Hi y'all!
*Summary: Cycle 2 has concluded, and we are sharing a revised plan for Cycle 3 based on your feedback.*
Thank you to everyone that participated in Cycle 2![1] A quick overview of participation: - More than 50 Wikimedia groups, including: -- Art+Feminism User Group -- WikiDonne's User Group -- Wikimedia Ghana User Group -- Wikimedia Poland - More than 1,000 individual participants - Nearly 2,300 statements
In addition to the weekly summaries already available on Meta-Wiki,[2] we will also be posting a final report in the coming weeks.
Over the past few weeks I’ve heard from many of you with feedback, concerns, and excitement regarding the movement strategy. Thank you, truly, to everyone that has reached out to share your thoughts. They have been so helpful in understanding your perspectives and needs.
Some things I’ve heard:
- Curiosity around how the findings from the different tracks will come together - Request from affiliates for more time to engage more deeply in these topics - Passionate and divergent ideas from non-editors who support our vision - A desire to get as many endorsements from around the movement on the strategic direction as possible
I asked the strategy team for help in responding to this feedback, so we could improve the process based on what you were telling us. After discussions with the team and community advisors, we have decided to move to a more flexible schedule, and change the timeline. This will provide more time for discussions in your own communities. We also hope you will use the time to deeply consider the research emerging from the New Voices track,[3] and incorporate it into the way you are thinking about our future.
Here is the new proposed timeline:
- July: Complete Cycle 3. Integrate insights from New Voices. Draft the strategic direction. - August: Share the strategic direction. Wikimania! Finalize the direction. - September: Sign on! Confirm support from around the movement.
As July approaches, we will share more information about opportunities to participate in drafting the strategic direction[4] and engage with New Voices content.[3]
Thank you for your patience as we worked through these improvements, and again, thank you for the feedback!
*On a related note*
As you have hopefully noticed, Wikimania is a part of the strategy process and it is coming up soon! (I’m so excited!) A draft program schedule has been posted[5]. The schedule includes five keynote sessions from great speakers such as Esra'a Al Shafei [6] and Evan Prodromou,[7] more than 100 community-submitted talks, and two days of hackathon and pre-conference activities. Early bird pricing for registration ends on July 10 and the deadline for booking accommodations in the hotel is June 30, so if you have not done so already - please register today![8]
Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”) Katherine
PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/Rea... [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participate [5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esra%27a_Al-Shafei [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Prodromou [8] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/23_...
Hi Katherine,
Thanks for the update.
My impression is that the strategy process is time intensive for the staff and the consultants involved, and I am concerned that extending the timeline like this will result in significant extra costs on top of what was already understood to be an expensive process, and my impression from your email is that the benefit from this extension will primarily go to the relatively small number of users, staff, and other stakeholders who are deeply involved in some affiliates.
How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who are not involved with affiliates?
I am mindful of the many things that would be good to do in the Wikiverse that aren't being done due to financial and HR constraints, and I am concerned that this extension of the timeline will cost a lot of money (it wouldn't surprise me if the number was five or six figures) that could instead have been used for any number of other good projects.
Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process?
Thank you,
Pine
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Katherine Maher kmaher@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi y'all!
*Summary: Cycle 2 has concluded, and we are sharing a revised plan for Cycle 3 based on your feedback.*
Thank you to everyone that participated in Cycle 2![1] A quick overview of participation:
- More than 50 Wikimedia groups, including:
-- Art+Feminism User Group -- WikiDonne's User Group -- Wikimedia Ghana User Group -- Wikimedia Poland
- More than 1,000 individual participants
- Nearly 2,300 statements
In addition to the weekly summaries already available on Meta-Wiki,[2] we will also be posting a final report in the coming weeks.
Over the past few weeks I’ve heard from many of you with feedback, concerns, and excitement regarding the movement strategy. Thank you, truly, to everyone that has reached out to share your thoughts. They have been so helpful in understanding your perspectives and needs.
Some things I’ve heard:
- Curiosity around how the findings from the different tracks will come
together
- Request from affiliates for more time to engage more deeply in these
topics
- Passionate and divergent ideas from non-editors who support our vision
- A desire to get as many endorsements from around the movement on the
strategic direction as possible
I asked the strategy team for help in responding to this feedback, so we could improve the process based on what you were telling us. After discussions with the team and community advisors, we have decided to move to a more flexible schedule, and change the timeline. This will provide more time for discussions in your own communities. We also hope you will use the time to deeply consider the research emerging from the New Voices track,[3] and incorporate it into the way you are thinking about our future.
