Hello, FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Asaf Bartov" <[email protected]> Date: Jan 15, 2018 10:02 PM Subject: [African Wikimedians] Fwd: Let's map capacities! (Announcing the CCM) To: "Mailing list for African Wikimedians" < [email protected]> Cc:
> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:59 PM > Subject: Let's map capacities! (Announcing the CCM) > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > > > Dear Wikimedians, > > *How many Wikimedia communities have embraced advanced Wikidata use? How > many have active social media accounts, and are there geographic or > cultural patterns to which groups have and have not? Which groups have a > written, current strategy? What are the most common gaps in capacity in > Latin America? or in Eastern Europe? What kind of investment in capacity > building would be likely to bring the most value?* > > To answer these questions and more, we invite all of you to participate in > the new *Community Capacity Map (CCM)*: a *self-assessment exercise* for > communities, groups (whether formally recognized user groups or not), > thematic organizations, and chapters, to *map capacities* across the > movement, with a view to identifying *existing gaps* as well as *opportunities > for capacity-building*. > > The CCM is here on Meta: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map > > The context for this work, as well as "likely-asked questions, with > answers" ("LAQ"?), are explained here, including an answer to "*why > should I take the time to read all this?*" -- > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About > (and also pasted at the bottom of this e-mail, for your convenience.) > > The self-assessment is to be done based on the detailed *Guidelines* provided > here: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines > > I am looking forward to learning more about your groups' and orgs' > capacities and gaps, and to do my best to play matchmaker between those > needs and our available resources and opportunities. While I encourage you > to begin contributing straightaway, *there is no deadline *-- this is > envisioned to be a long-term, ongoing, and tracked-over-time tool -- so > contribute if and when your group is able to make the time. > > (don't forget to scroll down to the LAQ!) > > Warmly, > > Asaf Bartov > Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities > > ========================================== > Likely-asked questions, with answers > this exists with working links and [modest] formatting here: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About#Likely-asked_ > questions,_with_answers > Why do this at all? The Community Resources team is doing this to > attempt a more *comprehensive* view of capacities and gaps across the > movement, to enhance our existing, anecdotal and ad-hoc, impressions of > only some of the communities and affiliates. See the goal statement above. Why > now? The CCM experiment is an implementation of one of the > recommendations made at the conclusion of the Community Capacity > Development pilot year > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development/Overall_pilot_year_evaluation#Conclusions_and_recommended_next_steps> > . Why should I spend the time to read through it or go through the > self-assessment? There are a couple of reasons you may want to put in > the time: First, by self-assessing your group/organization's capacities and > gaps, you are giving WMF and other potential investors in community > capacity a chance to provide your group/org with resources and > opportunities to *build up* those capacities. Secondly, self-assessing > according to the Guidelines page > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines> may > be in itself a worthwhile exercise and discussion-starter for your > group/org, pointing at potential areas for proactive work by *your > org/group itself*, for example in your next annual plan. Finally, > self-assessing (at least some) capacities today would enable you to review > and re-assess in six months, or two years, and see how your group/org has > developed (or not) in each of these aspects. So does WMF expect all > groups and organizations to do this? No. This is an opportunity and a > tool. Like all other tools, you are free to use it or not, and we certainly > understand that it would take time and that you may have more pressing > priorities in your group/org. We *hope* as many groups, organizations, > and communities eventually take the time to self-assess, at least on some > capacities, but it is not mandatory, and there would be no penalty for not > participating. Would we have to provide self-assessments for *all* of the > capacities? No. Feel free to self-assess on as many or as few capacities > as you are able to, interested in, or find relevant. You can also add > assessments gradually, as your group/org finds time to discuss and agree on > assessments. Should I assess capacities in the context of my wiki > community, my user-group/chapter, or what? It depends. It may make sense > to do separate assessments, or just one. For example, while the English > community has plenty of bot builders and technical experts, you may belong > to a small community contributing in English in a country with little or no > bot-building expertise, such as Wikimedians in Uganda. In this case, it > would make sense to describe the capacities of the Ugandan group you're > part of, and not of the whole English Wikipedia community. On the other > hand, it is possible that there is a very high degree of overlap between > the Estonian community's capacities and the Estonian chapter's capacities, > and in that case, it may be most useful to assess just once, for the > Estonian community *or* Wikimedia Estonia, or possibly once for the > community for on-wiki capacities, and separately for Wikimedia Estonia only > for the organizational and off-wiki capacities. See the Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines> page > for more details. Okay, and suppose we did put in the time and provided > some assessments. What can we expect next? You can expect, at the very > least, one program officer at Community Resources paying attention to your > contribution, and possibly, depending on each specific capacity and > assessment, that officer may have resources or opportunities to suggest to > your community/group/org. *The more groups provide assessments, the > better-informed WMF would be*, and the more likely it would be that *WMF > could allocate resources and create training opportunities* for your > group. Shared needs in a region would increase the likelihood of WMF acting > even further, as it would allow economizing on the investment by > training/supporting several groups/communities at once. Are you saying if > X number of communities demonstrate need Y, WMF is *guaranteed* to > allocate resources to fill that need? I'm afraid not. But it does make > it *more likely*, in that it demonstrates the need, making it easier to > argue for it in internal budgeting and allocation discussions, and to > marshal internal WMF resources (such as borrowing the time of subject > experts at WMF to conduct training or mentor groups). Okay, so how would > WMF decide which communities to offer resources to? There's no simple > deterministic algorithm, but WMF would prioritize emerging communities > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/Defining_Emerging_Communities> > over other communities, larger groups serving larger populations over > smaller ones, and at least at first, would probably prioritize "low-hanging > fruit" -- lower-cost/lower-risk investments, as we learn and improve this > program's use of resources. Wouldn't the fact these are self-assessments > mean we'd be comparing apples to oranges, given some groups would > overestimate or underestimate their own capacities? No. We do > understand there are some cultural tendencies (some cultures are more > self-critical than others, or have rosier or more pessimistic views of > future prospects and current capabilities). However, we think the fairly > coarse granularity of the assessments (none/low/medium/high), coupled with > *the > Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines>* for > self-assessing, would lead most groups to make reasonably comparable > assessments. Ultimately, these would remain subjective and unscientific > assessments; but they would certainly at least indicate a group/org's > *own* perception of their capacity. And before WMF (or others interested > in investing in capacity building) make a decision to tackle a particular > capacity with a particular community/group/org/region, we would be sure to > take into consideration *all the relevant context* we have, i.e. not just > the aggregate of the self-assessments in the CCM, but also all the > accumulated experience, context, and history we are aware of at WMF, > regarding that community/group/org/region. Okay, this may not be *the > worst* idea ever to come from WMF We're glad you think so. :) What if > none of this turns out the way you hope? Then we'll archive these pages > and look for other ways to do effective capacity building. The CCM is an > experiment, based on observed needs and an expectation that it would be > useful. But we are ready to learn that it may not, and to change course if > necessary. Let's give it a shot, though! What if I have another question? Use > the talk page! :) > > _______________________________________________ > African-Wikimedians mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/african-wikimedians > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-GH mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
