Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Kaarel,
with all respect, it would be great if you could name the issues first before soliciting further feedback.
In my particular case, well, I have seen a message on this list which I interpreted as a call for help. I have generally many things which interest me, but I though that if WMF needs help, I could help, so I applied. I am a volunteer.
Two days ago, I got a impersonalized mail saying that my application was not accepted. Fine with me, I am sure there are people with tons of more experience than me, and I have a lot of work on the projects. I was not planning to react on this in any way.
But now you are saying you do not have enough volunteers and ask (us? whom?) to encourage more people to apply?
So that they could get back impersonalized rejection messages?
I am not sure how specifically you want to solicit more applications but if you want to get any help from the community you probably need to be very specific on what exactly roles you need to ensure the diversity, and specifically address people in these roles. Unless this has been done, I will discourage everybody to apply.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Kaarel,
I am especially concerned that with the Portuguese language being the most spoken language in the Southern Hemisphere, ranking 5th/6th globally, among the dozens of members of the Strategy Working Groups that appear there, there is not a single native speaker of Portuguese. And, as far as I know, it was not for lack of applications.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-21 18:13 GMT+01:00 Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the definitions.
If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible, that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of important activities to do.
There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the conversations.
What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic expectations.
I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private communications.
Hello,
"*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" ( 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00 Pine W )
Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still be very limited in scope.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the definitions.
If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible, that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of important activities to do.
There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the conversations.
What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic expectations.
I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private communications.
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
Hi Paolo,
In my experience Wikimedia staff are always just as committed and enthusiastic as volunteers - it's not a job anyone takes if all they care about is collecting their paycheque. :)
But where I share some of your concern is with the balance of some of the working groups. Staff and board members of large organisations are much more represented in some WGs than others.
Roles and Responsibilities has 8 members, including three Chapter EDs, two staff and one board member from the WMF, and two volunteers drawn from FDC and AffCom.
Resource Allocation has 11 members presently, of whom 9 are from the WMF, from large chapters, or from the existing FDC.
Are these groups really going to be considering significant changes to the way things happen at the moment?
By contrast the Diversity WG is wonderfully volunteer-led and diverse, but then I suspect the Diversity Working Group isn't going to be the one making important governance recommendations.
Chris
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
"*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
Pine W )
Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still be very limited in scope.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the definitions.
If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible, that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of important activities to do.
There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the conversations.
What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic expectations.
I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private communications.
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 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
Hi Chris,
That is precisely what concerns me the most: That the system seems to be designed to not bring significant changes to the current situation, by assumedly being focused on what is already done, and the way it was done.
I am part of a Wikimedia group of communities that only has "emerging communities" and countries where Wikimedia penetration approaches zero, despite being one of the largest in the world. When I read "Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.", I read "Wikimedia First World" designing strategies and approaches for "Wikimedia 3rd World", most probably based on their own experiences. If that approach has failed here in the last 17 years, why would it be bringing something new now? It's ironic that at the same time we had that wonderful "Decolonizing the Internet" conference in Wikimania, we are faced with this kind of "colonial" approach.
I can't help but feeling that Strategy approach do not includes us, not resonates in any visible way among our communities. That was pretty much evident in the last round of Strategy discussions that was being published in our Village Pump, at the Portuguese Wikipedia, where the interaction of the community was minimal. Everybody I talked to perceived it as something alien to our reality, about which there was nothing to say at all.
It may be a wonderful set of Strategy Working Groups for many things, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to bring any significant guidance that could help us changing our reality.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 16:54 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com:
Hi Paolo,
In my experience Wikimedia staff are always just as committed and enthusiastic as volunteers - it's not a job anyone takes if all they care about is collecting their paycheque. :)
But where I share some of your concern is with the balance of some of the working groups. Staff and board members of large organisations are much more represented in some WGs than others.
Roles and Responsibilities has 8 members, including three Chapter EDs, two staff and one board member from the WMF, and two volunteers drawn from FDC and AffCom.
Resource Allocation has 11 members presently, of whom 9 are from the WMF, from large chapters, or from the existing FDC.
Are these groups really going to be considering significant changes to the way things happen at the moment?
By contrast the Diversity WG is wonderfully volunteer-led and diverse, but then I suspect the Diversity Working Group isn't going to be the one making important governance recommendations.
Chris
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
"*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant
percentage
of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the
time
commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
Pine W )
Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to
look
after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement
is
mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions
for
other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of
the
Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still be very limited in scope.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a
challenging
topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean
by
"diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus
on the
definitions.
