point, not only in the percent not adding up. Then there are some interesting points about engagement. Is clearly going down. Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta engagement, so a comparison is difficult, but the data provided to defend that this forum is thriving is just saying the opposite. If possible, I would like to have some clarifications on this data. Thanks Galder ________________________________ From: Mike Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 7:56 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum Hi, 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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#new_resource_for…. I strongly suggest running a Meta RfC about the existence of this forum, following standard community processes, and then decide on its future: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment Thanks, Mike On 18/8/22 17:00:36, Quim Gil wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Percentages look good, and show some comparison but the reality is the actual raw number say just as much when meta has 4600 and formun has less than 200 and without staff less than 150 its not exactly a like for like engagement. By the end of the survey majority are those who are getting heard on Forum are going to be the ones who fill in the survey. We see what we want to see. Going right back to the early days of the movement the biggest issue has always been splitting off discussion holding discussions outside of the room and taking decision arbitrarily based on these discussion areas. There has been many admin/crat users sanctioned for taking decision based on an IRC discussion, an email, or other off project discussions. What we appear to be doing is taking everything off the projects because "talking on the project is too difficult" excuse is being rolled out everywhere, the only ones not able to discuss on the projects are those that dont contribute to the projects. My single most frustrating issue is that those being hired to run MS sections dont know the projects nor the community and make no effort to fill that void in their knowledge and prefer outside formats, outside paid for tools over the projects. On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 at 07:18, Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- GN.

Dear Asaf, You are right, Meta users are talking about whatever. It should be interesting to know what are the strategic discussions about, and how are them of a better quality through the MS Forum. The forum topic with more interactions is interesting: 日本とのつながり / Japanese Connection<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/japanese-connection/203…/6>. Then the next with most comments is "Say hello!<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/say-hello/79/18>"8>". We have then one related to the Strategy, Sub-saharan Africa Strategic Talk<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/sub-saharan-africa-strategic-…67>, and the next most used 6 forum topics are about the platform itself, not about strategy. From the next 20 more commented topics, only 2 are about the MS. There's another one about the elections. It seems that, as in Meta, the interactions are not especially about the Movement Strategy. And even those that are about the MS are not really impactful ([DRAFT] Minimum Criteria for Hub Pilots<https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/draft-minimum-criteria-for-…)5>), with less than 7 users actually discussing, and at least 3 of them members of the WMF. I don't know how to measure impact. I know that this is not a good metric in any way. Cheers, Galder ________________________________ From: Asaf Bartov &lt;abartov(a)wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:49 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com<mailto:gnangarra@gmail.com>> wrote: Percentages look good, and show some comparison but the reality is the actual raw number say just as much when meta has 4600 and formun has less than 200 and without staff less than 150 its not exactly a like for like engagement. "Meta has 4600 and forum has less than 200", you say. 4600 what, though? That number is the number of "Active users", meaning people who make edits. However, comparing the 4600 active users of Meta to the 200 active[1] users is not comparing like with like: on Meta, edits are made on hundreds of different topics, from requests for permissions through learning patterns, global abuse investigations, to grant proposals and discussions. And very little discussion of Movement Strategy. In other words, a very small proportion (what proportion exactly, I don't have the means to ascertain) of the 4600 active users of Meta are engaged in Movement Strategy, so the number 4600 represents nothing relevant to this discussion. The Forum, on the other hand, is dedicated to Movement Strategy discussion, so a large number of the 200 active users are in fact discussing Movement Strategy. (Personally I would like the Forum to be even more focused on Movement Strategy and to discourage content-free "social" posts, but I am not involved with the Forum's governance.) In other words, I suggest that those of you determined to only discuss Movement Strategy on Meta do more of that, to lead by example. It is within your power to move the critical mass of active discussion of Movement Strategy and the liveliest proposals and plans to Meta. Remember that it is as a response to the difficulty[2] of gaining traction for Movement Strategy conversations that the Forum was created. Asaf (personal opinion) [1] I think discounting staff engaging on the Forum is a mistake. Staff is also engaging on Meta, yet is included in the 4600 figure. I am guessing more staff engage on the Forum, by design, but surely that engagement is a good thing, as it is on Meta. [2] that difficulty is certainly not solely due to the technology of Meta; there were other factors dampening engagement about Movement Strategy, some of them, I daresay, the fault of the Foundation. But Meta's shortcomings as a venue are indicated in surveys as a major reason people aren't engaging in conversation about Movement Strategy, so the Foundation acted on that input. Again, you can demonstrate that that reason is not a significant factor by creating and participating in lively Movement Strategy discussions on Meta. [https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/SWZYcVEn695dioXdRPnKh1kLODfCsGvJ3osStupE1…] Asaf Bartov (he/him/his) Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities Wikimedia Foundation<https://wikimediafoundation.org/> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>

