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. 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. 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. 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. 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org

​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(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:

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(a)gmail.com>om>:

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(a)gmail.com>om>:

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(a)gmail.com>om>:

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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

​ Hello David, 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 &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > > 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. > > ​​ > 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 &lt;kvaidla(a)wikimedia.org&gt; > 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 &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; > > 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(a)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_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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; 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

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(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; 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 -- *Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland* Mariaplaats 3 - 3511 LH Utrecht Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 http://www.wikimedia.nl/ 2018-07-25 11:01 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ 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(a)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

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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > 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(a)anderswennersten.se&gt; 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 &lt;dacuetu(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu: -- Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity. +55 (71) 99707 6409

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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, How about Portuguese from Africa? Thanks, GerardM On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non