All:
With the expiration of the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, many of us are interested in future strategic planning efforts. With that in mind (and as part of a series of interviews I'm doing to celebrate Wikipedia Day), I interviewed Eugene Eric Kim, who designed the community engagement process for that plan. I think the organization and the community has, probably for a variety of reasons, lost track of much of what was learned during that process, so I think a recap will be valuable. It's a 25 minute video -- and if I may be so bold, I think it's well worth the time investment for anybody interested in this stuff.
Wikipedia 15 for 15: Eugene Eric Kim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Eq4l4KmBc&index=3&list=PLnDuxSh4Rp...
And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should we be moving foward?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
p.s. Yes, this is licensed CC BY, and I will be uploading the whole series to Commons when I get a moment!
Pete, thanks for bringing up this subject. May I ask you to please do a lightning talk about this during the Wikipedia Day conference?
Pine
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
All:
With the expiration of the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, many of us are interested in future strategic planning efforts. With that in mind (and as part of a series of interviews I'm doing to celebrate Wikipedia Day), I interviewed Eugene Eric Kim, who designed the community engagement process for that plan. I think the organization and the community has, probably for a variety of reasons, lost track of much of what was learned during that process, so I think a recap will be valuable. It's a 25 minute video -- and if I may be so bold, I think it's well worth the time investment for anybody interested in this stuff.
Wikipedia 15 for 15: Eugene Eric Kim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Eq4l4KmBc&index=3&list=PLnDuxSh4Rp...
And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should we be moving foward?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
p.s. Yes, this is licensed CC BY, and I will be uploading the whole series to Commons when I get a moment! _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
All:
And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should we be moving foward?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still impressed.
Concerning the process itself:
1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning: there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but still wanted to mention.
3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer. May be I just asked wrong people.
4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again for such process.
6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not just the English Wikipedia.
Cheers Yaroslav
Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.
Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).
To Yaroslav's points:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should we be moving foward?
I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still impressed.
Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video -- based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals and reflections very interesting.
1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
Agreed
2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but still wanted to mention.
It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically, since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well. Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get cross-pollination, though?
3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer. May be I just asked wrong people.
Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what didn't the last time.
4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."
5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
for such process.
I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation. (However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)
6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not just the English Wikipedia.
I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!
Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and community members see across languages, country borders, and project borders, and in learning to listen better to one another and develop a fuller understanding of the big picture. I believe the resulting plan was strongly reflective of common sentiments within our community; and even if imperfect, it's the first (and maybe only) time a document has really attempted to do that, and I think it did an admirable job.
I remain hopeful that some day we will see a "Strategic Planning 2.0" effort that draws heavily on these lessons. I am increasingly of the opinion that volunteers should lead the effort to make that happen; and it might make sense to fully separate two ideas: * A strategic plan for the movement * A strategic plan for the Wikimedia Foundation
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the Foundation. I think that is a good idea. /a
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.
Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).
To Yaroslav's points:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last
round
(or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How should we be moving foward?
I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still impressed.
Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video -- based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals and reflections very interesting.
- It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
Agreed
- There was little to not at all coordination between different task
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but still wanted to mention.
It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically, since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well. Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get cross-pollination, though?
- It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer.
May
be I just asked wrong people.
Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what didn't the last time.
- There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task
force
coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so
that
I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the
second
round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."
- It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
for such process.
I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation. (However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)
- Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community,
not
just the English Wikipedia.
I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!
Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and community members see across languages, country borders, and project borders, and in learning to listen better to one another and develop a fuller understanding of the big picture. I believe the resulting plan was strongly reflective of common sentiments within our community; and even if imperfect, it's the first (and maybe only) time a document has really attempted to do that, and I think it did an admirable job.
I remain hopeful that some day we will see a "Strategic Planning 2.0" effort that draws heavily on these lessons. I am increasingly of the opinion that volunteers should lead the effort to make that happen; and it might make sense to fully separate two ideas:
- A strategic plan for the movement
- A strategic plan for the Wikimedia Foundation
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
'On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the Foundation. I think that is a good idea.
Also agree.
I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is finished.
-- John Vandenberg
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Also agree.
I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is finished.
That has long been one of my take-aways from the process. Count me as a +1 for this idea.
pb
PS - Yaroslav, few things make me happier than hearing that your children are impressed by the iron barnstar. I'd love to take credit, but that credit belongs solely in my friend Eugene Eric Kim's camp - that was his idea; I just had charge of execution, but I'm so very glad that it is an idea that you liked. Working with Eugene was an honor and a privilege, and I learned a tremendous amount about coordination of a massive process from him.
Philippe, if you continue to hang around Wikimedia-l, you may find yourself delegated to run one or both of these planning processes. (:
I've drafted some thoughts about a community process. Hopefully I'll have some time to refine them and propose some ideas on Meta by Friday.
Pine On Jan 12, 2016 1:44 PM, "Philippe Beaudette" philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Also agree.
I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is finished.
