Hej, Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-) is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons, but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that large majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be great.
-Teemu > Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello 13.00: > > Hoi, > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits. This bias > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed, > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000 > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a viable > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because > otherwise it will not get published . > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of projects > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential readers > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects and > there is no research into its value. > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any collaboration > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that habitually > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well served > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south in > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable. > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process so > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the message > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>. > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions. > Thanks, > GerardM > > >  less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF > traffic. >  comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on > Wikipedia.. > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>: >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people >>> who >>>> are not involved with affiliates? >>> >>> >>> >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully, >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material >>> available in the strategy process. >>> >>> >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. None >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. Round >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i n >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages on 3 >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I have >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. May >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to be >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the next >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>