SJ, other groups can meet and discuss, but they only have relevance if they
are given some legitimacy.
If the output of paralel groups is ignored, the only inspiration they can
give is about how to waste community good faith (and resources).
Having discussion groups only makes sense if there is a
And perhaps with a further focus on specific African countries that speak
On 5:46AM, Tue, Jul 31, 2018 Gerard Meijssen
> How about Portuguese from Africa?
> On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Hello
Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.
I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication*
to/from/about the current groups. But I would be especially interested in
ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process)
AFAIK officially the PALOPs (Portuguese speaking African countries) use
European Portuguese. I'm quite used to reading news articles, laws, and
books from all those countries, and apart some local vocabulary, my
impression is that it's basically European Portuguese indeed. And at
How about Portuguese from Africa?
On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta
> Hello Jane,
> Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> strife. We
What are the steps now?
It is clear to me and others that this strategy initiative could not reach
new faces, especially those more engaged with editing. Or they were
reached, but not selected for some reason.
In case it is desired, whoever is in charge of this process should start
I have. I have heard a very senior person in the WMF state that English is
the only relevant language..
PS We did not agree on that one ..
On 27 July 2018 at 13:35, Paulo Santos Perneta
> Hello Jane,
> I think that we are in fact split down the
Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the point
that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil),
Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is
often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I
think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
as someone around for 10+ years I must say never really felt reached out to
by these initiatives.
As the years passed I saw smaller and smaller chance to "get in" anywhere
without building some sort of a(n) (international) wiki career first, what
means years of stepping up on a
I think that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
"some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had
This is true,
but it's true also that the discussion is now restricted to few members
I can personally say that the communities (and when I speak about
communities I speak about people not being able to speak english or not
following the international mailing list) are ignoring
An other problem with participation by proxy is that you are likely to
strengthen current bias. Wikimania 2018 has come and gone and we want more
and better information about subjects like Africa, There are many
approaches possible. Crucial is what it is we are to achieve.
* Do we want a
I agree with Paulo, I have applied myself for it and the answer was that
the WMF is looking for diversities ... here's a good chance ...
2018-07-23 18:40 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta :
> Hello Pine,
> I know for a fact that some of the more knowledgeable and experienced
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jane Darnell wrote:
> But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
> really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
> unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others.
I can subscribe to the sentiment. All the
Hi All, I cannot support the idea that the movement strategy is designed
for functionaries only. We encouraged editors and volunteers to meet and
discuss the strategy locally and also gave them (financial) support so that
they were able to attend the international conferences and take their part
That feels about right for most of the time.
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: 25 July 2018 09:29
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round
I think Andres is completely right of this description, that the whole
exercise was designed by functionaries for functionaries, and nobody ever
thought that volunteers working on the projects could be involved.
It is indeed right that many of those do not care about the strategy
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
are not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not
the hard core
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela
> I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to
> recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and
> the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> I fail to understand why, among the dozens of people
> chosen to be part of the Working Groups, there's not a single one that can
> be identified as a representative of that community.
Well, you can slice
> I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the
value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the
> The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
I know for a fact that some of the more knowledgeable and experienced
members of our communities have applied to those WGs - at least about 10
candidatures have been sent. Not a single one was chosen, I believe because
most of us are not on the "organized part of the movement", are
Let me ask a question. What suggestions do you have for Nicole and Kaarel
about how to improve the strategy process? I hope that they will be
receptive to your input.
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
That is precisely what concerns me the most: That the system seems to be
designed to not bring significant changes to the current situation, by
assumedly being focused on what is already done, and the way it was done.
I am part of a Wikimedia group of communities that only has
In my experience Wikimedia staff are always just as committed and
enthusiastic as volunteers - it's not a job anyone takes if all they
care about is collecting their paycheque. :)
But where I share some of your concern is with the balance of some of
the working groups. Staff and board
"*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage
of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time
commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
HI Nicole and Kaarel:
Thanks for your efforts. Can you add a new column per WG if the member is
"speaking" for a meta group of Affiliates (such as Iberocoop or MENA)?.
This could help us to understand some elections and the *possible*
under-representation of groups in some themes.
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging
topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
"diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the
I am especially concerned that with the Portuguese language being the most
spoken language in the Southern Hemisphere, ranking 5th/6th globally, among
the dozens of members of the Strategy Working Groups that appear there,
there is not a single native speaker of Portuguese. And, as
with all respect, it would be great if you could name the issues first
before soliciting further feedback.
In my particular case, well, I have seen a message on this list which I
interpreted as a call for help. I have generally many things which interest
me, but I though that if WMF
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented.
Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
members that work in
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
Mail list logo