Interesting idea - but is it possible to make the table a bit more user-friendly?
First of all is too long in horizontal axis - even in large resolution I see only 1/2 of it on my screen, and due to its structure - it is not possible to edit it in visual editor... 2018-01-15 22:59 GMT+01:00 Asaf Bartov <abar...@wikimedia.org>: > Dear Wikimedians, > > *How many Wikimedia communities have embraced advanced Wikidata use? How > many have active social media accounts, and are there geographic or > cultural patterns to which groups have and have not? Which groups have a > written, current strategy? What are the most common gaps in capacity in > Latin America? or in Eastern Europe? What kind of investment in capacity > building would be likely to bring the most value?* > > To answer these questions and more, we invite all of you to participate in > the new *Community Capacity Map (CCM)*: a *self-assessment exercise* for > communities, groups (whether formally recognized user groups or not), > thematic organizations, and chapters, to *map capacities* across the > movement, with a view to identifying *existing gaps* as well as > *opportunities > for capacity-building*. > > The CCM is here on Meta: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map > > The context for this work, as well as "likely-asked questions, with > answers" ("LAQ"?), are explained here, including an answer to "*why should > I take the time to read all this?*" -- > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/About > (and also pasted at the bottom of this e-mail, for your convenience.) > > The self-assessment is to be done based on the detailed *Guidelines* > provided > here: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines > > I am looking forward to learning more about your groups' and orgs' > capacities and gaps, and to do my best to play matchmaker between those > needs and our available resources and opportunities. While I encourage you > to begin contributing straightaway, *there is no deadline *-- this is > envisioned to be a long-term, ongoing, and tracked-over-time tool -- so > contribute if and when your group is able to make the time. > > (don't forget to scroll down to the LAQ!) > > Warmly, > > Asaf Bartov > Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities > > ========================================== > Likely-asked questions, with answers > this exists with working links and [modest] formatting here: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/ > About#Likely-asked_questions,_with_answers > > Why do this at all? The Community Resources team is doing this to attempt > a more *comprehensive* view of capacities and gaps across the movement, to > enhance our existing, anecdotal and ad-hoc, impressions of only some of the > communities and affiliates. See the goal statement above. Why now? The CCM > experiment is an implementation of one of the recommendations made at the > conclusion of the Community Capacity Development pilot year > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_ > Development/Overall_pilot_year_evaluation#Conclusions_ > and_recommended_next_steps> > . Why should I spend the time to read through it or go through the > self-assessment? There are a couple of reasons you may want to put in the > time: First, by self-assessing your group/organization's capacities and > gaps, you are giving WMF and other potential investors in community > capacity a chance to provide your group/org with resources and > opportunities to *build up* those capacities. Secondly, self-assessing > according to the Guidelines page > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines> may be > in itself a worthwhile exercise and discussion-starter for your group/org, > pointing at potential areas for proactive work by *your org/group itself*, > for example in your next annual plan. Finally, self-assessing (at least > some) capacities today would enable you to review and re-assess in six > months, or two years, and see how your group/org has developed (or not) in > each of these aspects. So does WMF expect all groups and organizations to > do this? No. This is an opportunity and a tool. Like all other tools, you > are free to use it or not, and we certainly understand that it would take > time and that you may have more pressing priorities in your group/org. We > *hope* as many groups, organizations, and communities eventually take the > time to self-assess, at least on some capacities, but it is not mandatory, > and there would be no penalty for not participating. Would we have to > provide self-assessments for *all* of the capacities? No. Feel free to > self-assess on as many or as few capacities as you are able to, interested > in, or find relevant. You can also add assessments gradually, as your > group/org finds time to discuss and agree on assessments. Should I assess > capacities in the context of my wiki community, my user-group/chapter, or > what? It depends. It may make sense to do separate assessments, or just > one. For example, while the English community has plenty of bot builders > and technical experts, you may belong to a small community contributing in > English in a country with little or no bot-building expertise, such as > Wikimedians in Uganda. In this case, it would make sense to describe the > capacities of the Ugandan group you're part of, and not of the whole > English Wikipedia community. On the other hand, it is possible that there > is a very high degree of overlap between the Estonian community's > capacities and the Estonian chapter's capacities, and in that case, it may > be most useful to assess just once, for the Estonian community *or* > Wikimedia Estonia, or possibly once for the community for on-wiki > capacities, and separately for Wikimedia Estonia only for the > organizational and off-wiki capacities. See the Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines> page > for more details. Okay, and suppose we did put in the time and provided > some assessments. What can we expect next? You can expect, at the very > least, one program officer at Community Resources paying attention to your > contribution, and possibly, depending on each specific capacity and > assessment, that officer may have resources or opportunities to suggest to > your community/group/org. *The more groups provide assessments, the > better-informed WMF would be*, and the more likely it would be that *WMF > could allocate resources and create training opportunities* for your group. > Shared needs in a region would increase the likelihood of WMF acting even > further, as it would allow economizing on the investment by > training/supporting several groups/communities at once. Are you saying if X > number of communities demonstrate need Y, WMF is *guaranteed* to allocate > resources to fill that need? I'm afraid not. But it does make it *more > likely*, in that it demonstrates the need, making it easier to argue for it > in internal budgeting and allocation discussions, and to marshal internal > WMF resources (such as borrowing the time of subject experts at WMF to > conduct training or mentor groups). Okay, so how would WMF decide which > communities to offer resources to? There's no simple deterministic > algorithm, but WMF would prioritize emerging communities > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement/ > Defining_Emerging_Communities> > over other communities, larger groups serving larger populations over > smaller ones, and at least at first, would probably prioritize "low-hanging > fruit" -- lower-cost/lower-risk investments, as we learn and improve this > program's use of resources. Wouldn't the fact these are self-assessments > mean we'd be comparing apples to oranges, given some groups would > overestimate or underestimate their own capacities? No. We do understand > there are some cultural tendencies (some cultures are more self-critical > than others, or have rosier or more pessimistic views of future prospects > and current capabilities). However, we think the fairly coarse granularity > of the assessments (none/low/medium/high), coupled with *the Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Map/Guidelines>* for > self-assessing, would lead most groups to make reasonably comparable > assessments. Ultimately, these would remain subjective and unscientific > assessments; but they would certainly at least indicate a group/org's *own* > perception of their capacity. And before WMF (or others interested in > investing in capacity building) make a decision to tackle a particular > capacity with a particular community/group/org/region, we would be sure to > take into consideration *all the relevant context* we have, i.e. not just > the aggregate of the self-assessments in the CCM, but also all the > accumulated experience, context, and history we are aware of at WMF, > regarding that community/group/org/region. Okay, this may not be *the > worst* > idea ever to come from WMF We're glad you think so. :) What if none of > this turns out the way you hope? Then we'll archive these pages and look > for other ways to do effective capacity building. The CCM is an experiment, > based on observed needs and an expectation that it would be useful. But we > are ready to learn that it may not, and to change course if necessary. > Let's give it a shot, though! What if I have another question? Use the > talk page! :) > _______________________________________________ > 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> -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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>
