Below are some thoughts I have possible themes that can be included in the strategy update. I'm sharing these in public in case other Wikimedians would like to discuss strategy.
1. Design experience Move the design and intuitive ease of use of the Wikimedia user experience away from a 2000s experience and toward a 2020s experience, both on desktop and mobile platforms.
2. Social experience Decrease the frequency and intensity of negative experiences, and increase the frequency and intensity of positive experiences.
3. Governance Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation to reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects, communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and growth even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
4. Openness Transform WMF and the affiliates into models of open governance and open culture, particularly concerning Board activities and the use of financial resources. Make information be public by default rather than private by default. Proactively publish the expenses and compensation for all individuals and organizations spending or receiving funds from WMF and other Wikimedia affiliates. With limited exceptions for discussions for which there is a strong reason for confidentiality, livestream all Board and Board committee meetings of WMF, chapters, and thematic organizations.
5. Finance Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4 within the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead, both on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.
Regards,
Pine
Good points and thoughts here, Pine.
*3. Governance*
*Decentralization*I think is non-ideal. If WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted the whole ship goes down. I don't see how decentralizing the structure would prevent this happenstance -- or more importantly provide a solution or contingency plan. #4 Openness: Open culture and transparency would provide a potential improvement and would support a centralized structure....
*Empower Wikimedia affiliates*I like this. A lot. The more affiliates can work at a local, grass-roots level, with the support of various WikiProjects and initiatives like WikiEdu, the better, in my opinion
*5. Finance*
*Acquire adequate financial resources...*Yes, but with a more effective, focused, additional distribution. The free digital labor model is well and good for casual contributors but I think for folks doing significant heavy lifting it becomes a big problem. Focusing on paid positions -- really: aligning paid positions globally -- is one potential method and solution. For example, WMUK and WMDE have a full array of staff. Large chapters elsewhere (either city or country) have no logistical and/or administrative support.
I believe WMF needs to invest in its infrastructure (i.e., people) more. And create a help desk type service that can address public relations problems for BLP issues specifically.
:-)
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle*
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
- Governance
Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation to reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects, communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and growth even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
- Finance
Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4 within the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead, both on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.
Regards,
Pine
Hoi, For me there are two things missing.
* It is about the readers stupid! That is what we do it for. So how are we going to get more readers, how do we involve them. What can we achieve when we consider marketing approaches and marketing KPI's.
* If design is important.. ok but how about quality, we can do so much more when we think of our projects as connected to each other and to the rest of the internet. Why do we not work together? Why are we so much on an amalgamation of islands? When we share, we do not lose when we are given back we become enriched in the process. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 September 2016 at 22:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Below are some thoughts I have possible themes that can be included in the strategy update. I'm sharing these in public in case other Wikimedians would like to discuss strategy.
- Design experience
Move the design and intuitive ease of use of the Wikimedia user experience away from a 2000s experience and toward a 2020s experience, both on desktop and mobile platforms.
- Social experience
Decrease the frequency and intensity of negative experiences, and increase the frequency and intensity of positive experiences.
- Governance
Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation to reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects, communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and growth even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
- Openness
Transform WMF and the affiliates into models of open governance and open culture, particularly concerning Board activities and the use of financial resources. Make information be public by default rather than private by default. Proactively publish the expenses and compensation for all individuals and organizations spending or receiving funds from WMF and other Wikimedia affiliates. With limited exceptions for discussions for which there is a strong reason for confidentiality, livestream all Board and Board committee meetings of WMF, chapters, and thematic organizations.
- Finance
Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4 within the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead, both on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.
Regards,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Hi Gerard,
I think that readership has an interdependent relationship with the quality and quantity of our products and services, along with marketing and word of mouth. The quality and quantity of our products and services, along with marketing and word of mouth, are all issues that can be addressed on the producer side (including affiliates and grantees ) as well as the reader side. I would agree that design for both readers and editors is important. Improving internal search (including cross-wiki and multimedia search) and other tools that are used by both producers and consumers is nice when that can be arranged.
