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[1]. 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 [2].
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> traffic.
> [2] 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to