Dear Wikimedians,
*How many Wikimedia communities have embraced advanced Wikidata use? How many have active social media accounts, and are there geographic or cultural patterns to which groups have and have not? Which groups have a written, current strategy? What are the most common gaps in capacity in Latin America? or in Eastern Europe? What kind of investment in capacity building would be likely to bring the most value?*
To answer these questions and more, we invite all of you to participate in the new *Community Capacity Map (CCM)*: a *self-assessment exercise* for communities, groups (whether formally recognized user groups or not), thematic organizations, and chapters, to *map capacities* across the movement, with a view to identifying *existing gaps* as well as *opportunities for capacity-building*.
The CCM is here on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map
The context for this work, as well as "likely-asked questions, with answers" ("LAQ"?), are explained here, including an answer to "*why should I take the time to read all this?*" -- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About (and also pasted at the bottom of this e-mail, for your convenience.)
The self-assessment is to be done based on the detailed *Guidelines* provided here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines
I am looking forward to learning more about your groups' and orgs' capacities and gaps, and to do my best to play matchmaker between those needs and our available resources and opportunities. While I encourage you to begin contributing straightaway, *there is no deadline *-- this is envisioned to be a long-term, ongoing, and tracked-over-time tool -- so contribute if and when your group is able to make the time.
(don't forget to scroll down to the LAQ!)
Warmly,
Asaf Bartov Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
========================================== Likely-asked questions, with answers this exists with working links and [modest] formatting here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About#Likely-asked_qu...
Why do this at all? The Community Resources team is doing this to attempt a more *comprehensive* view of capacities and gaps across the movement, to enhance our existing, anecdotal and ad-hoc, impressions of only some of the communities and affiliates. See the goal statement above. Why now? The CCM experiment is an implementation of one of the recommendations made at the conclusion of the Community Capacity Development pilot year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development/Overall_pilot_year_evaluation#Conclusions_and_recommended_next_steps . Why should I spend the time to read through it or go through the self-assessment? There are a couple of reasons you may want to put in the time: First, by self-assessing your group/organization's capacities and gaps, you are giving WMF and other potential investors in community capacity a chance to provide your group/org with resources and opportunities to *build up* those capacities. Secondly, self-assessing according to the Guidelines page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines may be in itself a worthwhile exercise and discussion-starter for your group/org, pointing at potential areas for proactive work by *your org/group itself*, for example in your next annual plan. Finally, self-assessing (at least some) capacities today would enable you to review and re-assess in six months, or two years, and see how your group/org has developed (or not) in each of these aspects. So does WMF expect all groups and organizations to do this? No. This is an opportunity and a tool. Like all other tools, you are free to use it or not, and we certainly understand that it would take time and that you may have more pressing priorities in your group/org. We *hope* as many groups, organizations, and communities eventually take the time to self-assess, at least on some capacities, but it is not mandatory, and there would be no penalty for not participating. Would we have to provide self-assessments for *all* of the capacities? No. Feel free to self-assess on as many or as few capacities as you are able to, interested in, or find relevant. You can also add assessments gradually, as your group/org finds time to discuss and agree on assessments. Should I assess capacities in the context of my wiki community, my user-group/chapter, or what? It depends. It may make sense to do separate assessments, or just one. For example, while the English community has plenty of bot builders and technical experts, you may belong to a small community contributing in English in a country with little or no bot-building expertise, such as Wikimedians in Uganda. In this case, it would make sense to describe the capacities of the Ugandan group you're part of, and not of the whole English Wikipedia community. On the other hand, it is possible that there is a very high degree of overlap between the Estonian community's capacities and the Estonian chapter's capacities, and in that case, it may be most useful to assess just once, for the Estonian community *or* Wikimedia Estonia, or possibly once for the community for on-wiki capacities, and separately for Wikimedia Estonia only for the organizational and off-wiki capacities. See the Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines page for more details. Okay, and suppose we did put in the time and provided some assessments. What can we expect next? You can expect, at the very least, one program officer at Community Resources paying attention to your contribution, and possibly, depending on each specific capacity and assessment, that officer may have resources or opportunities to suggest to your community/group/org. *The more groups provide assessments, the better-informed WMF would be*, and the more likely it would be that *WMF could