Here is the new proposed timeline:
- July: Complete Cycle 3. Integrate insights from New Voices. Draft the
strategic direction.
- August: Share the strategic direction. Wikimania! Finalize the
direction.
- September: Sign on! Confirm support from around the movement.
As July approaches, we will share more information about opportunities to participate in drafting the strategic direction[4] and engage with New Voices content.[3]
Thank you for your patience as we worked through these improvements, and again, thank you for the feedback!
*On a related note*
As you have hopefully noticed, Wikimania is a part of the strategy process and it is coming up soon! (I’m so excited!) A draft program schedule has been posted[5]. The schedule includes five keynote sessions from great speakers such as Esra'a Al Shafei [6] and Evan Prodromou,[7] more than 100 community-submitted talks, and two days of hackathon and pre-conference activities. Early bird pricing for registration ends on July 10 and the deadline for booking accommodations in the hotel is June 30, so if you have not done so already - please register today![8]
Bene habeas (Latin translation: “May it be well for you”) Katherine
PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Cycle_2 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Sources [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Cycle_2/Reach [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Participate [5] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esra%27a_Al-Shafei [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Prodromou [8] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration [9] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ movement/2017/Updates/23_June_2017_-_Update_19_on_Wikimedia_ movement_strategy_process
-- Katherine Maher
Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885> +1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873> kmaher@wikimedia.org https://annual.wikimedia.org
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
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?
Hi Pine,
I would like to give my view on this since extending the deadlines was the main feedback that I gave after the last phase of the consultation. I think it is extremely important that as many people as possible can weigh in on the process, so that they can, hopefully, identify with and support the output of the consultation, even if it might not fully reflect their own opinions.
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.
By asking different members of the strategy team it became obvious that the delay was caused by organizational tasks, which should have been done before Cycle 2 begins, but the time was insufficient. Therefore, I believe that extending the timeline is a good idea - a cycle should only begin after it's been thoroughly prepared and outreach can begin from day 1. If the WMF team is efficient enough is a totally different question, on which I don't have an opinion.
Strainu
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
Hoi, You do not provide arguments so it is an opinion. Having said that, I did not say that the attention for the English Wikipedia did not serve English Wikipedia well. It did. Your opinion can be easily translated in "we do not care and do not need to care".
What I am saying is that English Wikipedia is less than half our traffic and it serves some 30% of our potential public. Given that there is a bias in research and interest, we did not even give a thought on how to grow the bottom 250 Wikipedias to be more useful for their public. For most of them we do not need university level articles, we need to start with good enough articles and start probably on a college level or the level of the last year of primary school.
We do not have the content relevant for many cultures in English Wikipedia so even the thought of translating what exists in English Wikipedia is too much of a good thing. We do not have the data in Wikidata so we cannot even suggest what to write in English.
The notion that thanks to English Wikipedia we have the standing the funding is correct. Now lets do our job for the other 70%. If this is not a diversity issue what is? Thanks, GerardM
On 25 June 2017 at 12:42, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
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:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Rogol,
The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:
- organized groups - on-wiki - experts - new voices
I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team.
- Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia Deutschland. She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover of craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based.
New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in different markets.
- *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now. Adele has grown from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through her innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission.
- *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised, and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world.
- *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his group. Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities.
- I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it could be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the Middle East.
- And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been involved in all of this as well. He has served the foundation well over a number of years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment. Perdoname, Jorge.
These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen.
One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing community discussions.
For the on-wiki team:
- We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain.
Just to clarify the record. /a
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, 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 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
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
Anna
Thank you for that and for writing it on a Sunday. Unfortunately I missed it originally in the two dozen messages in this thread. You mention the names of individuals outside the US who are helping and that is good to see. By "consultants" I meant the companies hired to help you, such as Lake Research Partners, Wellspring Insight, Dot Connector Studio and Lutman & Associates – probably I should have said "consultancies".
"Rogol"
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Rogol,
The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:
- organized groups
- on-wiki
- experts
- new voices
I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team.
- Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know
previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia Deutschland. She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover of craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based.
New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in different markets.
- *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in
Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now. Adele has grown from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through her innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission.
- *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised,
and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world.
- *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is
born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his group. Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities.
- I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I
believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it could be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the Middle East.
- And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap
from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been involved in all of this as well. He has served the foundation well over a number of years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment. Perdoname, Jorge.
These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen.
One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing community discussions.
For the on-wiki team:
- We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this
process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain.
Just to clarify the record. /a
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, 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
Gerard,
Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices. They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as quickly as they can coherently write it up.
There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive, contextual search and natural language processing to support better translation).
Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to support some other end(s).
You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work: New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and everyone is listening.
Warmly, /a
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
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
Hoi, I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution. When you look at the team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support in standards.
The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia. When we do not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place, interlinked content.
We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people. This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links. This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because articles on the same subject share similar links.
Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence. Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an English Wikipedia vision. This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position is not welcomed by most if at all. Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching-wikipedia-using-local-ne... [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-fr... [3] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia-sister-projects-in-sear...
On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gerard,
Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices. They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as quickly as they can coherently write it up.
There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive, contextual search and natural language processing to support better translation).
Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to support some other end(s).
You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work: New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and everyone is listening.
Warmly, /a
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
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
Gerard,
In line.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we explore the problem.
When you look at the team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its support in standards.
I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share that view.
The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a small language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.
You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that is what you’re saying, I agree.
When we do not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do not even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs as I described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.
But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is best addressed by other movement players.
The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project in its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place, interlinked content.
Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.
I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is non-existent.
We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people. This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in between that keeps me up at night.
Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most spoken language in the world [citation needed].
We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links. This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I have written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will make search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between links and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because articles on the same subject share similar links.
Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given preferential treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do, but that does not preclude me from listening to your view.
In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care about.
Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an English Wikipedia vision.
No argument from me. I agree.
This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position is not welcomed by most if at all.
I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates. I welcome your position.
Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching- wikipedia-using-local-news.html [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia- lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html [3] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia- sister-projects-in-search.html
On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gerard,
Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is "beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have
to
mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices. They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as quickly as they can coherently write it up.
There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive, contextual search and natural language processing to support better translation).
Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to support some other end(s).
You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by
your
peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there
are
constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for
our
biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work: New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers
have
voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and everyone is listening.
Warmly, /a
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
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: 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
When you look at the team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
support
in standards.
I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share that view.
Thank you both, but... The devil is in the details. Some details that are really, really relevant to this discussion.
First, credit: This particular Collation work was almost completely done by Brian Wolff and not by the Language team (brilliant work; thank you, Brian). I only helped a little bit with code review and deployment.
Even more importantly, this work was not on the roadmap for either of us as WMF staffers. We did as a pet project.
So while I'm happy that people have noticed this work and found it useful, it must be remembered that it was executed despite the Foundation's planning, not thanks to it. In all the planning discussions I am repeating that that much more resources need to go to to our software internationalization infrastructure, but it's not really happening. It's quite wrong that much of the Web's most multilingual site's internationalization infrastructure is done so slowly and in pet projects.
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
* How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
* Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
* Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process?
Thanks,
Pine
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I would like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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
On 27 June 2017 at 04:33, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Anna,
I'd love to examine the more detailed monthly or quarterly financial reports that demonstrate your assurance, and can be both examined and understood by volunteers like us. Could you provide a link to them please? No doubt the WMF wrote transparency and accountability right into the contracts, so that being transparent and accountable is not considered a "waste of the strategy budget" but instead is an activity absolutely critical to its success.
Thanks, Fae
Hi Anna,
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to say it.
OK, that makes sense.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied. My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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 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
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning
a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
to
say it.
OK, that makes sense.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax.
WMF's standards are not lax. Far from it.
This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied. My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design.
We
had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
learn
to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
seen
all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning
a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
to
say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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 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
What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a specific enough answer?
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied. My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Robert,
Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs. Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out, whichever happens first. This would not now be best practice, but perhaps it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a specific enough answer?
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
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
Pine, Weren't you the person who pushed for months consult and interview and design when I wanted to make mediawiki colors 5% brighter? How come deciding on future of Wikimedia movement is too expensive?