Hi BrillLyle,
At present I'm uncomfortable with the centralized nature of WMF which seems to work in ways that are opposed to open source philosophy and culture. Among other disadvantages, there is a concentration of risk to the entire Wikimedia movement in the WMF. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on ways to reduce that risk. My thought is that decentralizing a number of the functions that are currently concentrated in WMF might make sense, along with having some mechanisms for the remainder of the movement to detach from WMF should the remainder of the movement think that is a good idea. Let us hope that we never arrive at that day, but the community and WMF have had multiple confrontations in the past, and I think it's important that the community and affiliates have the option to detach WMF while continuing the Wikimedia mission.
Greater openness from WMF would likely increase cooperation between WMF, the community, and affiliates, and decrease the likelihood of confrontation. By "greater openness" I don't mean "talk about trust" but take concrete steps like making all of WMF expenditures public, having live broadcasts of most WMF Board and Board committee meetings, and publicizing the reasons for WMF global bans.
I agree that some volunteers are overworked and would be interested in hearing ideas about how to address that while decentralizing functions from WMF. One option might be for WMF to become more willing to support paid affiliate staff to do functions that historically have been done at least partly by volunteers, such as responding to questions from newbies and organizing programs with GLAM+STEM institutions and educators.
I like the idea of a central helpdesk. We already have OTRS, but an on-wiki central helpdesk that's like the Teahouse, multilingual, and mostly supported by paid staff might be very helpful. I'm not sure how that would fit with the rest of the strategy. Perhaps a strategy would be "Increase paid affiliate support for volunteers?" I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Pine
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, For me there are two things missing.
- It is about the readers stupid! That is what we do it for. So how are we
going to get more readers, how do we involve them. What can we achieve when we consider marketing approaches and marketing KPI's.
- If design is important.. ok but how about quality, we can do so much more
when we think of our projects as connected to each other and to the rest of the internet. Why do we not work together? Why are we so much on an amalgamation of islands? When we share, we do not lose when we are given back we become enriched in the process. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 September 2016 at 22:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Below are some thoughts I have possible themes that can be included in
the
strategy update. I'm sharing these in public in case other Wikimedians would like to discuss strategy.
- Design experience
Move the design and intuitive ease of use of the Wikimedia user
experience
away from a 2000s experience and toward a 2020s experience, both on
desktop
and mobile platforms.
- Social experience
Decrease the frequency and intensity of negative experiences, and
increase
the frequency and intensity of positive experiences.
- Governance
Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation
to
reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects, communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and
growth
even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
- Openness
Transform WMF and the affiliates into models of open governance and open culture, particularly concerning Board activities and the use of
financial
resources. Make information be public by default rather than private by default. Proactively publish the expenses and compensation for all individuals and organizations spending or receiving funds from WMF and other Wikimedia affiliates. With limited exceptions for discussions for which there is a strong reason for confidentiality, livestream all Board and Board committee meetings of WMF, chapters, and thematic
organizations.
- Finance
Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4 within the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead,
both
on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.
Regards,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 mentioned quality so often with so little response that I do not believe for an instant that Wikipedians really care to think beyond what is already done. Dismissing quality measures is easy when it means that some things will change. Wikipedia is resistant to change even when change improves its quality. At the same time I find that people find fault in Wikidata when it is ONLY about sources and not the associated quality.
This is about a Wikimedia strategy. Proposals are underway to Wikidatify both Commons and Wiktionary. That will bring long yearned for possibilities for improving its quality and usefulness for our readers. What can be done for Wikipedia is all too easy and does have little impact for its users. Internally wikilinks are associated with pointers to other articles, the only difference will be that a Wikidata item will be associated as well. You will find that misdirection will be found and many redirects can be removed as well by pointing directly to the final article. This is an easy win and so is allowing for linking red links to Wikidata. Internal in MediaWiki it could use the same pointer pair. It allows for more available information and it will prevent a lot of misdirections in the future.