allocate resources and create training opportunities* for your group. Shared needs in a region would increase the likelihood of WMF acting even further, as it would allow economizing on the investment by training/supporting several groups/communities at once. Are you saying if X number of communities demonstrate need Y, WMF is *guaranteed* to allocate resources to fill that need? I'm afraid not. But it does make it *more likely*, in that it demonstrates the need, making it easier to argue for it in internal budgeting and allocation discussions, and to marshal internal WMF resources (such as borrowing the time of subject experts at WMF to conduct training or mentor groups). Okay, so how would WMF decide which communities to offer resources to? There's no simple deterministic algorithm, but WMF would prioritize emerging communities https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities over other communities, larger groups serving larger populations over smaller ones, and at least at first, would probably prioritize "low-hanging fruit" -- lower-cost/lower-risk investments, as we learn and improve this program's use of resources. Wouldn't the fact these are self-assessments mean we'd be comparing apples to oranges, given some groups would overestimate or underestimate their own capacities? No. We do understand there are some cultural tendencies (some cultures are more self-critical than others, or have rosier or more pessimistic views of future prospects and current capabilities). However, we think the fairly coarse granularity of the assessments (none/low/medium/high), coupled with *the Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines* for self-assessing, would lead most groups to make reasonably comparable assessments. Ultimately, these would remain subjective and unscientific assessments; but they would certainly at least indicate a group/org's *own* perception of their capacity. And before WMF (or others interested in investing in capacity building) make a decision to tackle a particular capacity with a particular community/group/org/region, we would be sure to take into consideration *all the relevant context* we have, i.e. not just the aggregate of the self-assessments in the CCM, but also all the accumulated experience, context, and history we are aware of at WMF, regarding that community/group/org/region. Okay, this may not be *the worst* idea ever to come from WMF We're glad you think so. :) What if none of this turns out the way you hope? Then we'll archive these pages and look for other ways to do effective capacity building. The CCM is an experiment, based on observed needs and an expectation that it would be useful. But we are ready to learn that it may not, and to change course if necessary. Let's give it a shot, though! What if I have another question? Use the talk page! :)
Interesting. The patterns that appear from this exercise could be informative. I took a brief look at the tool and I think that it could be a valuable opportunity for reflection by affiliates, particularly the more complex ones and the ones that foresee themselves growing in complexity in the near future.
I suggest that WMF participate in this reflection as well.
I would be interested to know any suggested methods for Wikimedia entities which are not legal entities, such as English Wikipedia, to conduct this self-assessment.
I have one suggestion regarding the tool itself. I think that in addition to a column for financial controls, there should be a column for financial transparency. My personal view is that donors should know, to the maximum extent which is realistic, where every penny of their money has been spent or is budgeted to be spent. I believe that this expectation is common for numerous government organizations in the United States such as public school districts. Topics for consideration under the topic of financial transparency include:
1. Are all contracts and contract modifications and extensions published in their entirety in advance of being signed, and is the public given reasonable notice and opportunity to comment regarding the proposed contracts, and are the amounts actually expended under those contracts made public on a regular basis (such as quarterly or annually)?
2. Are all budgeted and actual labor expenses made public, including amounts and terms for salaries, benefits, deferred compensation, severance packages, meals, travel, and lodging, for every employee (that is, not only at an abstract level but for each individual employee and for each type of expense)?
3. For organizations with employees, does the organization produce a detailed and comprehensive budget that is drafted months in advance of the need to approve it, and is the public given multiple weeks to comment on the complete proposed budget before it is finalized?
4. Are the amounts and individually identifiable subjects of budgeted and actual legal expenses made public, such as attorney fees and settlement costs for employment disputes?
Again, my belief is that donors should know exactly how their money has been spent or is budgeted to be spent. Many government agencies adhere to this standard in the U.S. and I think that every Wikimedia organization should do the same, being mindful that they are custodians of money which was donated to support stated Wikimedia goal(s) and mission(s).
Thanks for this initiative. I think that the tool and an overview of affiliates' reflections could be valuable to discuss at the Wikimedia Conference.
Pine https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CatherineMunro/Bright_Places
Interesting idea - but is it possible to make the table a bit more user-friendly?
First of all is too long in horizontal axis - even in large resolution I see only 1/2 of it on my screen, and due to its structure - it is not possible to edit it in visual editor...