Best
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Robert,
Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs. Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out, whichever happens first. This would not now be best practice, but perhaps it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com
wrote:
What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a specific enough answer?
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within
our
budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
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
You're right, it is way too much weight to assign to it. It's a perfectly reasonable statement that can be read as "The fact that we are under budget is a sign that our normal fiscal controls are working" so I'm baffled that it is being interpreted as "We don't care what we spend money on at all as long as it is under this arbitrary number".
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Robert,
Budget control is not just accounting. When a process that employs a lot of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs. Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out, whichever happens first. This would not now be best practice, but perhaps it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
"Rogol"
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com
wrote:
What kind of answer are you expecting here? Do you have any reason to believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process? What measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in regards to the strategy process? Why is "the regular accounting stuff we do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a specific enough answer?
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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
Pine,
A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on the cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g., calling our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the Board), three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
• 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just salary)
Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that it was written.
Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to say it.
OK, that makes sense.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied. My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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 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
Greg and Anna
This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this multi-million dollar project.
Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more information you share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to help you.
"Rogol"
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Pine,
A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on the cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g., calling our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the Board), three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
• 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just salary)
Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that it was written.
Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected
to
cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
to
say it.
OK, that makes sense.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
design. We
had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
learn
to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
groups
and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
seen
all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
to
say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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 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
By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,
Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their response was quite clear.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Greg and Anna
This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this multi-million dollar project.
Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more information you share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to help you.
"Rogol"
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Pine,
A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on
the
cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
calling
our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
Board),
three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
• 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just salary)
Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that
it
was written.
Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
projected
to
cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
time
to
say it.
OK, that makes sense.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
design. We
had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
direction
first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
learn
to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
groups
and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
seen
all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
time
to
say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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 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
Robert, What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,
Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their response was quite clear.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Greg and Anna
This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this multi-million dollar project.
Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more information you share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to help you.
"Rogol"
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Pine,
A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on
the
cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
calling
our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
Board),
three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
• 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just salary)
Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that
it
was written.
Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
from
what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
projected
to
cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
time
to
say it.
OK, that makes sense.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process. The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
design. We
had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
direction
first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
learn
to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
groups
and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
seen
all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
from
what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
time
to
say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to
control
costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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=unsubscr ibe
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=unsubscri 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@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
Robert
I speak only for myself, as I presume do you. I make observations that relate to the Foundation, the wider Community and their interactions, as I presume do you. I sometimes comment on those matters here, as do you.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Robert, What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)
By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,
Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their response was quite clear.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Greg and Anna
This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of transparency. By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this multi-million dollar project.
Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion. The more information you share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to help you.
"Rogol"
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Pine,
A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on
the
cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
calling
our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
Board),
three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
• 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just salary)
Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that
it
was written.
Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anna,
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
from
what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
projected
to
cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn?
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
time
to
say it.
OK, that makes sense.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to
control costs in the strategy process.
The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
satisfied.
My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
seems
very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
Pine
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
astillwell@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Hello Pine,
Good evening. In line.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com
wrote:
This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the conversation.
If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
would
like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
design. We
had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
direction
first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
learn
to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
groups
and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
seen
all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
- How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
from
what
source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
the
decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
the
funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
and
all
of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
- Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
for
people
who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's perspective.
The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
groups
told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
non
affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
learning a
lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
time
to
say it.
- Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to
control
costs
in
the strategy process?
We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
need
to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
detail
would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
Always good to hear from you, /a
Thanks,
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=unsubscr ibe
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=unsubscri 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@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
I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent, and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to staff.
Pine
Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
- and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to start. How much is the timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an analysis of the cost of the extension was done before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it.
I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other issues that have come up.
Thanks,
Pine
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent, and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to staff.
Pine
Hi WMF folks,
I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.
Pine
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.
Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
- and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to start. How much is the timeline extension projected to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an analysis of the cost of the extension was done before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it.
I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other issues that have come up.
Thanks,
Pine
On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent, and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to staff.
Pine
Hoi,
Anna I have one question for you. You say that "you would not frame the challenge as I do". How would you characterise the inherent diversity issue of the WMF that is centred around how it spends its money and where its attention goes? Thanks, GerardM
On 26 June 2017 at 01:57, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gerard,
In line.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
Everything is a partial solution. The complete picture emerges as we explore the problem.