If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as
possible,
that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time
commitment
required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who
are
paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy
for
many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of important activities to do.
There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development
process
could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides
that I
could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the
culture
and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the
volunteers, so
there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of
the
conversations.
What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic expectations.
I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel
can
respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private communications.
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 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
Hi Paulo,
Let me ask a question. What suggestions do you have for Nicole and Kaarel about how to improve the strategy process? I hope that they will be receptive to your input.
Hello Pine,
I know for a fact that some of the more knowledgeable and experienced members of our communities have applied to those WGs - at least about 10 candidatures have been sent. Not a single one was chosen, I believe because most of us are not on the "organized part of the movement", are not staffers nor habitués at the Wikimedia events. But every one of them is an active and historic member of our communities.
Having someone from the Portuguese speaking communities there would be a big improvement already. We do exist, we're 220 million native speakers - almost all of them in the "Global South" - and will certainly evolve and be part of the process, with or without the support of the Strategy Working Groups. But I think we deserve some effort in order to be included and involved in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy process.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 21:02 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Hi Paulo,
Let me ask a question. What suggestions do you have for Nicole and Kaarel about how to improve the strategy process? I hope that they will be receptive to your input.
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
Hi,
I agree with Paulo, I have applied myself for it and the answer was that the WMF is looking for diversities ... here's a good chance ...
Best, Felipe
2018-07-23 18:40 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com:
Hello Pine,
I know for a fact that some of the more knowledgeable and experienced members of our communities have applied to those WGs - at least about 10 candidatures have been sent. Not a single one was chosen, I believe because most of us are not on the "organized part of the movement", are not staffers nor habitués at the Wikimedia events. But every one of them is an active and historic member of our communities.
Having someone from the Portuguese speaking communities there would be a big improvement already. We do exist, we're 220 million native speakers - almost all of them in the "Global South" - and will certainly evolve and be part of the process, with or without the support of the Strategy Working Groups. But I think we deserve some effort in order to be included and involved in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy process.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 21:02 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Hi Paulo,
Let me ask a question. What suggestions do you have for Nicole and Kaarel about how to improve the strategy process? I hope that they will be receptive to your input.
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 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, An other problem with participation by proxy is that you are likely to strengthen current bias. Wikimania 2018 has come and gone and we want more and better information about subjects like Africa, There are many approaches possible. Crucial is what it is we are to achieve.
* Do we want a better representation on "our" Wikipedia for the subject at hand * Do we want sufficient information for best practices like all the places related from lowest to highest level of administrative and territorial representation * Do we want the information gap that has not even one percent of humans coming from Africa to be filled * Do we want our projects to be available for the people in Africa * Do we want the projects in African language to thrive
The problem is that in order to make these things happen, truly happen, you have to make it happen. By killing Wikipedia Zero for "obvious" reasons, we will not have a second generation of students in Africa benefiting from what we provided. It does not matter that we celebrate the first generation, we failed them.
When we are to celebrate African academia, it is to be found in Africa, not on American universities. The African American have sources, our sources to their name, making them notable. When we are to accept African academia it should be on their terms, their notability. When we want to see African language Wikipedias thrive, we have to invest in their education, in African education and not start at universities but at high schools, the children of that first and second generation. When they write articles in their language, never mind the subject of their class, there is room for new articles. There is room for many students, classes, schools to make a difference.
The mayors of Africa are as notable as "our" mayors. We need pictures in a same manner like the Geograph project in the UK. But we have to leave it to them what they write. Without them it is not for them.
The gender gap is important and yes, it exists at least in the same measure in Africa. However, the #AfricaGap is at least as discriminatory and they have to come from much father behind.
When the professionals are to take care of "our" interest and make a difference, they might find it interesting that (probably) the first GLAM project was to share material outside of our own comfort zone. Its major impact was Indonesia, not the Netherlands. <grin> it might "inspire" </grin>. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 July 2018 at 15:20, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
"*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" ( 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00 Pine W )
Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still be very limited in scope.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a
challenging
topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on
the
definitions.
If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as
possible,
that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of important activities to do.
There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the
culture
and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers,
so
there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of
the
conversations.
What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic expectations.
I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private communications.
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 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
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
"The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being organised, yet they might want to participate. I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more inclusive, approaches.
We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
Ideas: - Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly) - Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent updates (monthly/bi-monthly) - Blog posts every 3-6 months - Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group participants and community members - Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language and participation barriers - Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
communities.
