Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Where does the number 750,000 speakers come from? And what is the rationale
to exclude smaller linguistic communities?

I think emerging communities can have less speakers than that. A language
can be viable and alive with less speakers than that, so we are not talking
about preserving a language even if there are less speakers than that. If
the language is used in day to day life and to teach at schools, why
wouldn't it be considered for a Wikipedia and a Wiktionary even if there
are less than 750,000 speakers?

Thank you,

Jean-Philippe Béland
Vice President, Wikimedia Canada

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 04:29 Balázs Viczián, 
wrote:

> Hi Asaf et All,
>
> Hope I won't get skipped because I barely talk on this list or in general
> on an international level but this proposal could have a long term effect
> on my chapter.
>
> Happy to see WMF is ready to start giving up at least a bit on geography or
> census numbers and shift focus to existing communities based on their
> actual state and health.
>
> I would suggest not stopping here but going forward by completely
> abandoning geography and such overgeneralization where the entire world can
> be described by 3 (that is three) labels.
>
> Instead evaluate each community topic by topic.
>
> Say one: governance. Even WMF itself had such a crisis, not to say the
> British, German and now the French "developed" chapters. For them, better
> organized but ever labeled "emerging" communities might have been able to
> provide support, if their category would not be discouraging them from
> stepping in.
>
> Discouraging, yup. Put your hands on your hearts and be honest. We all
> think that at least on a general level the "developed" should teach and
> support the "emerging" and not the other way around, right?
>
> Yet said governance as an example appears to be a lot more problematic for
> the ever "developed" than the ever "emerging".
>
> This proposal does not recognize such patterns but it is a big step forward
> nevertheless as it shifts more focus on the existing communities. The
> labels are in my subjective opinion are somewhat patronizing as per above.
>
> Balazs,
> from an ever "emerging" community
>
> On Sep 27, 2017 19:30, "Asaf Bartov"  wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> > distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> > countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> > named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> > Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> > impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
> >
> > However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based
> on
> > UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> > nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> > distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> > happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> > next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at
> geography,
> > whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> > geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
> >
> > In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> > unloved and rejected by many.
> >
> > The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been
> thinking
> > about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
> > much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state
> of
> > editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> > would be less controversial.
> >
> > We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
> > replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our
> intention
> > to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> > definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we
> are
> > ready to share the proposed definition today:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> > Defining_Emerging_Communities
> >
> >
> > We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
> > The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
> > incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
> >
> > Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page,
> too.
> > :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Asaf
> > ___
> > 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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Balázs Viczián]

Hi Asaf et All,

Hope I won't get skipped because I barely talk on this list or in general
on an international level but this proposal could have a long term effect
on my chapter.

Happy to see WMF is ready to start giving up at least a bit on geography or
census numbers and shift focus to existing communities based on their
actual state and health.

I would suggest not stopping here but going forward by completely
abandoning geography and such overgeneralization where the entire world can
be described by 3 (that is three) labels.

Instead evaluate each community topic by topic.

Say one: governance. Even WMF itself had such a crisis, not to say the
British, German and now the French "developed" chapters. For them, better
organized but ever labeled "emerging" communities might have been able to
provide support, if their category would not be discouraging them from
stepping in.

Discouraging, yup. Put your hands on your hearts and be honest. We all
think that at least on a general level the "developed" should teach and
support the "emerging" and not the other way around, right?

Yet said governance as an example appears to be a lot more problematic for
the ever "developed" than the ever "emerging".

This proposal does not recognize such patterns but it is a big step forward
nevertheless as it shifts more focus on the existing communities. The
labels are in my subjective opinion are somewhat patronizing as per above.

Balazs,
from an ever "emerging" community

On Sep 27, 2017 19:30, "Asaf Bartov"  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
>
> However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based on
> UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at geography,
> whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
>
> In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> unloved and rejected by many.
>
> The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
> about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
> much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
> editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> would be less controversial.
>
> We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
> replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
> to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
> ready to share the proposed definition today:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> Defining_Emerging_Communities
>
>
> We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
> The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
> incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
>
> Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Asaf
> ___
> 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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Lodewijk]

Besides all discussions on the exact definition, could we please replace
"WMF" with "the Wikimedia movement"? I don't think that supporting emerging
communities, however we define them, should be the prerogative of the WMF,
nor should it be implied. I trust this was not the intention, either :)

Lodewijk

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> > I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the
> highly discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a
> more nuanced approach.
>
> Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical
> for the way our movement works.
>
> Plus we can now stop arguing about whether or not to use the term
> "global south" which will increase everyone's productivity.
>
> Chris
>
> ___
> 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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Chris Keating]

> I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly 
> discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced 
> approach.

Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical
for the way our movement works.

Plus we can now stop arguing about whether or not to use the term
"global south" which will increase everyone's productivity.

Chris

___
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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi all,

In my personal opinion, the term "emerging communities" is much more
healthy and acceptable than Global South, which always sounded patronizing
and diminshing.

And I also like and celebrate the initiative to create our own definition :)


Cheers!
P.S.: The map in the link needs a thorough review ;)

El sept. 28, 2017 7:09 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" 
escribió:

> Hoi,
> For me this initiative raises more questions then it answers. As I
> understand it, it is a change in vocabulary and it defines when a
> Wikipedia  community is big enough to get "official" attention.
>
> My problem is that it is very much standalone; it does not connect with
> other practices. It does mention "incubating languages" but it does not
> mention the incubator. In the language committee we have had organisations,
> educational organisations who want to champion a language in their school.
> This makes them bigger than the limit of 10 editors. At this time we do not
> have a way to accomodate such requests. In my opinion for all the wrong
> reasons. The wrong reasons because we know how effective schools are in
> providing basic facts in a Wikipedia..
>
> Once the Wikimedia Foundation had a group of technical people who worked on
> language technology. Most of these people are still working at the WMF but
> they are no longer involved in language tech. This became obvious when a
> really worthy improvement for the Bashkir language, collation, was
> implemented by a volunteer and Amir blogged that he had supported it as a
> *volunteer*.. (he made a point of this). Particularly in the smaller
> languages issues like collation are areas where the Wikimedia could make a
> big difference. It is quite obvious that when we advertise the quality of
> our language support (and because of our existing font support it is
> already quite good) we can gain a lot of adventurous people.
>
> In the current approach to languages and support it is imho very much
> Wikipedia as we know it. We do not leverage the content in Wikidata as much
> as we could. There has a lot of acrimoniousness regarding the Cebuano
> Wikipedia. Millions of articles were generated as fixed text and
> consequently it is currently impossible to maintain it.  The root cause is
> our inability to cooperate. When this information was imported in Wikidata
> (and cooperate with the original source) we could generate the text and
> serve it as cached content. When the data is improved, the cached text gets
> changed. The fact that such things are not considered is proof perfect of
> opportunities wasted. Opportunities open to any language.
>
> So it would be really cool when we consider how we can "share in the sum of
> all our available knowledge". This is attainable if we dare to think
> through what we can achieve and how we can make the most out of our
> communities and the knowledge they hold.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 27 September 2017 at 19:28, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> > distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> > countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> > named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> > Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> > impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
> >
> > However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based
> on
> > UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> > nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> > distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> > happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> > next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at
> geography,
> > whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> > geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
> >
> > In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> > unloved and rejected by many.
> >
> > The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been
> thinking
> > about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
> > much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state
> of
> > editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> > would be less controversial.
> >
> > We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
> > replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our
> intention
> > to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> > definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we
> are
> > ready to share the proposed definition today:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For me this initiative raises more questions then it answers. As I
understand it, it is a change in vocabulary and it defines when a
Wikipedia  community is big enough to get "official" attention.

My problem is that it is very much standalone; it does not connect with
other practices. It does mention "incubating languages" but it does not
mention the incubator. In the language committee we have had organisations,
educational organisations who want to champion a language in their school.
This makes them bigger than the limit of 10 editors. At this time we do not
have a way to accomodate such requests. In my opinion for all the wrong
reasons. The wrong reasons because we know how effective schools are in
providing basic facts in a Wikipedia..

Once the Wikimedia Foundation had a group of technical people who worked on
language technology. Most of these people are still working at the WMF but
they are no longer involved in language tech. This became obvious when a
really worthy improvement for the Bashkir language, collation, was
implemented by a volunteer and Amir blogged that he had supported it as a
*volunteer*.. (he made a point of this). Particularly in the smaller
languages issues like collation are areas where the Wikimedia could make a
big difference. It is quite obvious that when we advertise the quality of
our language support (and because of our existing font support it is
already quite good) we can gain a lot of adventurous people.

