This is a very excellent report. Thanks to all for the work put into it.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:47 AM Gnangarra wrote:
> I see one of the key things in the the movement and the WMF has developed
> is thats leaving behind the volunteers and contributors. There is focus on
> top down,
I see one of the key things in the the movement and the WMF has developed
is thats leaving behind the volunteers and contributors. There is focus on
top down, corporate structures in everything and details fear of failure in
attempting projects in some ways a lost of trust of volunteers
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for bringing up comparability. The paper points out that the
historic development of the international office in the sampled cases is
different from how the WMF was formed. This does not, in my view, preclude
us from comparing systems.
I agree with Andreas that the central
Hoi,
At the same time, Wikipedia was offered to the world in English and only
now we put more effort into bringing Wikipedia to the rest of our world, in
other languages. When you consider the huge bias we offer in our
information about ourselves. Your arguments centre around a past that was
Dear Nate,
You say, "By contrast, the bulk of mission-related services from the
Wikimedia movement are offered to the world at large centrally by the
international office (i.e. the Wikimedia projects)."
Just think about this statement for a moment. It is not true. The bulk of
mission-related
Hi Nicole,
Thanks for sharing this - very interesting reading so far. I'm hoping you
can elaborate on WMDE's thinking around selecting INGOs for evaluation.
Your criteria is very straightforward - INGOs with a confederation of
independent organizations, connected by a global mission.
But each of