When you look at the team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
support
in standards.
I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share that view.
The problem with Wikipedia is that when we want to grow content in a
small
language, we have to forget much of what English Wikipedia is, what the bigger Wikipedias are and certainly not get stuck in academia.
You’re saying that one size does not fit all. Not by a long shot. If that is what you’re saying, I agree.
When we do not have articles for their cities, important people when we largely do
not
even know them in Wikidata, the first thing is for them to be bold and write stubs, stubs that are connected. Stubs for their current affairs
as I
described in my blog for lessons around newspapers and Wikipedia [1].
Ok. So we don’t have important knowledge about people and places in other languages. Agreed. We have far less of that. I think we should have far more. If that’s not what you are saying, please correct me.
But then I don’t yet understand what you are saying about stubs. Are you saying “they" should make those stubs? Who are the people that should make the stubs and who are you addressing this comment to? I’m just wondering whether it is something that I can even address or whether your insight is best addressed by other movement players.
The point is that it is not about knowledge delivery. We do not have the pertinent knowledge; it is first about knowledge acquisition. Sources may be required for English Wikipedia but when you want to nurture a project
in
its infancy, we do not need the overhead. It is detrimental to primary requirements. Primacy is to be given to content in the first place, interlinked content.
Ok. We don’t have the knowledge yet. We need to get it. I agree. Then there is an issue with sources. I don’t know the exact issue that you are pointing to with sources, but I agree that the first barrier is sources. I also think a lot of people throughout the movement conversation would agree, as I’ve heard them talking about it non-stop. People don’t know how to solve that problem yet, but there seems to be growing consensus that this is a problem we should collectively attempt to solve.
I can’t be sure that I understood the rest of your point. I fear that it was lost in translation and I apologize in advance that my Dutch is non-existent.
We have to appreciate what it is what we can achieve. For instance, the Bangla Wikipedia has been the biggest resource in modern Bangla for a number of years now. Bangla is spoken by a few hundred million people. This can be achieved for many languages and we have to consider the state of a language on the Internet and nurture the necessary effort.
I find nothing objectionable in this statement. I also agree that we have to appreciate what we can achieve. Sometimes I fear that across the movement half of us think about as long as an annual plan, the other half like to dream in the far out. There is a lot of mid-range planning in between that keeps me up at night.
Thanks for helping us all understand more about the Bangla community. I agree that serving a language community of a few hundred million people well is important. Bengla has over 250M speakers and is the seventh most spoken language in the world [citation needed].
We can leverage Wikidata for wiki links, red links and even black links. This is the lowest hanging fruit for making Wikidata more relevant. I
have
written about it before [2]. Including Wikidata in search results will
make
search more robust [3]. Once we start making this connection between
links
and Wikidata, it becomes easier to assess one aspect of quality because articles on the same subject share similar links.
Anna, my point is that so far English Wikipedia has been given
preferential
treatment and all the other projects have suffered as a consequence.
I hear that you care about other projects as much as you do English Wikipedia. That is clear. I wouldn’t frame the challenge the way you do, but that does not preclude me from listening to your view.
In the analysis of all of the data at a very preliminary stage, it looks like the top themes that are emerging from the conversation are "global movement" and "healthy communities". That information is still not integrated with the information from New Voices and Experts, but those are the ideas that have emerged from our current communities. Given that emerging consensus, we may well be working toward more of what you care about.
Another point is that we should not impose on the other projects with an English Wikipedia vision.
No argument from me. I agree.
This is one aspect that is not acknowledged nor understood by my peers as far as I am aware and, I know that my position is not welcomed by most if at all.
I find this confusing to hear, Gerard. I hear this view a good deal and it appears to be an emerging consensus among our contributors and affiliates. I welcome your position.
Thanks, GerardM
[1] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/05/teaching- wikipedia-using-local-news.html [2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia- lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html [3] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/06/wikipedia- sister-projects-in-search.html
On 25 June 2017 at 22:33, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Gerard,
Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions
is
"beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.
Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to
have
to
mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New
Voices.
They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as quickly as they can coherently write it up.
There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive, contextual search and natural language processing to support better translation).
Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to support some other end(s).
You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by
your
peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there
are
constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for
our
biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of
work:
New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.
I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers
have
voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and everyone is listening.
Warmly, /a
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org