In the current approach to languages and support it is imho very much
Wikipedia as we know it. We do not leverage the content in Wikidata as much
as we could. There has a lot of acrimoniousness regarding the Cebuano
Wikipedia. Millions of articles were generated as fixed text and
consequently it is currently impossible to maintain it.  The root cause is
our inability to cooperate. When this information was imported in Wikidata
(and cooperate with the original source) we could generate the text and
serve it as cached content. When the data is improved, the cached text gets
changed. The fact that such things are not considered is proof perfect of
opportunities wasted. Opportunities open to any language.

So it would be really cool when we consider how we can "share in the sum of
all our available knowledge". This is attainable if we dare to think
through what we can achieve and how we can make the most out of our
communities and the knowledge they hold.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 27 September 2017 at 19:28, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
>
> However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based on
> UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at geography,
> whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
>
> In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> unloved and rejected by many.
>
> The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
> about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
> much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
> editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> would be less controversial.
>
> We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
> replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
> to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
> ready to share the proposed definition today:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> Defining_Emerging_Communities
>
>
> We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
> The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
> incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
>
> Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Asaf
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Andrea Zanni]

FWIW, I always liked the term "emerging communities"
because it's very broad, and it can be applied not just to countries but
also cultures, minorities, sub-communities of any sort.

For example,
I would very much like to call the Wikisource community an "emerging" one,
because it needs the exact care/attention/incubation that the WMF is trying
to provide with this program.
I know it's a bit stretched, but maybe it's a sort of helpful frame for
sister project communities.

Aubrey

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Strainu  wrote:

> I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly
> discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more
> nuanced approach.
>
> I would also urge the remaining teams within the WMF that still use the
> terms to consider less offensive alternatives suitable for their particular
> purposes.
>
> Strainu
>
> În 27 septembrie 2017 20:28:52 EEST, Asaf Bartov 
> a scris:
> >Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> >Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> >distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> >countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> >named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> >Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> >impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
> >
> >However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was
> >based on
> >UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> >nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> >distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> >happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> >next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at
> >geography,
> >whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> >geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
> >
> >In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> >unloved and rejected by many.
> >
> >The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been
> >thinking
> >about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be
> >a
> >much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual
> >state of
> >editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> >would be less controversial.
> >
> >We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as
> >a
> >replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our
> >intention
> >to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> >definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we
> >are
> >ready to share the proposed definition today:
> >
> >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> Defining_Emerging_Communities
> >
> >
> >We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
> >The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
> >incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October
> >31st.
> >
> >Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page,
> >too.
> >:)
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Asaf
> >___
> >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,
> >
>
> --
> Trimis de pe dispozitiv Android cu K-9 Mail. Rog scuzati mesajul scurt.
> ___
> 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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Strainu]

I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly 
discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced 
approach. 

I would also urge the remaining teams within the WMF that still use the terms 
to consider less offensive alternatives suitable for their particular purposes. 

Strainu

În 27 septembrie 2017 20:28:52 EEST, Asaf Bartov  a 
scris:
>Dear Wikimedians,
>
>Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
>distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
>countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
>named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
>Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
>impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
>
>However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was
>based on
>UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
>nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
>distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
>happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
>next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at
>geography,
>whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
>geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
>
>In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
>unloved and rejected by many.
>
>The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been
>thinking
>about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be
>a
>much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual
>state of
>editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
>would be less controversial.
>
>We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as
>a
>replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our
>intention
>to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
>definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we
>are
>ready to share the proposed definition today:
>
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities
>
>
>We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
>The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
>incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October
>31st.
>
>Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page,
>too.
>:)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Asaf
>___
>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,
>

-- 
Trimis de pe dispozitiv Android cu K-9 Mail. Rog scuzati mesajul scurt.
___
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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Gnangarra]

One thing that grabs me about this is the Languages section, 750,000
speakers appears to be a rather high bar.   To explain there 2.5m people in
Western Australia most of could be classed as speaking nys at a basic level
because of the way the Noongar language has been adopted into the English
and continues to be taken up more as well as being taught in schools.  The
other side of the equation is that the primary source for Indigenous
language speakers uses a significantly flawed methodology to identify those
who use the language, the primary source being the ABS who ask only what is
the main language spoken at home then lists 9 languages(6 European, 2
Asian, 1 middle east) with a 10 option of other in which the person is then
asked to identify their language.  Indigenous language speakers have a
significant hurdle to actually be counted, and would suspect that this
issue isnt unfamiliar to in many other countries with colonial histories.