2018-01-15 22:59 GMT+01:00 Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org:
Dear Wikimedians,
*How many Wikimedia communities have embraced advanced Wikidata use? How many have active social media accounts, and are there geographic or cultural patterns to which groups have and have not? Which groups have a written, current strategy? What are the most common gaps in capacity in Latin America? or in Eastern Europe? What kind of investment in capacity building would be likely to bring the most value?*
To answer these questions and more, we invite all of you to participate in the new *Community Capacity Map (CCM)*: a *self-assessment exercise* for communities, groups (whether formally recognized user groups or not), thematic organizations, and chapters, to *map capacities* across the movement, with a view to identifying *existing gaps* as well as *opportunities for capacity-building*.
The CCM is here on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map
The context for this work, as well as "likely-asked questions, with answers" ("LAQ"?), are explained here, including an answer to "*why should I take the time to read all this?*" -- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About (and also pasted at the bottom of this e-mail, for your convenience.)
The self-assessment is to be done based on the detailed *Guidelines* provided here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines
I am looking forward to learning more about your groups' and orgs' capacities and gaps, and to do my best to play matchmaker between those needs and our available resources and opportunities. While I encourage you to begin contributing straightaway, *there is no deadline *-- this is envisioned to be a long-term, ongoing, and tracked-over-time tool -- so contribute if and when your group is able to make the time.
(don't forget to scroll down to the LAQ!)
Warmly,
Asaf Bartov Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities========================================== Likely-asked questions, with answers this exists with working links and [modest] formatting here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/ About#Likely-asked_questions,_with_answers
Why do this at all? The Community Resources team is doing this to attempt a more *comprehensive* view of capacities and gaps across the movement, to enhance our existing, anecdotal and ad-hoc, impressions of only some of the communities and affiliates. See the goal statement above. Why now? The CCM experiment is an implementation of one of the recommendations made at the conclusion of the Community Capacity Development pilot year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_ Development/Overall_pilot_year_evaluation#Conclusions_ and_recommended_next_steps . Why should I spend the time to read through it or go through the self-assessment? There are a couple of reasons you may want to put in the time: First, by self-assessing your group/organization's capacities and gaps, you are giving WMF and other potential investors in community capacity a chance to provide your group/org with resources and opportunities to *build up* those capacities. Secondly, self-assessing according to the Guidelines page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines may be in itself a worthwhile exercise and discussion-starter for your group/org, pointing at potential areas for proactive work by *your org/group itself*, for example in your next annual plan. Finally, self-assessing (at least some) capacities today would enable you to review and re-assess in six months, or two years, and see how your group/org has developed (or not) in each of these aspects. So does WMF expect all groups and organizations to do this? No. This is an opportunity and a tool. Like all other tools, you are free to use it or not, and we certainly understand that it would take time and that you may have more pressing priorities in your group/org. We *hope* as many groups, organizations, and communities eventually take the time to self-assess, at least on some capacities, but it is not mandatory, and there would be no penalty for not participating. Would we have to provide self-assessments for *all* of the capacities? No. Feel free to self-assess on as many or as few capacities as you are able to, interested in, or find relevant. You can also add assessments gradually, as your group/org finds time to discuss and agree on assessments. Should I assess capacities in the context of my wiki community, my user-group/chapter, or what? It depends. It may make sense to do separate assessments, or just one. For example, while the English community has plenty of bot builders and technical experts, you may belong to a small community contributing in English in a country with little or no bot-building expertise, such as Wikimedians in Uganda. In this case, it would make sense to describe the capacities of the Ugandan group you're part of, and not of the whole English Wikipedia community. On the other hand, it is possible that there is a very high degree of overlap between the Estonian community's capacities and the Estonian chapter's capacities, and in that case, it may be most useful to assess just once, for the Estonian community *or* Wikimedia Estonia, or possibly once for the community for on-wiki capacities, and separately for Wikimedia Estonia only for the organizational and off-wiki capacities. See the Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines page for more details. Okay, and suppose we did put in the time and provided some assessments. What can we expect next? You can expect, at the very least, one program officer at Community Resources paying attention to your contribution, and possibly, depending on each specific capacity and assessment, that officer may have resources or opportunities to suggest to your community/group/org. *The more groups provide assessments, the better-informed WMF would be*, and the more likely it would be that *WMF could allocate resources and create training opportunities* for your group. Shared needs in a region would increase