Begin forwarded message:
> From: Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> > Date: January 16, 2018 at 3:31:33 AM GMT+5:30 > To: Wikimedia India Community list <[email protected]> > Subject: [Wikimediaindia-l] Fwd: Let's map capacities! (Announcing the CCM) > Reply-To: Wikimedia India Community list > <[email protected]> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:59 PM > Subject: Let's map capacities! (Announcing the CCM) > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > > > 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. > 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 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 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 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 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! :) > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaindia-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-OR mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-or
