Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Pine W]

I think that we're discussing two related but distinct themes in this
thread. One of them is the organization of the consultation, and the other
is the substance of the strategy.

I will be very interested to see how the consultation is structured with a
communication professional in the ED role. I think that this might be a
good thing. (:

I continue to think about the substance of the strategy. A large proportion
of my Wikimedia time is currently invested in designing materials,
primarily videos, for new users. As a part of my venturing into depth in
the new user experience, I'm perceiving many opportunities to improve the
new user experience that would require substantial human and financial
resources. I believe that a significant decrease of the slope of the
learning curve and an increase in the facilitation of guided interactions
(both human-to-computer and human-to-human) would be worth exploring for
possible increased investment. I hope that WMF will include significantly
increased investment in UX research and design improvements in the scope of
the new strategy.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

As a follow-up to my posting yesterday, I have received a response from WMF
staff at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017 which states
"We know that a common challenge for strategy and vision development work
is that people everywhere have a tendency to frame their thinking through
their current circumstances. We are open to ideas on how to challenge that
tendency so we can expand the scope of creative ideas we receive - it will
be essential to both developing ideas that will move us forward, and being
receptive to more the challenging ones."  In the absence of any other
designated venue for those ideas and challenges, I suggest the talk page I
refer to for members of the community to discuss lessons learned from
previous consultations and discussions, and to propose ideas for how the
community-wide consultation should be structured.

"Rogol"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The page at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017 makes it
clear that there are two stages to the strategy consultation being planned
by the WMF: up to December the work is to define the process; from January
the work is to execute that process.  It has been a matter of some
disappointment that the process definition is very largely by a closed
consultation with WMF Staff and Board members, which does not seem a good
way of discovering what works well or badly from the point of view of the
Community.  Indeed, I posted some comments to that effect at the talk page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/2016-2017

I was surprised and disappointed to discover that the response from the WMF
was to add a header to the page stating "*the Wikimedia Foundation staff
will not be able to properly monitor discussions right now"   *That reads
to me like a clear snub to the community: their input to the planning of
the consultation is not wanted and will not be heard.  It is perhaps
revealing that while the "Listening and Learning" part of the process
concentrates on a narrow set of stakeholders, the "Community Engagement" in
this planning stage is all about talking to the community, not about
engaging with it in any real sense.  The people WMF are currently listening
to are people deeply involved in the WMF and the current ways of doing
things, and with a likely predisposition to the continuation of doing the
same things and in the same way. As an explicitly distinct activity, the
notion of engagement with the community in this phase is telling them
things. This is not a model of community engagement; it is not the way to
develop an effective, innovative and engaging process; and it is not the
way to develop a consensus around the results of that process.

"Rogol"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have mentioned quality so often with so little response that I do not
believe for an instant that Wikipedians really care to think beyond what is
already done. Dismissing quality measures is easy when it means that some
things will change. Wikipedia is resistant to change even when change
improves its quality. At the same time I find that people find fault in
Wikidata when it is ONLY about sources and not the associated quality.

This is about a Wikimedia strategy. Proposals are underway to Wikidatify
both Commons and Wiktionary. That will bring long yearned for possibilities
for improving its quality and usefulness for our readers. What can be done
for Wikipedia is all too easy and does have little impact for its users.
Internally wikilinks are associated with pointers to other articles, the
only difference will be that a Wikidata item will be associated as well.
You will find that misdirection will be found and many redirects can be
removed as well by pointing directly to the final article. This is an easy
win and so is allowing for linking red links to Wikidata. Internal in
MediaWiki it could use the same pointer pair. It allows for more available
information and it will prevent a lot of misdirections in the future.