the likelihood of WMF acting even further, as it would allow economizing on the investment by training/supporting several groups/communities at once. Are you saying if X number of communities demonstrate need Y, WMF is *guaranteed* to allocate resources to fill that need? I'm afraid not. But it does make it *more likely*, in that it demonstrates the need, making it easier to argue for it in internal budgeting and allocation discussions, and to marshal internal WMF resources (such as borrowing the time of subject experts at WMF to conduct training or mentor groups). Okay, so how would WMF decide which communities to offer resources to? There's no simple deterministic algorithm, but WMF would prioritize emerging communities https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ Defining_Emerging_Communities over other communities, larger groups serving larger populations over smaller ones, and at least at first, would probably prioritize "low-hanging fruit" -- lower-cost/lower-risk investments, as we learn and improve this program's use of resources. Wouldn't the fact these are self-assessments mean we'd be comparing apples to oranges, given some groups would overestimate or underestimate their own capacities? No. We do understand there are some cultural tendencies (some cultures are more self-critical than others, or have rosier or more pessimistic views of future prospects and current capabilities). However, we think the fairly coarse granularity of the assessments (none/low/medium/high), coupled with *the Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines* for self-assessing, would lead most groups to make reasonably comparable assessments. Ultimately, these would remain subjective and unscientific assessments; but they would certainly at least indicate a group/org's *own* perception of their capacity. And before WMF (or others interested in investing in capacity building) make a decision to tackle a particular capacity with a particular community/group/org/region, we would be sure to take into consideration *all the relevant context* we have, i.e. not just the aggregate of the self-assessments in the CCM, but also all the accumulated experience, context, and history we are aware of at WMF, regarding that community/group/org/region. Okay, this may not be *the worst* idea ever to come from WMF We're glad you think so. :) What if none of this turns out the way you hope? Then we'll archive these pages and look for other ways to do effective capacity building. The CCM is an experiment, based on observed needs and an expectation that it would be useful. But we are ready to learn that it may not, and to change course if necessary. Let's give it a shot, though! What if I have another question? Use the talk page! :) _______________________________________________ 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 agree with Tomasz that some UI love would be beneficial. I think that simplification of the language for people who are not native English speakers might also be beneficial.
As I said before, I like the general concept. If affiliates and online communities can be persuaded to use this tool or one like it in a somewhat systematic way, the patterns in the data could be very interesting.
Hello again, everyone.
I'd like to respond to some questions, asked on and off list:
1. In the instructions, I described getting a group of people together to discuss the group's capacities before submitting assessments. The model I had in mind was informal user groups, or volunteer-only chapter boards -- which is the case in the vast majority of the communities I work with.
However, for chapters that have staff, it makes sense to me that a single staff member can submit assessments on behalf of the organization. It's for each org to decide whether and how it would like to perform the assessments -- some may want a board discussion, while others may happily delegate to the ED or to some other staff member.
2. The ~40 capacities described in the guidelines and listed in the table are the result of some research and mapping efforts in the past couple of years, but are not necessarily definitive and certainly not exhaustive. This means you *can* add capacities that you think are missing, and that you consider an important aspect to assess your group's capacity against. To minimize disruption to the table, I ask that you propose new capacities in the talk page of [[m:CCM]] first, so we can refine and discuss before adding them to the table. (Some capacities may turn out to be aspects of existing capacities, where a revision of the capacity description would capture it well, etc.)
3. The current format, of a "table of doom", is just a simple attempt at generating an overview. I am happy to discuss other ways to collect this information. For example, would a shared spreadsheet (like a Google Sheet) be more convenient? Or a series of Google Forms (one for each capacity?) linked from the main page? Or some custom data-entry and querying system? (If this is preferred, I could build one, but I'd need help with UI design).
4. Finally, I realize the launch happened at a time many of you were on vacation, holiday, or otherwise occupied. So I take the opportunity to encourage you once more to take some time to fill in at least some assessments for your group (you don't have to do them all at once?). I would need to make some resource allocation decisions soon, and the more data I have, the better I can judge where those resources would best be utilized.
Cheers,
Asaf
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:14 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Tomasz that some UI love would be beneficial. I think that simplification of the language for people who are not native English speakers might also be beneficial.
As I said before, I like the general concept. If affiliates and online communities can be persuaded to use this tool or one like it in a somewhat systematic way, the patterns in the data could be very interesting.
Pine https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org