Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.

I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
"beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
multiplicity of what we already are and the desire to grow that.

Additionally, we are hearing from "New Voices" that we can't expect to
deliver knowledge the same way everywhere. Clearly, we are going to have to
mix it up. You might enjoy some of the insights coming out of New Voices.
They are published on the meta page as soon as each event ends and as
quickly as they can coherently write it up.

There has also been a good deal of discussion around language (and the
subsequent technical need to explore machine learning for predictive,
contextual search and natural language processing to support better

Most of the ideas I've mentioned here are housed under "Truly global
movement" | "Community health" | or "Augmented age". Augmented age is a
technical vision which increasingly seems like the technical means to
support some other end(s).

You might be surprised where the discussions are going. It's built by your
peers. We offered the resources and structure and we realize that there are
constraints and biases that come with that. We've tried to account for our
biases (the foundation's and the movement's) with entire streams of work:
New voices, for example. That was intentional in the design.

I've responded here to let you know that you are not alone. Your peers have
voiced these issues and they are heavily influencing the discussion and
everyone is listening.


On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> wrote:

> 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 <> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <> wrote:
> >
> > > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <>:
> > > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to