[Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

[Gnangarra]

Percentages look good, and show some comparison but the reality is the
actual raw number say just as much when meta has 4600 and formun has less
than 200  and without staff less than 150 its not exactly a like for like
engagement. By the end of the survey majority are those who are getting
heard on Forum are going to be the ones who fill in the survey. We see what
we want to see.  Going right back to the early days of the movement the
biggest issue has always been splitting off discussion holding discussions
outside of the room and taking decision arbitrarily based on these
discussion areas. There has been many admin/crat users sanctioned for
taking decision based on an IRC discussion, an email, or other off project
discussions.

What we appear to be doing is taking everything off the projects because
"talking on the project is too difficult" excuse is being rolled out
everywhere, the only ones not able to discuss on the projects are those
that dont contribute to the projects.  My single most frustrating issue is
that those being hired to run MS sections dont know the projects nor the
community and make no effort to fill that void in their knowledge and
prefer outside formats, outside paid for tools over the projects.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 at 07:18, Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not
>> based on actual discussions about the forum.
>>
>
> Please provide excerpts of the report that make you think this.
>
>
>> Nevertheless, even if the summary was good, which is doubtful, the data
>> presented in the discussion (
>> https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/ms-forum-community-review-report/1436/6)
>> is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the
>> axis isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in
>> percent but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something
>> in these graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as
>> a percent makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people
>> participating in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world
>> region where it seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in
>> Sub-saharan Africa. But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5%
>> of the Meta Users are from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users.
>> But 12,5% of the Meta users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33
>> people. Is to say, there are more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan
>> Africa using Meta than MS Forums. The graph is misleading also in this
>> point, not only in the percent not adding up.
>>
>
> It's obvious that the number of users is way higher for Meta than the
> Forum. Having more users than Meta is not a goal of the Forum. We are
> sharing the numbers there only to better understand the percentages shown.
>
> The point of these metrics is to compare the regional location of Forum
> users vs the regional location of Meta users. The hypothesis is that the MS
> Forum can be especially useful for users outside of Northern & Western
> Europe and North America.
>
> The percentages show the distribution of users by region on Meta and on
> the Forum. ~18% for the ESEAP blue line means that in that month ~18% of
> Meta users were located in that region. The red line means the % of Forum
> users in that month without counting Foundation staff. The yellow line
> includes Foundation staff as well (as the number of Forum participants
> grows, the influence of Foundation staff should become irrelevant, as in
> Meta).
>
> This is the first time we produce these metrics. Comparing Meta with the
> MS Forum is complex for many reasons. Meta covers way more than Movement
> Strategy and discussions happen (with some exceptions) in the Talk
> namespace. We could explore a smaller subset of Meta pages getting closer
> to the MS Forum scope. Again, the goal being to check regional distribution
> of users, not "Meta vs Forum". Still, we thought it was useful to start
> recording this data and sharing it.
>
> We will include these metrics in our monthly reports. Over time we will
> see whether we can learn anything comparing the regional distribution of
> Meta and Forum users.
>
>
>> Then there are some interesting points about engagement. Is clearly going
>> down. Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta
>> engagement, so a comparison is difficult,
>>
>
> When a new space is announced, it is expected to receive a first bump of
> activity. After that comes the actual curve of consolidation (or not) of
> this new space. Two other factors influence in this case:
>
>- Many users responded to the community review call, joined, tested,
>maybe engaged a bit, and then left back to their routines, waiting for the
>outcome of the review period.
>- After mid June, Wiki

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

[Quim Gil]

Hi,

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not
> based on actual discussions about the forum.
>

Please provide excerpts of the report that make you think this.


> Nevertheless, even if the summary was good, which is doubtful, the data
> presented in the discussion (
> https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/ms-forum-community-review-report/1436/6)
> is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the
> axis isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in
> percent but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something
> in these graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as
> a percent makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people
> participating in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world
> region where it seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in
> Sub-saharan Africa. But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5%
> of the Meta Users are from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users.
> But 12,5% of the Meta users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33
> people. Is to say, there are more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan
> Africa using Meta than MS Forums. The graph is misleading also in this
> point, not only in the percent not adding up.
>

It's obvious that the number of users is way higher for Meta than the
Forum. Having more users than Meta is not a goal of the Forum. We are
sharing the numbers there only to better understand the percentages shown.

The point of these metrics is to compare the regional location of Forum
users vs the regional location of Meta users. The hypothesis is that the MS
Forum can be especially useful for users outside of Northern & Western
Europe and North America.

The percentages show the distribution of users by region on Meta and on the
Forum. ~18% for the ESEAP blue line means that in that month ~18% of Meta
users were located in that region. The red line means the % of Forum users
in that month without counting Foundation staff. The yellow line includes
Foundation staff as well (as the number of Forum participants grows, the
influence of Foundation staff should become irrelevant, as in Meta).

This is the first time we produce these metrics. Comparing Meta with the MS
Forum is complex for many reasons. Meta covers way more than Movement
Strategy and discussions happen (with some exceptions) in the Talk
namespace. We could explore a smaller subset of Meta pages getting closer
to the MS Forum scope. Again, the goal being to check regional distribution
of users, not "Meta vs Forum". Still, we thought it was useful to start
recording this data and sharing it.

We will include these metrics in our monthly reports. Over time we will see
whether we can learn anything comparing the regional distribution of Meta
and Forum users.