That has long been one of my take-aways from the process. Count me as a +1 for this idea.
pb
PS - Yaroslav, few things make me happier than hearing that your children are impressed by the iron barnstar. I'd love to take credit, but that credit belongs solely in my friend Eugene Eric Kim's camp - that was his idea; I just had charge of execution, but I'm so very glad that it is an idea that you liked. Working with Eugene was an honor and a privilege, and I learned a tremendous amount about coordination of a massive process from him.
--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe@beaudette.me 415-691-8822 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Il 12/01/2016 22:25, John Mark Vandenberg ha scritto:
Also agree. I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is finished -- John Vandenberg
Yep, since the second one is, eventually, way to pursue the first one.
Vito
13.01.2016 2:48 AM "Vituzzu" vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com napisał(a):
Yep, since the second one is, eventually, way to pursue the first one.
I agree in principle, while I think it would yet be unwise to delay WMF strategic planning and community consultations this year.
However, I think it would be really good to think WHO could coordinate the community strategy development. While it would have been done collaboratively, there should be a facilitator.
The idea of two boards has been around for a while. I also think that organizations in the movement could have a coordinating body.
On Jan 12, 2016 16:51, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
All:
And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
should
we be moving foward?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still impressed.
Concerning the process itself:
- It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
- There was little to not at all coordination between different task
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but still wanted to mention.
- It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the
task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer. May be I just asked wrong people.
- There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization
in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
- It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used
again for such process.
- Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not just the English Wikipedia.
Interesting summary, what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and one example what should not have gone into the plan?
Rupert
On 2016-01-13 06:06, rupert THURNER wrote:
Interesting summary, what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and one example what should not have gone into the plan?
I do not know. It was six years ago after all, and I was not involved in drafting of the final plan. I can of course re-read it and see what in the end of the day was a good idea and what was not really a good idea, but anybody can do it, I am in no way special. There were over a hundred barnstars sent around if I remember correctly, and most of those people are still around somewhere in the movement (though not necessarily in the same roles as six years ago - me not being an exception).
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2016-01-13 06:06, rupert THURNER wrote:
Interesting summary, what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and
one example what should not have gone into the plan?
anybody can do it
I agree! :) I enjoyed seeing your reflections, and would love to hear from more people on this. (For what it's worth, here's the summary of the Strategic Plan https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary .)
My own take on Rupert's (excellent) question:
== Three major outcomes == 1. It helped many Wikimedians (and I count myself among them) develop a much stronger understanding of what our international, and multi-project, world looks like. Hearing ideas -- whether new or familiar -- from Wikimedians from different countries, different languages, different projects -- was very refreshing, and having it done in a context that invited conversation and deliberation made it very "real." 2009-10 were the years my perspective on Wikimedia substantially shifted from Oregon to international (though working at the WMF in that time was also a major contribution). I suspect this is true of many of us.
2. Building on #1, we developed a great deal of capacity for shared strategic thinking. Taking part in strategic discussions, in a mode outside the drama or excitement of the day, established lines of communication that still exist, and are still actively used. Much of what I see is in the volunteer world; but I also suspect the process greatly informed the grant-giving arms of the WMF, which were formalized in the wake of the process. I'd be very interested to hear from Asaf, Siko, and others from the grants programs on this.
3. It generally gave the WMF, and all organizations and people wanting to broadly serve or address the Wikimedia community, a better understanding of who they're talking to, and what goals and values are widely held. Whether or not one makes explicit reference to the five strategic goals, having a sense of what they are is a powerful conceptual tool. This, in particular, has certainly found its way into the grant-giving programs, and perhaps other areas of WMF's operations.
== What should not have gone in the plan? == In hindsight, the plan has one significant flaw (which I blogged about http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-needs-trustee/ during the Board Election). Philippe Beaudette, recently quoted in Liam Wyatt's blog post http://wittylama.com/2016/01/08/strategy-and-controversy/, said: "The Wikimedia Foundation has one unique strategic asset: the editing community."
The following "Virtuous Circle graphic was produced by the strategic planning process (hey, look at me, I'm an ASCII artist!). It's purpose is to show what dynamics drive Wikimedia's continuous improvement:
Y --> T R I E L A A C U [[ ? ]] H Q | ^ v \ PARTICIPATION
In the original, it had "infrastructure" in the middle, i.e. technical infrastructure.
The graphic is accurate. But (to summarize my blog post briefly) it does not capture what is UNIQUE about Wikimedia. In fact, almost EVERY major web site -- at least the social ones like Facebook, eBay, etc. -- has a technical core that supports a cycle of improving/increasing content, reach, and participation.
Wikimedia should have something social in the middle. You can still call it infrastructure -- in an important way, it is -- but it should be "volunteer infrastructure" or "community infrastructure."
That would help us better contemplate the thing that makes us unique, and the thing that must be protected and nourished if we're going to help all of humanity engage with all knowledge.
That's something we should address this side around. Technology pervades all parts of this diagram -- but it should be contemplated in the ways it impacts groups of people working in the system, not the other way around.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org