[Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy

[Asaf Bartov]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:

>
> The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global
> South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I
> initially misunderstood its meaning.


No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South" is
emphatically not on the agenda.


> The term "Global South" is pretty
> awful and deserves a quick death.


Agreed...


> But based on the title of the
> presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet.
>

...but what do we replace it with?  This has been rehashed quite a bit, but
no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise
and is politically acceptable.  (Personally I am happy with "developing
world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are euphemistic
as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)

I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of
countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity
throughout all these countries.  It is my understanding that most of the
consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption
that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS
countries the same.  I hope it is by now evident we are not.

Once again, I find no point to debating this.  All who _are_ interested are
welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a
shortlist) to WMF for consideration.  If a superior term arises, I promise
to make an effort to adopt it across WMF.  Until then, let's focus on the
actual work rather than the nomenclature.


> I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and
> India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on the
> ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of
> the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does
> the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will be
> working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time
> staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation
> contractors?
>

There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the
ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!)
means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress),
no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by
local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations,
and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF
grantees.

Cheers,

   A.
-- 
    Asaf Bartov
    Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org