Thanks :)
Mardetanha
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:58 PM, James Hare <jamesmhare(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"Strategy" is too broad because it includes
areas where there is broad
consensus (WMF doesn't do editorial policy), areas where there is a working
consensus (WMF prefers grantmaking and collecting best practices over
direct outreach work), and areas highly fraught with conflict (arguments
over the user experience). Any attempt at a true strategy will require us
to address these conflicts. The best thing the WMF can do is deciding what
it will and will not do and then call on others to fill in the gaps.
On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Mardetanha
<mardetanha.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
it would be great if someone could give us tl;dr version of this mail
Mardetanha
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:21 PM, James Hare <jamesmhare(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Of the many issues, real or perceived, currently under discussion, one
of
> them is the matter of strategy: of the
Wikimedia Foundation and of the
> movement in general. I’ve been editing Wikipedia since November of 2004
and
> have noticed that the general points of
tension have revolved around who
> has authority or responsibility to do what. I will explain what I mean
by
> that.
>
> There is no one “strategy.” Or rather, strategy has different components
> to it, and it is important to note and understand these different
> components because they have their own histories and associated
arguments.
> There is no possible way I can capture every
nuance of this, but when we
> say “strategy” we should think of at least three things: content
strategy,
> program strategy, and product strategy.
>
> Content has, almost exclusively, been a prerogative of the communities
of
> the various Wikimedia projects, and not that
of the Foundation. [1]
English
> Wikipedia, for example, argues bitterly over
what is notable, what is
not
> notable, and what should and shouldn’t be
deleted on a given day, but
the
> Wikimedia Foundation is not involved in that.
While the Wikimedia
> Foundation does fund content creation initiatives from time to time, it
> does not decide, for instance, which monuments are worthy of Wiki Loves
> Monuments, or which artists should be the focus of Art+Feminism. I’m not
> pointing this out because it’s remotely interesting, but because it’s so
> widely agreed upon that the WMF has no editorial authority that we don’t
> even need to talk about it.
>
> There are other areas that we do need to talk about; not necessarily to
> devise a master plan, or to draw lines in the sand, but to at least
> understand who thinks what and where our opinions diverge. This brings
me
> to my second point: programs. I am referring
to initiatives to get more
> people involved in the Wikimedia projects, to build bridges with other
> organizations, to make Wikimedia as much a part of the offline world as
the
> online world. The Wikimedia Foundation did
some of the original
programs in
> the late 2000s, with mixed success. Chapters
came along and also came up
> with programs; GLAM, for instance, was developed outside of the
Wikimedia
> Foundation. Over time, the Foundation decided
that it was not so
interested
> in running programs directly as much as they
were interested in funding
> others to carry them out and serving as a sort of central hub for best
> practices. As far as I can tell, as someone who has served on the board
of
> a Wikimedia chapter for almost five years,
there seems to be a general
> consensus that this is how programs are done. This operating consensus
was
> arrived at through a combination of the
Wikimedia Foundation’s
“narrowing
> focus” and by the enthusiasm of chapters,
groups, and mission-aligned
> organizations to carry on outreach work.
>
> Then there is the product strategy, which is the most contentious of
them
> all. By “product” I am referring to the
subset of technology that
readers
> and editors interact with on a day-to-day
basis. The sacred workflow.
(Much
> of the arguments about technology are out of
my depth so I won’t be
> commenting on them; they also include rather arcane infrastructural
stuff
> that I don’t think most Wikimedia users or
contributors care about.)
All of
> our arguments, from the usability initiative
to the present day, have
> focused on: who is in charge of the user experience? I have heard
different
> things; one perspective holds that “the
community” (usually not further
> specified) gets to make the final decision, while I have also heard from
> some that technological matters are purely the prerogative of the
Wikimedia
> Foundation. [2] I am not sure what the
present-day company line is but I
> suspect it’s somewhere in the middle.
>
> I do not know what the “true” answer is, either. There is a lot to be
said
> for treating the user experience as products
to be professionally
managed:
> there has been tremendous study in the area
of how to design user
> experiences, and Wikipedia is notorious for being difficult to edit as a
> newcomer. With this in mind, the Wikimedia Foundation did the best it
> could, with limited resources, and despite some successes managed to
create
> some ham-fisted products that did not address
the needs of the users
and—at
> worst—threatened disruption. This has gotten
better in time; the visual
> editor, for example, has made tremendous progress on this front. But not
> every issue is settled. What about the products that need substantially
> more improvement before they can be used at large? What about things
that
> we should be working on, but aren’t, or are
doing so at a glacial pace
> because we are being stretched too thin? And now that WMF grantees can
> develop code for deployment in production (such as MediaWiki
extensions),
> what is the relationship between these
projects and the overall product
> strategy of the Wikimedia Foundation? On the Reading half of the
equation,
> who gets to decide how content is presented,
and how are these decisions
> made?
>
> I am sure we each as individuals have answers to these questions, but we
> do not have a common understanding, whatsoever, the same way we
generally
> understand that the Wikimedia Foundation does
not do editorial policy,
or
> that the Wikimedia Foundation generally
avoids doing on-the-ground
program
> work the same way chapters do. We do not even
agree on how much the
> Wikimedia Foundation should focus on the software product aspect as
opposed
> to other aspects.
>
> Nor do I think we will arrive at this conclusion through developing a
> grand strategy and an overall movement framework. We’re big and
> decentralized, and we need to accommodate opportunities where they
exist.
> Exhaustive planning documents do not lend
themselves to that. And it is
> unlikely we can all come to a happy solution that accommodates everyone
and
> everything.
>
> This is why it is up to the Wikimedia Foundation to define its own role
> within the movement. My hope is that they do so by actively seeking out
the
> needs of the entire movement, since they are
in the unique position
where
> they can support a large share of the
movement. But it will need to
define
> its role in the development of
products—whether they be editing
products,
> or products that present Wikimedia content.
Whether it will seek to
control
> the presentation of content or merely advise
on the community’s own
> decisions. The most feasible way forward I see is that the Wikimedia
> Foundation decides what it is best suited to do, set its own boundaries,
> and call on the rest of the movement to fill in the gaps. This will help
> the Wikimedia Foundation focus its work: by explicitly saying “no” to
some
> things and determining they are not within
their remit, it opens the
doors
> (through grant funding or some other
mechanism) for other people or
groups
> to do things that they are best suited to do.
With programs being
handled
> by non-WMF entities and some software
development (including my own
work at
> WikiProject X) being handled outside of the
Foundation, this is
possible.
>
> The Wikimedia movement is a broad movement, and it would not be
practical
> to come up with a movement-wide strategy.
However, the Wikimedia
Foundation
> specifically should try to define its own
role with respect to software
and
> call on the rest of the movement to fill in
the gaps based on its needs.
>
>
> Respectfully,
> James Hare
>
>
>
> [1] I’m not counting their rare interventions—for legal purposes—as
> editorial control.
>
> [2] I honestly do not remember who said it or when. My point is not that
> someone out there has (or had) a heretical (or righteous) opinion, but
that
people
have very divergent opinions on this.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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
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
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>