I very much agree Michael, it should be a movement wide effort with strong intent and drive. And the reasoning behind Movement Strategy was that to be able to engage local communities we needed local relay that were part time employed to do that :)
But in the last six months the number of C-Levels or trustees of any Wikimedia organizations that have engaged in that discussion here is a grand total of 0. I didn't count on wiki and other avenues, but I would guess it's very close to that number. And this is not a brand new topic, many volunteers have been raising their concern for a few years. And still, it feels like nothing is happening. And I say "feel" because I also know those concerns are shared across volunteers, employees and trustees across organisations. But no one with meaningful resources is publicly leading the discussion. So yes, I very much agree with you, and I wish that was an outcome that happened in the last few months/years, but it still hasn't. And I've also tried not to share "solutions" to focus on trying to reach a shared understanding on "there is a big problem here", but maybe I should share clearer options? -- Christophe On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 08:51, Michael Snow via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Movement Strategy efforts have relied in part on the Foundation hiring > consultants who could assist in framing discussion, and also provide some > of the sustained presence that makes it easier for volunteers to contribute > even when they can only do so with intermittent intention. Could that be > helpful piece of responding to this call? I think it might need to be > something more than a small working group. > > To add, I very much appreciate Nada's additional perspective, which brings > in ideas we don't hear as often. More input like it would be welcome. > > --Michael Snow > On 7/1/2026 11:24 PM, Christophe Henner via Wikimedia-l wrote: > > <3 <3 <3 for your answers it means a lot :) > > @Risker second time in a few weeks I'm very jealous of a message you wrote > and I was like "yes exactly that". > > To answer some of your questions, the discussion isn't happening anywhere. > I've been trying on Telegram, Discord, Wiki, here... very little reactions. > Of course, people pushing back doesn't help, but also we do know what it > takes to be able to have the discussion, investment. > > You were in the midst of the early Movement Strategy steps, and to be able > to get those kind of discussion to happen it needs a loooot of intent. > Those are scary discussions and they need to be fostered, cared, nurtured. > We're talking about things that are stressful and people need a clear > "place" to have those discussions in a proper setting. That "place" isn't > so much a location as an intention (not sure this translated well). > > And that can't be a volunteer driven effort at our scale, and it can't be > small either. We have a blueprint, learnings, etc... to build on. > > @Pine you are right, and I may give it a try to the diff idea. But like > you, I'm a volunteer and there is so much energy and "emotion" I can pour > by myself. It would be eaiser if it was a more vocally/visibly shared > concern. > > @Nada I'm suggesting a small working group that preps the work for the > community to have the discussion. It's not about making decisions but > making the discussions possible. But that's one possibility, another could > be to take 2030 recommendations and implement those that are still relevant > and rework the other in some ways. Or to decide collectively on ways to cut > through the red tape to make our movement as a whole faster, there are many > angles and a lot of them complementary. > > But when statistically we will have lost 50% of our traffic in 3 to 5 > years, we need to act, fast and together. > > > -- > Christophe > > > On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 06:08, nada alfarra via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I read Christophe's essay closely. I agree with most of the diagnosis, >> but I want to push back on part of the cure, and add a point about >> outreach. However, I didn't read the whole the discussion, so forgive any >> redundancy. >> >> *What I think is right* >> The equity gap is the real story. English Wikipedia is far ahead of >> editions in languages spoken by hundreds of millions of people. The >> billions who came online since 2016 mostly came from the Global South. We >> were not ready for them. That is not a side issue, it is the main reason we >> are falling behind. >> >> The "process is the product" point is also right. Anyone can copy our >> content. No one can copy our editing history, our talk pages, our sourcing >> standards, or the trust that comes from years of open argument and >> correction. That process is worth protecting and worth building products >> around. >> Spreading our income beyond donation banners also makes sense. Relying on >> one source of money is risky, especially as fewer people visit the