When we talk Wikimedia and have no way to discuss quality of our projects
in a non-disparaging way, you will find that it becomes an issue that needs
addressing at a higher level. The level of our board and our director. It
is for them to decide if there is a point to what I say, it is because so
far the "producer side" proves ineffective in dealing with the quality it
produces. Technically improving Wikipedia is relatively easy.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 16 September 2016 at 06:56, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Gerard,
>
> I think that readership has an interdependent relationship with the quality
> and quantity of our products and services, along with marketing and word of
> mouth. The quality and quantity of our products and services, along with
> marketing and word of mouth, are all issues that can be addressed on the
> producer side (including affiliates and grantees ) as well as the reader
> side. I would agree that design for both readers and editors is important.
> Improving internal search (including cross-wiki and multimedia search) and
> other tools that are used by both producers and consumers is nice when that
> can be arranged.
>
> Hi BrillLyle,
>
> At present I'm uncomfortable with the centralized nature of WMF which seems
> to work in ways that are opposed to open source philosophy and culture.
> Among other disadvantages, there is a concentration of risk to the entire
> Wikimedia movement in the WMF. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on
> ways to reduce that risk. My thought is that decentralizing a number of the
> functions that are currently concentrated in WMF might make sense, along
> with having some mechanisms for the remainder of the movement to detach
> from WMF should the remainder of the movement think that is a good idea.
> Let us hope that we never arrive at that day, but the community and WMF
> have had multiple confrontations in the past, and I think it's important
> that the community and affiliates have the option to detach WMF while
> continuing the Wikimedia mission.
>
> Greater openness from WMF would likely increase cooperation between WMF,
> the community, and affiliates, and decrease the likelihood of
> confrontation. By "greater openness" I don't mean "talk about trust" but
> take concrete steps like making all of WMF expenditures public, having live
> broadcasts of most WMF Board and Board committee meetings, and publicizing
> the reasons for WMF global bans.
>
> I agree that some volunteers are overworked and would be interested in
> hearing ideas about how to address that while decentralizing functions from
> WMF. One option might be for WMF to become more willing to support paid
> affiliate staff to do functions that historically have been done at least
> partly by volunteers, such as responding to questions from newbies and
> organizing programs with GLAM+STEM institutions and educators.
>
> I like the idea of a central helpdesk. We already have OTRS, but an on-wiki
> central helpdesk that's like the Teahouse, multilingual, and mostly
> supported by paid staff might be very helpful. I'm not sure how that would
> fit with the rest of the strategy. Perhaps a strategy would be "Increase
> paid affiliate support for volunteers?" I'd be interested to hear what you
> think.
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > For me there are two things missing.
> >
> > * It is about the readers stupid! That is what we do it for. So how are
> we
> > going to get more readers, how do we involve them. What can we achieve
> when
> > we consider marketing approaches and marketing KPI's.
> >
> > * If design is important.. ok but how about quality, we can do so much
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Pine W]

Hi Gerard,

I think that readership has an interdependent relationship with the quality
and quantity of our products and services, along with marketing and word of
mouth. The quality and quantity of our products and services, along with
marketing and word of mouth, are all issues that can be addressed on the
producer side (including affiliates and grantees ) as well as the reader
side. I would agree that design for both readers and editors is important.
Improving internal search (including cross-wiki and multimedia search) and
other tools that are used by both producers and consumers is nice when that
can be arranged.

Hi BrillLyle,

At present I'm uncomfortable with the centralized nature of WMF which seems
to work in ways that are opposed to open source philosophy and culture.
Among other disadvantages, there is a concentration of risk to the entire
Wikimedia movement in the WMF. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on
ways to reduce that risk. My thought is that decentralizing a number of the
functions that are currently concentrated in WMF might make sense, along
with having some mechanisms for the remainder of the movement to detach
from WMF should the remainder of the movement think that is a good idea.
Let us hope that we never arrive at that day, but the community and WMF
have had multiple confrontations in the past, and I think it's important
that the community and affiliates have the option to detach WMF while
continuing the Wikimedia mission.

Greater openness from WMF would likely increase cooperation between WMF,
the community, and affiliates, and decrease the likelihood of
confrontation. By "greater openness" I don't mean "talk about trust" but
take concrete steps like making all of WMF expenditures public, having live
broadcasts of most WMF Board and Board committee meetings, and publicizing
the reasons for WMF global bans.

I agree that some volunteers are overworked and would be interested in
hearing ideas about how to address that while decentralizing functions from
WMF. One option might be for WMF to become more willing to support paid
affiliate staff to do functions that historically have been done at least
partly by volunteers, such as responding to questions from newbies and
organizing programs with GLAM+STEM institutions and educators.

I like the idea of a central helpdesk. We already have OTRS, but an on-wiki
central helpdesk that's like the Teahouse, multilingual, and mostly
supported by paid staff might be very helpful. I'm not sure how that would
fit with the rest of the strategy. Perhaps a strategy would be "Increase
paid affiliate support for volunteers?" I'd be interested to hear what you
think.

Pine

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> For me there are two things missing.
>
> * It is about the readers stupid! That is what we do it for. So how are we
> going to get more readers, how do we involve them. What can we achieve when
> we consider marketing approaches and marketing KPI's.
>
> * If design is important.. ok but how about quality, we can do so much more
> when we think of our projects as connected to each other and to the rest of
> the internet. Why do we not work together? Why are we so much on an
> amalgamation of islands? When we share, we do not lose when we are given
> back we become enriched in the process.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 11 September 2016 at 22:48, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Below are some thoughts I have possible themes that can be included in
> the
> > strategy update. I'm sharing these in public in case other Wikimedians
> > would like to discuss strategy.
> >
> > 1. Design experience
> > Move the design and intuitive ease of use of the Wikimedia user
> experience
> > away from a 2000s experience and toward a 2020s experience, both on
> desktop
> > and mobile platforms.
> >
> > 2. Social experience
> > Decrease the frequency and intensity of negative experiences, and
> increase
> > the frequency and intensity of positive experiences.
> >
> > 3. Governance
> > Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation
> to
> > reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects,
> > communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online
> > communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and
> growth
> > even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
> >
> > 4. Openness
> > Transform WMF and the affiliates into models of open governance and open
> > culture, particularly concerning Board activities and the use of
> financial
> > resources. Make information be public by default rather than private by
> > default. Proactively publish the expenses and compensation for all
> > individuals and organizations spending or receiving funds from WMF and
> > other Wikimedia affiliates. With limited exceptions for discussions for
> > which there is a strong reason for confidentiality, livestream all Board
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For me there are two things missing.