I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were not fulfilling.
As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
"Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the motivation letters of the participants? I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to format/structure it, I can help there.
I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place, and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania.
Have a nice day! Micru
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
Hello David,
I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
Indeed, asking for native Portuguese speakers on the groups is a bit simplistic and not granted, and I generally agree with you in theory. However, when we are talking about the language with the highest number of speakers in the South Hemisphere, ranking 5th/6th in the world, with the native speakers almost entirely distributed through the "Global South", in South America, Africa and the Far East, with only "emerging communities" or no communities at all, I fail to understand why, among the dozens of people chosen to be part of the Working Groups, there's not a single one that can be identified as a representative of that community.
My feeling, when I see those lists, is that we have been excluded from the WMF Strategy objectives for 2030.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-24 10:03 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com:
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
"The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being organised, yet they might want to participate. I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more inclusive, approaches.
We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
Ideas:
- Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
- Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent
updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
- Blog posts every 3-6 months
- Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
participants and community members
- Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG
participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language and participation barriers
- Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
communities.
I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were not fulfilling.
As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
"Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the motivation letters of the participants? I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to format/structure it, I can help there.
I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place, and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania.
Have a nice day! Micru
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource,
Wiktionary...?
It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that
to
have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We
would
like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity
considerations
are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups
helps
us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on
filling
these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we
accept
further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these
proportions
will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up
in a
more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in
the
strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to
have
members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition
of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the
detailed
schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date,
as
well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I fail to understand why, among the dozens of people chosen to be part of the Working Groups, there's not a single one that can be identified as a representative of that community.
Well, you can slice the community in many ways. If you consider the number of contributors to the Portuguese Wikipedia with more than 5 edits per month, the number it is at about 1500 editors [1], however Wikidata is at 8200 editors [2] and it doesn't have representation either. I'm not trying to belittle the issue of lack of representation that you brought forward, I just want to illustrate that it is not an uncommon problem, perhaps because never before it had to be addressed.
My feeling, when I see those lists, is that we have been excluded from the WMF Strategy objectives for 2030.
I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more interesting to think in terms of opportunities. The issues have been already pointed out, some possible solutions have been put forward, and perhaps there are even more options for participation that we are not aware of. I trust that the Strategy team will come up with ways to close the gaps, and the best we can do is offer our assistance to make things better. In the end this is a matter of work... work to have discussions, work to make them productive, work to find consensuses, work to make the consensuses legitimate, work to inform about it... so I see plenty of opportunities to give a hand anywhere and make life easier to those involved.
Enjoy your day, Micru
[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm [2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaWIKIDATA.htm
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more interesting to think in terms of opportunities. The issues have been already pointed out, some possible solutions have been put forward, and perhaps there are even more options for participation that we are not aware of. I trust that the Strategy team will come up with ways to close the gaps, and the best we can do is offer our assistance to make things better. In the end this is a matter of work... work to have discussions, work to make them productive, work to find consensuses, work to make the consensuses legitimate, work to inform about it... so I see plenty of opportunities to give a hand anywhere and make life easier to those involved.
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects are not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a weakness, as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include (only) functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of candidates should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big company, not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
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
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers" tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects are not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a weakness, as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include (only) functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of candidates should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big company, not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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
Hi Jane,
I think Andres is completely right of this description, that the whole exercise was designed by functionaries for functionaries, and nobody ever thought that volunteers working on the projects could be involved.
It is indeed right that many of those do not care about the strategy discussions and just edit in their projects (though even say a Wikipedia editor from time to time confronts the situation that Commons and Wikidata exist but do not necessarily have the same policies as their project). But many do care. In the 2010 strategy discussions, we had the volunteer editors providing the input, and this is why this was a success. Apparently, this time there were a large number of applications from the volunteer editors who are not functionaries.
Now, you can say that functionaries and staffers are sometimes editors as well. Indeed, some of them are and are well respected in the communities (Maggie Dennis is a great example). Some edited the projects before but since then have gone inactive and have no idea what is going on in the communities. Some are openly fighting with the communities and have no or very little respect there. Some never edited. Well, you can of course make a selection and hope that these selected people understand everything about the variety of our projects. May be. Or may be not. We had in the past very bad decisions which WMF, with varying degree of success, tried to impose on the projects. I often had an impression that people making these decisions had no understanding of what is actually going on the projects, and do not even know whom to ask.
