Thanks :) Mardetanha
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:58 PM, James Hare <[email protected]> wrote: > "Strategy" is too broad because it includes areas where there is broad > consensus (WMF doesn't do editorial policy), areas where there is a working > consensus (WMF prefers grantmaking and collecting best practices over > direct outreach work), and areas highly fraught with conflict (arguments > over the user experience). Any attempt at a true strategy will require us > to address these conflicts. The best thing the WMF can do is deciding what > it will and will not do and then call on others to fill in the gaps. > > > > On Feb 23, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Mardetanha <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > it would be great if someone could give us tl;dr version of this mail > > > > Mardetanha > > > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:21 PM, James Hare <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> Of the many issues, real or perceived, currently under discussion, one > of > >> them is the matter of strategy: of the Wikimedia Foundation and of the > >> movement in general. I’ve been editing Wikipedia since November of 2004 > and > >> have noticed that the general points of tension have revolved around who > >> has authority or responsibility to do what. I will explain what I mean > by > >> that. > >> > >> There is no one “strategy.” Or rather, strategy has different components > >> to it, and it is important to note and understand these different > >> components because they have their own histories and associated > arguments. > >> There is no possible way I can capture every nuance of this, but when we > >> say “strategy” we should think of at least three things: content > strategy, > >> program strategy, and product strategy. > >> > >> Content has, almost exclusively, been a prerogative of the communities > of > >> the various Wikimedia projects, and not that of the Foundation. [1] > English > >> Wikipedia, for example, argues bitterly over what is notable, what is > not > >> notable, and what should and shouldn’t be deleted on a given day, but > the > >> Wikimedia Foundation is not involved in that. While the Wikimedia > >> Foundation does fund content creation initiatives from time to time, it > >> does not decide, for instance, which monuments are worthy of Wiki Loves > >> Monuments, or which artists should be the focus of Art+Feminism. I’m not > >> pointing this out because it’s remotely interesting, but because it’s so > >> widely agreed upon that the WMF has no editorial authority that we don’t > >> even need to talk about it. > >> > >> There are other areas that we do need to talk about; not necessarily to > >> devise a master plan, or to draw lines in the sand, but to at least > >> understand who thinks what and where our opinions diverge. This brings > me > >> to my second point: programs. I am referring to initiatives to get more > >> people involved in the Wikimedia projects, to build bridges with other > >> organizations, to make Wikimedia as much a part of the offline world as > the > >> online world. The Wikimedia Foundation did some of the original > programs in > >> the late 2000s, with mixed success. Chapters came along and also came up > >> with programs; GLAM, for instance, was developed outside of the > Wikimedia > >> Foundation. Over time, the Foundation decided that it was not so > interested > >> in running programs directly as much as they were interested in funding > >> others to carry them out and serving as a sort of central hub for best > >> practices. As far as I can tell, as someone who has served on the board > of > >> a Wikimedia chapter for almost five years, there seems to be a general > >> consensus that this is how programs are done. This operating consensus > was > >> arrived at through a combination of the Wikimedia Foundation’s > “narrowing > >> focus” and by the enthusiasm of chapters, groups, and mission-aligned > >> organizations to carry on outreach work. > >> > >> Then there is the product strategy, which is the most contentious of > them > >> all. By “product” I am referring to the subset of technology that > readers > >> and editors interact with on a day-to-day basis. The sacred workflow. > (Much > >> of the arguments about technology are out of my depth so I won’t be > >> commenting on them; they also include rather arcane infrastructural > stuff > >> that I don’t think most Wikimedia users or contributors care about.) > All of > >> our arguments, from the usability initiative to the present day, have > >> focused on: who is in charge of the user experience? I have heard > different > >> things; one perspective holds that “the community” (usually not further > >> specified) gets to make the final decision, while I have also heard from > >> some that technological matters are purely the prerogative of the > Wikimedia > >> Foundation. [2] I am not sure what the present-day company line is but I > >> suspect it’s somewhere in the middle. > >> > >> I do not know what the “true” answer is, either. There is a lot to be > said > >> for treating the user experience as products to be professionally > managed: > >> there has been tremendous study in the area of how to design user > >> experiences, and Wikipedia is notorious for being difficult to edit as a > >> newcomer. With this in mind, the Wikimedia Foundation did the best it > >> could, with limited resources, and despite some successes managed to > create > >> some ham-fisted products that did not address the needs of the users > and—at > >> worst—threatened disruption. This has gotten better in time; the visual > >> editor, for example, has made tremendous progress on this front. But not > >> every issue is settled. What about the products that need substantially > >> more improvement before they can be used at large? What about things > that > >> we should be working on, but aren’t, or are doing so at a glacial pace > >> because we are being stretched too thin? And now that WMF grantees can > >> develop code for deployment in production (such as MediaWiki > extensions), > >> what is the relationship between these projects and the overall product > >> strategy of the Wikimedia Foundation? On the Reading half of the > equation, > >> who gets to decide how content is presented, and how are these decisions > >> made? > >> > >> I am sure we each as individuals have answers to these questions, but we > >> do not have a common understanding, whatsoever, the same way we > generally > >> understand that the Wikimedia Foundation does not do editorial policy, > or > >> that the Wikimedia Foundation generally avoids doing on-the-ground > program > >> work the same way chapters do. We do not even agree on how much the > >> Wikimedia Foundation should focus on the software product aspect as > opposed > >> to other aspects. > >> > >> Nor do I think we will arrive at this conclusion through developing a > >> grand strategy and an overall movement framework. We’re big and > >> decentralized, and we need to accommodate opportunities where they > exist. > >> Exhaustive planning documents do not lend themselves to that. And it is > >> unlikely we can all come to a happy solution that accommodates everyone > and > >> everything. > >> > >> This is why it is up to the Wikimedia Foundation to define its own role > >> within the movement. My hope is that they do so by actively seeking out > the > >> needs of the entire movement, since they are in the unique position > where > >> they can support a large share of the movement. But it will need to > define > >> its role in the development of products—whether they be editing > products, > >> or products that present Wikimedia content. Whether it will seek to > control > >> the presentation of content or merely advise on the community’s own > >> decisions. The most feasible way forward I see is that the Wikimedia > >> Foundation decides what it is best suited to do, set its own boundaries, > >> and call on the rest of the movement to fill in the gaps. This will help > >> the Wikimedia Foundation focus its work: by explicitly saying “no” to > some > >> things and determining they are not within their remit, it opens the > doors > >> (through grant funding or some other mechanism) for other people or > groups > >> to do things that they are best suited to do. With programs being > handled > >> by non-WMF entities and some software development (including my own > work at > >> WikiProject X) being handled outside of the Foundation, this is > possible. > >> > >> The Wikimedia movement is a broad movement, and it would not be > practical > >> to come up with a movement-wide strategy. However, the Wikimedia > Foundation > >> specifically should try to define its own role with respect to software > and > >> call on the rest of the movement to fill in the gaps based on its needs. > >> > >> > >> Respectfully, > >> James Hare > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] I’m not counting their rare interventions—for legal purposes—as > >> editorial control. > >> > >> [2] I honestly do not remember who said it or when. My point is not that > >> someone out there has (or had) a heretical (or righteous) opinion, but > that > >> people have very divergent opinions on this. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >> New messages to: [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