* It is about the readers stupid! That is what we do it for. So how are we
going to get more readers, how do we involve them. What can we achieve when
we consider marketing approaches and marketing KPI's.

* If design is important.. ok but how about quality, we can do so much more
when we think of our projects as connected to each other and to the rest of
the internet. Why do we not work together? Why are we so much on an
amalgamation of islands? When we share, we do not lose when we are given
back we become enriched in the process.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 11 September 2016 at 22:48, Pine W  wrote:

> Below are some thoughts I have possible themes that can be included in the
> strategy update. I'm sharing these in public in case other Wikimedians
> would like to discuss strategy.
>
> 1. Design experience
> Move the design and intuitive ease of use of the Wikimedia user experience
> away from a 2000s experience and toward a 2020s experience, both on desktop
> and mobile platforms.
>
> 2. Social experience
> Decrease the frequency and intensity of negative experiences, and increase
> the frequency and intensity of positive experiences.
>
> 3. Governance
> Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation to
> reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects,
> communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online
> communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and growth
> even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
>
> 4. Openness
> Transform WMF and the affiliates into models of open governance and open
> culture, particularly concerning Board activities and the use of financial
> resources. Make information be public by default rather than private by
> default. Proactively publish the expenses and compensation for all
> individuals and organizations spending or receiving funds from WMF and
> other Wikimedia affiliates. With limited exceptions for discussions for
> which there is a strong reason for confidentiality, livestream all Board
> and Board committee meetings of WMF, chapters, and thematic organizations.
>
> 5. Finance
> Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4 within
> the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.
>
> I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead, both
> on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Brill Lyle]

Good points and thoughts here, Pine.

*3. Governance*


*Decentralization*I think is non-ideal. If WMF becomes incapacitated or
corrupted the whole ship goes down. I don't see how decentralizing the
structure would prevent this happenstance -- or more importantly provide a
solution or contingency plan. #4 Openness: Open culture and transparency
would provide a potential improvement and would support a centralized
structure


*Empower Wikimedia affiliates*I like this. A lot. The more affiliates can
work at a local, grass-roots level, with the support of various
WikiProjects and initiatives like WikiEdu, the better, in my opinion


*5. Finance*


*Acquire adequate financial resources...*Yes, but with a more effective,
focused, additional distribution. The free digital labor model is well and
good for casual contributors but I think for folks doing significant heavy
lifting it becomes a big problem. Focusing on paid positions -- really:
aligning paid positions globally -- is one potential method and solution.
For example, WMUK and WMDE have a full array of staff. Large chapters
elsewhere (either city or country) have no logistical and/or administrative
support.

I believe WMF needs to invest in its infrastructure (i.e., people) more.
And create a help desk type service that can address public relations
problems for BLP issues specifically.



:-)

- Erika



*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle *

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Pine W  wrote:

>
> 3. Governance
> Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation to
> reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects,
> communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online
> communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and growth
> even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.
>
> 5. Finance
> Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4 within
> the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.
>
> I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead, both
> on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pine
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts about upcoming Wikimedia strategy

[Pine W]

Below are some thoughts I have possible themes that can be included in the
strategy update. I'm sharing these in public in case other Wikimedians
would like to discuss strategy.

1. Design experience
Move the design and intuitive ease of use of the Wikimedia user experience
away from a 2000s experience and toward a 2020s experience, both on desktop
and mobile platforms.

2. Social experience
Decrease the frequency and intensity of negative experiences, and increase
the frequency and intensity of positive experiences.

3. Governance
Decentralize the functions currently managed by the Wikimedia Foundation to
reduce dependencies and increase resilience of the Wikimedia projects,
communities, and affiliates. Empower Wikimedia affiliates and the online
communities to be capable of continuing operations, fundraising, and growth
even if WMF becomes incapacitated or corrupted.

4. Openness
Transform WMF and the affiliates into models of open governance and open
culture, particularly concerning Board activities and the use of financial
resources. Make information be public by default rather than private by
default. Proactively publish the expenses and compensation for all
individuals and organizations spending or receiving funds from WMF and
other Wikimedia affiliates. With limited exceptions for discussions for
which there is a strong reason for confidentiality, livestream all Board
and Board committee meetings of WMF, chapters, and thematic organizations.

5. Finance
Acquire adequate financial resources to achieve goals 1 through 4 within
the lifespan of the strategic plan's time horizon.

I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others in the months ahead, both
on Wikimedia-l and on Meta.

Regards,

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,