Now the whole process only convinces me that this would repeat more and more often. Especially since in the first round much of the project feedback was ignored.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers" tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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
Hi All, I cannot support the idea that the movement strategy is designed for functionaries only. We encouraged editors and volunteers to meet and discuss the strategy locally and also gave them (financial) support so that they were able to attend the international conferences and take their part in the discussions. Frans (chair WMNL)
*Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair +31 6 5333 9499
This is true,
but it's true also that the discussion is now restricted to few members and groups.
I can personally say that the communities (and when I speak about communities I speak about people not being able to speak english or not following the international mailing list) are ignoring partially what is happening, after the initial involvement in the colletion of the inputs.
Surely the Wikipedia's communities are not obliged to adopt what is discussed in this strategy mainly because "Wikipedia has /no central editorial board/"[1] and secondly because Wikipedia has not firm rules (5th pillar)[2] but a larger involvement of different members from the communities would have helped more, at least to address to the biggest communities some inputs coming from the strategy which is under discussion.
I agree with Karel that "/With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations//are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in//strategic discussions/" and I like this sentence, but unfortunately I see the same faces in any step of this strategy and if the diversity is something important because the diversity assures also a rich and etherogeneous difference of opinions, I think that this is not happening and don't see a "diversity of opinion" represented here.
An example is the steering committee that, in my opinion should have been excluded from the working groups to bring "new blood in this process" and not to limit the discussion always to the same people and to the same actors.
What Micru reports is an important point and I personally have his same feeling not as wikimedian, but as wikipedian and as volunteer.
Kind regards
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
On 25/07/2018 11:32, Frans Grijzenhout wrote:
Hi All, I cannot support the idea that the movement strategy is designed for functionaries only. We encouraged editors and volunteers to meet and discuss the strategy locally and also gave them (financial) support so that they were able to attend the international conferences and take their part in the discussions. Frans (chair WMNL)
*Frans Grijzenhout*, voorzitter / chair +31 6 5333 9499
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
That feels about right for most of the time. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jane Darnell Sent: 25 July 2018 09:29 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers" tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects are not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a weakness, as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include (only) functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of candidates should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big company, not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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 email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others.
I can subscribe to the sentiment. All the criticism that I might have about another person, or about some procedure, it is due to me not being aware of the difficulties being experienced. This is why I am very careful when expressing criticism because that lack of understanding is reciprocal, and the other person might not know what is going on in me either, and might even not realized of what from my perspective looks like an issue.
The way I describe the current governance system of the organized part of the global movement is an "unintended oligarchy". I don't think anyone ever wanted to have an oligarchy, but to take decisions, to be in the loop, requires that someone must have time to spend on it, and that they are given the trust to be in the decision-making processes. On one hand we have a group of people who can spend time following issues (or are even paid for it), participating in committees, going to conferences, and building in-person trust that later on they can capitalize with easier access to power roles. And on the other hand we have people that, as Yaroslav said, do not participate in real-life activities and therefore they are simply ignored and not considered for relevant roles, because they didn't build the in-person trust or the curriculum that people in the organized part of the movement think that it is important.
I consider impossible for any organization to escape the "iron law of oligarchy", and that in itself is liberating, because instead of wasting time pretending "openness" and "inclusiveness" we can focus our energies in having the best kind of oligarchy. To guarantee some renewal and to safeguard the trust in the movement, an effort should be made to allow rank-and-file members both to influence decision-making (as Franz mentioned, by giving them support and by opening discussions), and to have a path for them to join the "ruling class" if they have some basic skills and they are inclined to it. The first point is easier to attain than the second, because power is self-perpetuating and people tend to give preference to those that think like them or have a particular background or career.
There is an interesting anecdote that happened to the economist Kenneth E. Boulding. After graduating in Oxford he applied for a fellowship for Christ Church, and by mistake he received the recommendation letters that he asked from several of his economy professors. They agreed that he was brilliant and very intelligent, but all of them concluded that "he is not one of us". Diversity of thought is not always appreciated.
A certain homogeneity of values is necessary, because that is the basic tenet of a cultural identity, which is required to attract and retain volunteers with belongingness, and to inspire others with our values. Of course those values should be reflected in everything we do, not just in writing, but having a code in writing about governance, decision-making procedures, dissent, diversity, etc would help to know what to expect and it would reduce the frustration.
Cheers, Micru
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by God, but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that "some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers" tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/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. I have heard a very senior person in the WMF state that English is the only relevant language..
PS We did not agree on that one ..
Thanks, GerardM
On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by God, but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that "some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
have
net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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 are the steps now?
