Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups have
been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the future
of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of the
working groups.

If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to give
feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with implementing
the recommendations.

Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one: the
documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are much
more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the Wikimeda

There are documents in which there is only one question answered, by one
sentence. Other documents don't show that any research has been used to
back the statements. Many obvious arguments and links are missing. At least
at one occasion I read as an answer to an important question: "todo".

The proposals often give the impression that they are not thought through.
There should be quotas for admins, but we see nowhere an explanation how
that would relate to the right to remain anonymous. There is the statement
that minorities sometimes can only express themselves with ND and NC
content, but the two links in the document hardly back that claim. After
years in which the Wikimedia organizations and other free and open content
organizations taught us that NC is problematic, now such a drastic change?

And there is this already infamous sentence: Instead of being informed
about the possible negative impacts of NC and ND, we only read: "All change
has negative connotations to some members of the community."


I find it stunning that there was nobody who went through the documents
before publication and said: we cannot publish this sentence, it is giving
a very bad impression about our attitude towards the community (= the very
same people we are asking to invest their time for giving feedback).

This does not mean that all documents or all sections and recommendations
are unusable or damaging. I also cannot judge about the efforts invested,
as I have no insight in the inner workings. But it is very frustrating for
me to read the documents and often have to guess what they actually mean.
And it seems to me, given the comments on the user pages on Meta Wiki, on
this list, on de:WP:Kurier and on Facebook, that I am not the only one who
feels this frustration.

Therefore, I ask the people responsible: please reconsider the timeline. If
these documents are the result of one year work, then the documents will
not be ready within two and a half months. Consider several months for the
working groups to use the present feedback for a redraft, and then give the
Wikimedia volunteers at least the same amount of time for giving feedback

Kind regards
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to