site >> directly. >> >> *Where I disagree* >> The essay asks for a small, closed group to make big decisions fast, >> without the usual community process. I understand the impatience, but our >> credibility comes from being slow, open, and argued-over in public. If we >> skip that to move faster, we risk losing the very thing that makes people >> trust our content. Speed and legitimacy are in tension here, and the essay >> doesn't really deal with that. >> >> I'm also cautious about selling "verified" data to AI companies. It could >> help fund the movement, but it could also pull the Foundation's incentives >> away from the volunteer editors who create the value in the first place. >> Editors should benefit from this too, not just supply the raw material for >> a new revenue line. >> >> *On outreach* >> I don't think our real problem is trust. People still see Wikipedia as >> reliable. What we're losing is presence. AI tools and influencers aren't >> more trustworthy than us, they're just closer to where people already are. >> A student asking an AI chatbot a question isn't rejecting Wikipedia, they >> just never see us in that moment. >> >> That changes the question. It's not "why don't people trust us," it's >> "why are we absent from the tools people actually use." It also changes the >> timeline. Rebuilding readership at scale, reversing a generational shift in >> how people consume knowledge, that's slow and may not happen in two years. >> But changing where and how we show up, meeting people inside their AI >> tools, search results, and study apps, is faster and more within our >> control. >> >> I'd also push on who we're trying to reach. Instead of asking "is >> Wikipedia relevant to everyone," maybe we ask who specifically needs it >> most and design for them. Students are an obvious group. Right now, new >> editors, especially students learning the craft, get reverted fast and >> rarely come back. If we want the next generation of contributors, the >> on-ramp needs to be forgiving, not punishing. Let people practice, get it >> wrong, and learn, the way any skill is learned. A student who edits badly >> once and gets shut down never comes back. A student who edits badly once >> and gets guided through it becomes an editor. >> >> *What I would prioritize* >> Two separate problems, two different timelines. Fix outreach fast: meet >> people where they already are. Fix the readership shift slow and >> deliberately, with the community, not against it. And invest seriously in >> editors and readers in underrepresented languages and regions, because that >> is where our future actually is. >> >> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026, 23:41 Christophe Henner, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> I struggled with the object, the most honest one would be "Last exit >>> before irrelevance" but that would be a bit violent. >>> >>> So, Wikipedia turns 25 next week. I've been here for over twenty of >>> those years, including stints chairing Wikimedia France and the Foundation >>> Board. And honestly? I'm worried. Scared to be honnest. >>> >>> Over the last years, I've been regularly crunching data and sharing on >>> different channels my worries. But in the last few weeks I decided to make >>> a much more structured "essay" of my findings >>> >>> Since 2016, the internet nearly doubled in size. >>> >>> Our page views? Down. New editor sign-ups? Down 36%. >>> >>> The people keeping this thing running are working harder than ever, but >>> there are fewer of them every year. >>> >>> I wrote it all up: the numbers, what I think went wrong, what I think we >>> need to do about it. Fair warning: it's long, it's opinionated, and some of >>> it will probably make you mad. >>> >>> *Here it is: *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Schiste/what-now >>> >>> I'm not trying to be doom and gloom for the sake of it. I genuinely >>> believe we have maybe two years to make some hard calls about AI, about >>> money, about who we're actually serving. After that, the window closes and >>> we become irrelevant. >>> >>> Could be wrong. Hope I am. But I'd rather we have this argument now than >>> wish we had later. Well I'd rather we had this argument two or four years >>> ago, but now we will make do. >>> >>> Read it, tell me where I'm off base. Let's argue and debate. That's what >>> talk pages are for, right? >>> >>> PS: Foundation board mailing list is bcc'ed, change cannot happen >>> without their commitment. And fast. >>> >>> -- >>> Christophe >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/X3SQ2WA7QF2XS56XV2EOPDPUZ6UQPCR4/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/BS4GFOIFG6BTFBIY56ZKRECIX5A3YKHM/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/6I43D764UJLMQR3XH5DMU6VYREFRRV3W/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/VCLLEAFH2FNFDCDGUQAJZBT55C3TYTV6/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/7YKBRFN2JCIC335I4A4L7ZNI7AGI22NA/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