It would better if the bar be a two fold thats looks for a significantly
lower number of native speakers with a secondary level of partial
speakers.  but I'm not sure there are reliable means even flawed ones
to identify partial non native speakers of any language.

Additionally I think counting misses what can be large number of immigrants
who arent no longer a residential part of the speaking community.

On 28 September 2017 at 12:24, Michael Snow  wrote:

> On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:
>
>> Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer?  Yes, you'd
>> think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
>> 'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
>>
> Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm afraid this combination
> is problematic, but thank you for the idea.
>
> Specifically, the issue is that in this formulation, "knowledge" works to
> modify "communities", but now "emerging" appears to modify "knowledge"
> instead, and that doesn't work. The potential implication that knowledge is
> only just emerging in these communities could appear condescending, much
> like the terminology we're trying to get away from. I'd argue that we
> operate on the assumption that as our communities grow, they already have a
> great deal of knowledge, it's a matter of sharing and making it accessible
> to all.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Michael Snow]

On 9/27/2017 1:39 PM, Ariel Glenn WMF wrote:

Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer?  Yes, you'd
think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?
Yes, let's keep brainstorming about this. No, I'm afraid this 
combination is problematic, but thank you for the idea.


Specifically, the issue is that in this formulation, "knowledge" works 
to modify "communities", but now "emerging" appears to modify 
"knowledge" instead, and that doesn't work. The potential implication 
that knowledge is only just emerging in these communities could appear 
condescending, much like the terminology we're trying to get away from. 
I'd argue that we operate on the assumption that as our communities 
grow, they already have a great deal of knowledge, it's a matter of 
sharing and making it accessible to all.


--Michael Snow

___
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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

Would a name like "emerging knowledge communities" be clearer?  Yes, you'd
think that in the context of Wikipedia and related projects, the word
'knowledge' would be a given, but perhaps it isn't?

Ariel

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:36 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ) <
viswapra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities'
> among my crowds during any outreach event.
> The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment'
> or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about
> economic and technological advancement.
>
> My two fast bits.
>
> -User:Viswaprabha
>
>
___
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] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[വിശ്വപ്രഭ]

I find it a lot difficult to explain the phrase 'Emerging communities'
among my crowds during any outreach event.
The phrase still doesn't get to pass on the idea of 'knowledge empowerment'
or 'open digital access'. Rather it still make people think it's all about
economic and technological advancement.

My two fast bits.

-User:Viswaprabha


On 27 September 2017 at 22:58, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
> distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
> countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
> named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
> Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
> impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.
>
> However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based on
> UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
> nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
> distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
> happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
> next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at geography,
> whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
> geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.
>
> In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
> unloved and rejected by many.
>
> The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
> about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
> much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
> editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
> would be less controversial.
>
> We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
> replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
> to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
> definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
> ready to share the proposed definition today:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/
> Defining_Emerging_Communities
>
>
> We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
> The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
> incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.
>
> Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
> :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Asaf
> ___
> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Asaf Bartov]

Dear Wikimedians,

Years ago, as part of the first Strategy process of 2009-2010, a
distinction entered our lives, between Global North and Global South
countries.  That distinction was borrowed from a United Nations agency
named ITU, and it was used as shorthand to refer to communities the
Foundation considered to need additional resources and help to achieve
impact on our mission of creating and sharing free knowledge.

However, the distinction was never a very good fit for us.  It was based on
UN notions like the Human Development Index, and gave much weight to
nation-wide economic conditions.  Its binary nature did not allow for
distinguishing between countries where Wikimedia work is possible and
happening, albeit with difficulty, and ones where no Wikimedia work, or
next to none, is happening, or possible.  It also looked only at geography,
whereas much of our work is defined by language communities and not by
geographies.  And it was political and alienating to many people.

In short, it was both not as useful as we needed it to be as well as
unloved and rejected by many.

The Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been thinking
about replacing that distinction with a more nuanced one, that would be a
much better fit with our needs, would take into account the actual state of
editing communities, would consider multiple axes beyond geography, and
would be less controversial.

We began using the term "emerging communities" two years ago, first as a
replacement for the term Global South, but it has always been our intention
to define Emerging Communities ourselves.  Finishing the proposed
definition took a back seat for a while due to other priorities, but we are
ready to share the proposed definition today:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities


We welcome your thoughts, on the talk page (ideally) or on this thread.
The definition is already our working definition, but we are open to
incorporating changes to both wording and substance through October 31st.

Be sure to take a look at the FAQ supplied at the bottom of the page, too.
:)

Cheers,

Asaf
___
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,