It is clear to me and others that this strategy initiative could not reach new faces, especially those more engaged with editing. Or they were reached, but not selected for some reason.
In case it is desired, whoever is in charge of this process should start thinking on ways of reaching them or invite others to think with and find a solution.
In case it is not desired, it should be clarified to broad community.
I see very good names on the groups and I don’t mean to discredit the work, good faith, and the value of the whole process, but I just don’t think it is the right path when editorial community is set aside intentionally or not.
Best regards.
Teles
Em sáb, 28 de jul de 2018 às 18:11, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hoi, I have. I have heard a very senior person in the WMF state that English is the only relevant language..
PS We did not agree on that one ..
Thanks, GerardM
On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that
believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
God,
but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that "some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running
worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the
hard
core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was
not
done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but
are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
have
net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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
Hi All,
as someone around for 10+ years I must say never really felt reached out to by these initiatives.
As the years passed I saw smaller and smaller chance to "get in" anywhere without building some sort of a(n) (international) wiki career first, what means years of stepping up on a corporate-esque ladder, spending the appropriate time on each level, before becoming eligible to step up.
Note, we talk about an advisory board here, not decision making.
This pretty much kills volunteerism in the wikimedia movement.
If one suggestion can be shouted in from the sideline, I'd suggest to think about excluding all who currently has or had in the past 12 months any formal position in the movement (board members, committee members, employees and all equivalent).
If anyone is interested in new voices.
Regards, Balazs
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com ezt írta (2018. július 27., péntek):
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by God, but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that "some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
have
net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by God, but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that "some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
have
net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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
Hello Jane,
Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that, despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the point that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used to have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011 declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should use the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem. Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness and knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in order to participate.
Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and Galician wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit of everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages over there, often in the same thread).
I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere "split down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact
split down the middle into parties that believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
God,
but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that "some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running
worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the
hard
core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was
not
done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been
said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but
are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
have
net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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, How about Portuguese from Africa? Thanks, GerardM
On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jane,
Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that, despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the point that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used to have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011 declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should use the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem. Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness and knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in order to participate.
Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and Galician wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit of everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages over there, often in the same thread).
I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere "split down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact
split down the middle into parties that believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
God,
but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that "some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
at
heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
groups
between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
was
really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
being
unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in
the
movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running
worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the
hard
core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in
our
communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was
not
done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has
been
said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for
the
Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but
are
not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not
attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I
have
net see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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
And perhaps with a further focus on specific African countries that speak Portuguese?
Scott_WUaS
On 5:46AM, Tue, Jul 31, 2018 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, How about Portuguese from Africa? Thanks, GerardM
On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jane,
Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that, despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the
point
that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used
to
have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011 declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should
use
the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem. Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness
and
knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in order to participate.
Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and
Galician
wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit
of
everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages over there, often in the same thread).
I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere
"split
down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there
is
often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles.
I
think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly certain their country and by association, their language is the best,
and
any other speakers of their language should either conform or start
their
own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you
haven't
come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact
split down the middle into parties that believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on-
and
offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression,
at
all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
God,
but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting
that
"some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed
into
forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
at
heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
offline".
Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
groups
between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I
respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we
all
have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really
wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
was
really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
being
unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in
the
movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running
worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not
the
hard
core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment
leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in
our
communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to
include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection
was
not
done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by
"boss"
selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
> wrote: > > I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has
been
said
> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for
the
> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects
but
are
not
> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do
not
attend
> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist. > > If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So
far I
have
> net > see even an acknowledgement of its existence. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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
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
Hello Gerard,
AFAIK officially the PALOPs (Portuguese speaking African countries) use European Portuguese. I'm quite used to reading news articles, laws, and books from all those countries, and apart some local vocabulary, my impression is that it's basically European Portuguese indeed. And at the time we had Wikipedia Zero in Angola, one of the things that newbies & IPs from there used to do was "correcting" Brazilian Portuguese to European Portuguese in the articles.
They also speak creoule in many of those countries, but it doesn't count as "Portuguese". I've no idea about the state of the local languages there, as we hardly have any regular editors from those countries (I can only think about 3, from Angola, at this point - one of them a sysop). But it certainly is something that could develop, once a community is established.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-30 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, How about Portuguese from Africa? Thanks, GerardM
On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jane,
Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that, despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the
point
that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used
to
have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011 declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should
use
the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem. Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness
and
knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in order to participate.
Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and
Galician
wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit
of
everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages over there, often in the same thread).
I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere
"split
down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there
is
often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles.
I
think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly certain their country and by association, their language is the best,
and
any other speakers of their language should either conform or start
their
own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you
haven't
come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Jane,
I think that we are in fact
split down the middle into parties that believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on-
and
offline".
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression,
at
all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
God,
but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting
that
"some languages are better than others".
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed
into
forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
at
heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages
on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
offline".
Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
folks
who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
to
any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
groups
between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I
respectfully
submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we
all
have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really
wrong
gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
was
really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
being
unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in
the
movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the
projects
are
not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running
worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not
the
hard
core contributes.
This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment
leaders,
fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness,
as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in
our
communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.
Facts
The vision was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up to
include
(only)
functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates
should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection
was
not
done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by
"boss"
selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big
company,
not the vibrant communities)
Anders
Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <
dacuetu@gmail.com
> wrote: > > I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has
been
said
> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for
the
> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects
but
are
not
> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do
not
attend
> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist. > > If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So
far I
have
> net > see even an acknowledgement of its existence. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/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
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
Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.
I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication* to/from/about the current groups. But I would be especially interested in ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process) could organize similar visions and proposals and priorities for the future, in parallel. Sometimes it is easier to develop crisp ideas as contrast/critique of an existing process, than from scratch. In which case quirks of a process, like incomplete sections of articles, can serve as helpful inspiration.
SJ
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
"The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being organised, yet they might want to participate. I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more inclusive, approaches.
We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
Ideas:
- Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
- Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent
updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
- Blog posts every 3-6 months
- Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
participants and community members
- Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG
participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language and participation barriers
- Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
communities.
I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were not fulfilling.
As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
"Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the motivation letters of the participants? I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to format/structure it, I can help there.
I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place, and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania.
Have a nice day! Micru
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource,
Wiktionary...?
It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that
to
have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We
would
like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity
considerations
are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups
helps
us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on
filling
these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we
accept
further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these
proportions
will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up
in a
more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in
the
strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to
have
members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition
of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the
detailed
schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date,
as
well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
SJ, other groups can meet and discuss, but they only have relevance if they are given some legitimacy. If the output of paralel groups is ignored, the only inspiration they can give is about how to waste community good faith (and resources). Having discussion groups only makes sense if there is a community to interact with, and if the output of that interaction serves some purpose.
I also think that it wouldn't be fair to take community attention bandwidth away with paralel groups until the official groups have had some chance to perform. Considering all the feedback that has been given here, I trust that it will be used to improve the blindspots.
Micru
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:31 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.
I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication* to/from/about the current groups. But I would be especially interested in ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process) could organize similar visions and proposals and priorities for the future, in parallel. Sometimes it is easier to develop crisp ideas as contrast/critique of an existing process, than from scratch. In which case quirks of a process, like incomplete sections of articles, can serve as helpful inspiration.
SJ
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
"The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1].
It
is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being organised, yet they might want to participate. I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted)
do
the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps
more
inclusive, approaches.
We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
Ideas:
- Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
- Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less
frequent
updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
- Blog posts every 3-6 months
- Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
participants and community members
- Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing
WG
participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language and participation barriers
- Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer
project
communities.
I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they
were
not fulfilling.
As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
thoughts
regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
"Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the motivation letters of the participants? I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to
know
the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to format/structure it, I can help there.
I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement,
and
there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take
place,
and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in
Wikimania.
Have a nice day! Micru
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition
of
the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers
from
our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource,
Wiktionary...?
It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that
to
have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We
would
like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people
not
interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender,
race,
organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition
of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity
considerations
are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer
project
communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups
helps
us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic
process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on
filling
these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we
accept
further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these
proportions
will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up
in a
more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related
to
the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in
the
strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital
projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital
communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to
have
members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen
by
those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the
only
possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of
diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive
definition
of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get
to
know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of
the
total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to
staff
members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group
and
for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot
of
exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task
for
the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity
of
their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After
that,
we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an
update,
seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the
detailed
schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date,
as
well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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>
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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
HI Nicole and Kaarel:
Thanks for your efforts. Can you add a new column per WG if the member is "speaking" for a meta group of Affiliates (such as Iberocoop or MENA)?. This could help us to understand some elections and the *possible* under-representation of groups in some themes.
Thanks in advance!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:12 AM Nicole Ebber nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_... [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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