When we talk Wikimedia and have no way to discuss quality of our projects in a non-disparaging way, you will find that it becomes an issue that needs addressing at a higher level. The level of our board and our director. It is for them to decide if there is a point to what I say, it is because so far the "producer side" proves ineffective in dealing with the quality it produces. Technically improving Wikipedia is relatively easy. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 September 2016 at 06:56, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gerard,
I think that readership has an interdependent relationship with the quality and quantity of our products and services, along with marketing and word of mouth. The quality and quantity of our products and services, along with marketing and word of mouth, are all issues that can be addressed on the producer side (including affiliates and grantees ) as well as the reader side. I would agree that design for both readers and editors is important. Improving internal search (including cross-wiki and multimedia search) and other tools that are used by both producers and consumers is nice when that can be arranged.
Hi BrillLyle,
At present I'm uncomfortable with the centralized nature of WMF which seems to work in ways that are opposed to open source philosophy and culture. Among other disadvantages, there is a concentration of risk to the entire Wikimedia movement in the WMF. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on ways to reduce that risk. My thought is that decentralizing a number of the functions that are currently concentrated in WMF might make sense, along with having some mechanisms for the remainder of the movement to detach from WMF should the remainder of the movement think that is a good idea. Let us hope that we never arrive at that day, but the community and WMF have had multiple confrontations in the past, and I think it's important that the community and affiliates have the option to detach WMF while continuing the Wikimedia mission.
Greater openness from WMF would likely increase cooperation between WMF, the community, and affiliates, and decrease the likelihood of confrontation. By "greater openness" I don't mean "talk about trust" but take concrete steps like making all of WMF expenditures public, having live broadcasts of most WMF Board and Board committee meetings, and publicizing the reasons for WMF global bans.
I agree that some volunteers are overworked and would be interested in hearing ideas about how to address that while decentralizing functions from WMF. One option might be for WMF to become more willing to support paid affiliate staff to do functions that historically have been done at least partly by volunteers, such as responding to questions from newbies and organizing programs with GLAM+STEM institutions and educators.
I like the idea of a central helpdesk. We already have OTRS, but an on-wiki central helpdesk that's like the Teahouse, multilingual, and mostly supported by paid staff might be very helpful. I'm not sure how that would fit with the rest of the strategy. Perhaps a strategy would be "Increase paid affiliate support for volunteers?" I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Pine
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, For me there are two things missing.
- It is about the readers stupid! That is what we do it for. So how are
we
going to get more readers, how do we involve them. What can we achieve
when
we consider marketing approaches and marketing KPI's.
- If design is important.. ok but how about quality, we can do so much
more
when we think of our projects as connected to each other and to the rest
of
the internet. Why do we not work together? Why are we so much on an amalgamation of islands? When we share, we do not lose when we are given back we become enriched in the process. Thanks, GerardM
On 11 September 2016 at 22:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Below are some thoughts I have possible themes that can be included in
the
strategy update. I'm sharing these in public in case other Wikimedians would like to discuss strategy.
- Design experience
Move the design and intuitive ease of use of the Wikimedia user
experience
away from a 2000s experience and toward a 2020s experience, both on
desktop
and mobile platforms.
- Social experience
Decrease the frequency and intensity of negative experiences, and
increase
the frequency and intensity of positive experiences.
- Governance
Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia
Foundation
to
reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects, communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the
online
communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and
growth
even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
- Openness
Transform WMF and the affiliates into models of open governance and
open
culture, particularly concerning Board activities and the use of
financial
resources. Make information be public by default rather than private by default. Proactively publish the expenses and compensation for all individuals and organizations spending or receiving funds from WMF and other Wikimedia affiliates. With limited exceptions for discussions for which there is a strong reason for confidentiality, livestream all
Board
and Board committee meetings of WMF, chapters, and thematic
organizations.
- Finance
Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4
within
the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead,
both
on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.
Regards,
Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 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 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