Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I've no idea what you mean by " second iteration". I was told by Work Group
members that those are the recommendations that were used as starting
points for the discussions by the Work Groups at Tunis last weekend.

Therefore, all that is most probably outdated stuff by now (it was already
outdated by the time it was posted).
I really don't know what happens to the discussions going on there, but I
don't believe they will be taken into account, since by now those
recommendations have already advanced to somewhere else.

Best,
Paulo

Mario Gómez  escreveu no dia quarta, 25/09/2019
à(s) 08:45:

> The recommendations from the second iteration are available now:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
>
> Looking at the formatting with discussion links and so on, I assume
> community feedback is still welcome. It would be good to announce this in
> wikimedia-l, meta main page, etc.
>
> Best,
>
> MarioGom
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> > been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
> future
> > of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
> the
> > working groups.
> >
> > If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> > feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> > ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> > the recommendations.
> >
> > Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> > documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
> much
> > more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
> Wikimeda
> > volunteers.
> >
> > There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> > sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> > back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At
> least
> > at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
> >
> > The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought
> through.
> > There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> > that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the
> statement
> > that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> > content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
> > years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open
> content
> > organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic
> change?
> >
> > And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
> > about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All
> change
> > has negative connotations to some members of the community."
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
> >
> > I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
> > before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is
> giving
> > a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the
> very
> > same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
> >
> > This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
> > are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
> > as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating
> for
> > me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
> > And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
> > this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one
> who
> > feels this frustration.
> >
> > Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline.
> If
> > these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
> > not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for
> the
> > working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give
> the
> > Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback
> > again.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> > ___
> > 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Community User Group Albania - Report

[Nafie Shehu]

Dear Wikimedians,

Below you can find the report of the Wikimedia Community User Group
Albania:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania/2018_Report


You can check our future plans here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Albania#Activities_for_2019

If you have any questions or suggestions, please let us know.


Best regards,
Nafie
On behalf of Wikimedia Community User Group Albania members
___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

[Alek Tarkowski]

Hi Gerard, (and everyone else)

I’m a newbie here and this is my first email - so Wikihello! 

Adding to your point, and SJ’s great list of positive things to do:

Yes, it seems that in-person events are necessary. But has anyone questioned 
constructively this assumption and tried to design a movement that does not 
depend so much on global events?

I tried to tackle this issue in a thought piece that you might enjoy:
https://medium.com/@atarkowski/building-a-sustainable-open-movement-how-do-we-go-beyond-the-global-events-that-we-love-so-much-c724a4252062
 


Best,
Alek

> On 25 Sep 2019, at 08:13, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> For me this is a negative approach, it is all about costs and there is no
> consideration of benefits. When you consider a conference with over 100
> people, you CANNOT replace it by digital means. You will not have the
> conversations made possible by being there in person and getting to meet
> other people learn to know them, appreciate them, respect them.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM



—
Prezes i Fundator   |   President and Co-Founder
Centrum Cyfrowe   |   centrumcyfrowe.pl
T: +48 889 660 444
@atarkowski 
+
Coordinator, Creative Commons Polska  |creativecommons.pl
Board Member, Creative Commons  |   creative commons.org
Member, COMMUNIA  |  communia-association.org

—
Informujemy zgodnie z wymogami RODO: Fundacja Centrum Cyfrowe przetwarza 
Państwa dane (imię i nazwisko, adres e-mail oraz informacje zawarte w treści 
wiadomości) na podstawie uzasadnionego interesu, w celu obsługi korespondencji, 
w celach wynikających z treści e-maila lub w celu nawiązania kontaktu w 
przyszłości.

___
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

[Mario Gómez]

The recommendations from the second iteration are available now:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations

Looking at the formatting with discussion links and so on, I assume
community feedback is still welcome. It would be good to announce this in
wikimedia-l, meta main page, etc.

Best,

MarioGom

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
> been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future
> of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the
> working groups.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
> feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
> the recommendations.
>
> Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
> documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much
> more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda
> volunteers.
>
> There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
> sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
> back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least
> at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".
>
> The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through.
> There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
> that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement
> that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
> content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
> years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content
> organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?
>
> And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
> about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change
> has negative connotations to some members of the community."
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9
>
> I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
> before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving
> a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very
> same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).
>
> This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
> are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
> as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for
> me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
> And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
> this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who
> feels this frustration.
>
> Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If
> these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
> not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the
> working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the
> Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback
> again.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> ___
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation joins the global climate strike

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For me this is a negative approach, it is all about costs and there is no
consideration of benefits. When you consider a conference with over 100
people, you CANNOT replace it by digital means. You will not have the
conversations made possible by being there in person and getting to meet
other people learn to know them, appreciate them, respect them.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 07:58, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm glad that this conversation is going in a positive direction.
>
> I have spent the last several days contemplating that after the events of
> this summer, if I see WMF in any way associated with a surprise, I get a
> stress headache and wonder what new problem has started. If I had a more
> positive view of WMF, while I wouldn't have sent the WMF site "on strike"
> in the way that WMF did it, I'd probably have bypassed this issue and moved
> on to something else.
>
> I'd like to suggest that going forward we change the title of this thread
> to something like "Wikimedia travel, environmental costs, and financial
> costs" to reflect the broader scope of this discussion,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,