On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru>

> On 2016-01-13 06:06, rupert THURNER wrote:
> Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and
>> one example what should not have gone into the plan?
> anybody can do it

I agree! :) I enjoyed seeing your reflections, and would love to hear from
more people on this. (For what it's worth, here's the summary of the
Strategic Plan

My own take on Rupert's (excellent) question:

== Three major outcomes ==
1. It helped many Wikimedians (and I count myself among them) develop a
much stronger understanding of what our international, and multi-project,
world looks like. Hearing ideas -- whether new or familiar -- from
Wikimedians from different countries, different languages, different
projects -- was very refreshing, and having it done in a context that
invited conversation and deliberation made it very "real." 2009-10 were the
years my perspective on Wikimedia substantially shifted from Oregon to
international (though working at the WMF in that time was also a major
contribution). I suspect this is true of many of us.

2. Building on #1, we developed a great deal of capacity for shared
strategic thinking. Taking part in strategic discussions, in a mode outside
the drama or excitement of the day, established lines of communication that
still exist, and are still actively used. Much of what I see is in the
volunteer world; but I also suspect the process greatly informed the
grant-giving arms of the WMF, which were formalized in the wake of the
process. I'd be very interested to hear from Asaf, Siko, and others from
the grants programs on this.

3. It generally gave the WMF, and all organizations and people wanting to
broadly serve or address the Wikimedia community, a better understanding of
who they're talking to, and what goals and values are widely held. Whether
or not one makes explicit reference to the five strategic goals, having a
sense of what they are is a powerful conceptual tool. This, in particular,
has certainly found its way into the grant-giving programs, and perhaps
other areas of WMF's operations.

== What should not have gone in the plan? ==
In hindsight, the plan has one significant flaw (which I blogged about
<http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-needs-trustee/> during the Board
Election). Philippe Beaudette, recently quoted in Liam Wyatt's blog post
<http://wittylama.com/2016/01/08/strategy-and-controversy/>, said: "The
Wikimedia Foundation has one unique strategic asset: the editing community."

The following "Virtuous Circle graphic was produced by the strategic
planning process (hey, look at me, I'm an ASCII artist!). It's purpose is
to show what dynamics drive Wikimedia's continuous improvement:

      Y  -->
     T        R
    I          E
   L            A
  A              C
 U     [[ ? ]]    H
 ^               v

In the original, it had "infrastructure" in the middle, i.e. technical

The graphic is accurate. But (to summarize my blog post briefly) it does
not capture what is UNIQUE about Wikimedia. In fact, almost EVERY major web
site -- at least the social ones like Facebook, eBay, etc. -- has a
technical core that supports a cycle of improving/increasing content,
reach, and participation.

Wikimedia should have something social in the middle. You can still call it
infrastructure -- in an important way, it is -- but it should be "volunteer
infrastructure" or "community infrastructure."

That would help us better contemplate the thing that makes us unique, and
the thing that must be protected and nourished if we're going to help all
of humanity engage with all knowledge.

That's something we should address this side around. Technology pervades
all parts of this diagram -- but it should be contemplated in the ways it
impacts groups of people working in the system, not the other way around.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to