** correction - New readers (audiences and global partnerships) are working in North Africa, Middle East, South America and India at the moment.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 12:15 PM Joseph Seddon <josephsed...@gmail.com> wrote: > You keep mentioning this Anglo-Centric / Wikipedia centric focus of the > WMF. > > WMDE receives substantial monetary support from WMF for Wikidata. Only two > years ago dedicated grant funded work was made specific for Wikidata on > Commons for both WMF and WMDE. New Editors are working with the Korea and > Czech Wikipedias first and foremost. New Readers are first and foremost > working in India and South America. The majority of FDC grant funding does > not go to English speaking countries. The global partnerships team have an > almost entirely non-European / non-Anglo centric focus. The Public Policy > team (staff and volunteer) along with staff across the organisation have > been working over the past year actively fighting the EU copyright proposal > which now has an increasingly non-English centric focus thanks to Brexit. > > The WMF staff have been becoming more diverse in ethnicity, native country > and native language year on year. > > What makes me laugh is you say the WMF designs for the English Wikipedia > and yet so many engineers I speak to say that it's impossible to design and > build for the English Wikipedia and port elsewhere and that it's better to > design for non-English wiki's and apply to English. > > More change is needed but please recognise that things are changing. > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:15 AM Gerard Meijssen < > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hoi, >> Thank you for your sense of superiority.. the views on this list are "easy >> to have"and "not the big, difficult questions". >> >> These are some big difficult questions I can come up with: >> >> - how will we deal with the existing bias that is Anglo-American.. >> - how will we deal with the existing bias that is articles in >> Wikipedia, >> our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge.. >> - how will we deal with the 6% error rates that is in Wikipedia lists >> >> There are more issues but, hey you should not overload one email and deal >> with multiple issues.. So lets focus on what *you* consider the big >> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant.. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two >> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow >> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult >> > questions. >> > >> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group >> email >> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level >> > because that's where we're at....) >> > >> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion, >> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would >> > > like to have a more substantive discussion: >> > > >> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and >> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and >> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents >> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials. >> > > >> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several >> people >> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking >> > > at length for additional participation (e.g. >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be >> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from >> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the >> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If >> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can >> > > people use off-list emails instead? >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Jim >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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> > > _______________________________________________ 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>