> Then there are some interesting points about engagement. Is clearly going
> down. Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta
> engagement, so a comparison is difficult,
>

When a new space is announced, it is expected to receive a first bump of
activity. After that comes the actual curve of consolidation (or not) of
this new space. Two other factors influence in this case:

   - Many users responded to the community review call, joined, tested,
   maybe engaged a bit, and then left back to their routines, waiting for the
   outcome of the review period.
   - After mid June, Wikimedia activity enters a seasonal reduction of
   activity that can be especially felt in global conversations.

We will see how the trends look for August-October, after the review period
has ended and in the context of a more active season.

About Meta, there is this: Active editors on Meta in non content pages
.
One can see that May-July has lower numbers than January-April. Maybe a
seasonal effect? We will see in the upcoming months.

There is also All Time active editors in non content pages
,
and in all pages
.
It took a couple of years for the new platform to consolidate and start
growing month after month. Just to put things into perspective.



> but the data provided to defend that this forum is thriving is just saying
> the opposite.
>

That

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

[Quim Gil]

Hi,

If anyone finds the report

biased, it would be helpful to share the excerpts or the absences that
prove this bias. We are happy to amend any mistakes, but for that we need
to identify them.

Also, it would be useful to know your perceived gravity of any bias you
detect. In other words, the report supports our decision to commit to the
long-term maintenance of the MS Forum. Based on your interpretation of the
community review, would you still support this decision or would you decide
something different (and what)? This helps knowing whether we are talking
about details or high impact perceived bias.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 7:57 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> With respect, I think you have a big selection effect in your report. I
> guess you're getting most of your positive comments directly on your new
> forum, and you're matching them against your initial viewpoint, rather
> than being unbiased?
>
> If you look at comments on-wiki, they seem to be quite negative, e.g.,
> have a look through discussions at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal


We have included the feedback of this page in the report. We already
reflected it during the review period as we were publicly drafting the
summaries of each question, week after week. We even re-posted some of that
feedback in the corresponding forum discussion, to give forum users a
glimpse of the discussion on Meta (example

).

What feedback in that Talk page do you miss that is relevant and should
have been reflected?


> and:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#new_resource_for_movement_discussions
> .
>

That discussion started after the community review ended but the feedback
follows the same lines as the page on Meta. Still, same question, what
ideas are missing in the report?

I strongly suggest running a Meta RfC about the existence of this forum,
> following standard community processes, and then decide on its future:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment


This is a forum to support the Movement Strategy implementation. The
community review was advertised in all Movement Strategy channels and
beyond. The feedback clearly reflects an overall preference to try the MS
Forum further rather than shutting it down. Users will decide about this
forum with their own feet (fingers), consolidating it as a community space
or not.

Given that this Forum is especially conceived to better support those who
can't or won't use Meta for discussions and collaboration, we don't think a
Meta RFC would be the right tool for this task.


>
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

-- 
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BRWMYY3QUGD3CCDQWYDXTGD5A6UJPDGH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

It's unfortunate that this has to be said, but:

– A community review report should be written by the community, not the WMF.
– The idea of democracy is not that the government should elect a new
people.

Regards,
Andreas

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 5:02 PM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> The Movement Strategy Forum  (MS
> Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
> Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement
> participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to
> build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
>
> The Movement Strategy
>  is
> a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
> Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to
> a full-time project.
>
> Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations, and
> ask questions in your language.
>
> The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for
> this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published
> the Community Review Report
> .
>  It
> includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the
> next steps.
>
> We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AGOGIWTJSGTHKHQTHM5B2BCLC7B53TXL/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CKSOB6WWPCZTJAPYQ5SA5YVDIKFVYJCD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Hello,
I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not based 
on actual discussions about the forum. Nevertheless, even if the summary was 
good, which is doubtful, the data presented in the discussion 
(https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/ms-forum-community-review-report/1436/6) 
is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the axis 
isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in percent 
but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something in these 
graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as a percent 
makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people participating 
in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world region where it 
seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in Sub-saharan Africa. 
But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5% of the Meta Users are 
from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users. But 12,5% of the Meta 
users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33 people. Is to say, there are 
more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan Africa using Meta than MS 
Forums. The graph is misleading also in this point, not only in the percent not 
adding up.

Then there are some interesting points about engagement. Is clearly going down. 
Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta engagement, so a 
comparison is difficult, but the data provided to defend that this forum is 
thriving is just saying the opposite.

If possible, I would like to have some clarifications on this data.

Thanks

Galder


From: Mike Peel 
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 7:56 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum

Hi,

With respect, I think you have a big selection effect in your report. I
guess you're getting most of your positive comments directly on your new
forum, and you're matching them against your initial viewpoint, rather
than being unbiased?

If you look at comments on-wiki, they seem to be quite negative, e.g.,
have a look through discussions at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Strategy/Forum/Proposal
and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#new_resource_for_movement_discussions.

I strongly suggest running a Meta RfC about the existence of this forum,
following standard community processes, and then decide on its future:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment

Thanks,
Mike

On 18/8/22 17:00:36, Quim Gil wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
>
> The Movement Strategy Forum (MS
> Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
> Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement
> participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to
> build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
>
>
> The Movement Strategy
> is
> a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
> Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment
> to a full-time project.
>
>
> Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations,
> and ask questions in your language.
>
>
> The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal
> for this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just
> published theCommunity Review Report
> .
>  It
> includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about
> the next steps.
>
>
> We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AGOGIWTJSGTHKHQTHM5B2BCLC7B53TXL/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2SGLMH7XFKJ7SBQEIABTEEWFYSNY4JD3/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guid