Dear Quim and all, On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:18 AM Quim Gil &lt;qgil(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: I would start with the first sentence of the summary. This currently reads: "The result of the community review is positive." This is not a neutral summary of even the report's own content, which accurately describes sentiments as "mixed". The summary continues: "The goal of the MS Forum is: *to improve community collaboration around Movement Strategy (MS) on a multilingual platform that is welcoming and easy to use. *The participation and support received during the community review support the premise. Close to 300 people participated in the community review; many participants were from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Many are contributors from medium-size and small Wikimedia projects." We all know few people read Wikipedia articles from beginning to end. Most just scan the first couple of paragraphs. The same will apply to this page. The fact that none of the negative community feedback has made it into the Summary's first paragraph makes this report come across like an ideologically driven ad, designed to shape opinion rather than reflect it. So, revising the summary, starting with the first sentence, would be a good place to begin. Best, Andreas

Quim, thanks for sharing. This feels like a project where going part-way and stopping could make things more confusing, but seriously embracing the challenge of integrating the strengths of discourse and wikis, and ensuring the result helps streamline and integrate and improve communication, could be excellent -- and well received / used by more people than just us. + Automatic translation of discussions is essential, tangibly useful for our communities, and very satisfying. --> how can we bring this to Mediawiki? This is a core question for community health, movement development, and tech. It is a straightforward concept, not exclusive to Discourse, and we should learn from it. + Forum threading and features (tags, emotes) are nice, beloved by some. This is the third attempt to start a WM-related discourse. --> how might we support integrating discourse into a) mediawiki, b) interwiki links? (so that a forum post could link to *m:Power_structure*, and a meta post could link to *f:Wikischool*) – Wikimedia Space was closed after a year, and its links no longer resolve. --> how can we add discourse into current versioning + archiving workflows? I would appreciate it if reports on this Forum could explicitly address ~ how & why Space was closed, and implications for the approach here, ~ how to keep links to Space discussions working/redirecting appropriately, and implications for how to ensure the same linkrot doesn't happen here, ~ how conversations there & on the Meta Forum <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Forum> & on other evergreen pages on Meta are intended to be kept in synch, for both short-term discussions (like rfcs) and long-term strategizing (like a page describing the history and state of an initiative) ~ what it might look like for this to later become a more standard part of our wikiverse (e.g., *forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy <http://forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy>*). Warmly, SJ On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:18 AM Mike Peel &lt;email(a)mikepeel.net&gt; wrote:

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:15 AM Gergő Tisza &lt;gtisza(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Thank you for this info. I hope it can be realistic and a priority for the next annual plan. Well said...will only add that even most simple option to add 'like'-like feedback makes huge difference as it at least partly cuts down on extra messages that feel like unnecessary spam in big mailing-lists and telegram groups (those that did not turned on that recent feature). From what I learned as Drupal user is that having multiple (fixed and flexible) taxonomies for tagging could be super useful and I hope this feature gets developed in both core Discourse and MediaWiki (even if just on user end). Thank you for volunteering for this, but I think it should be systematically done by more than one person and as part of WMF workflows. Think living with ugly is kind of bearable in Wikimedia world ;-p IMHO use of w.wiki subdomains, should not be bad option :-)