[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

[Zachary T.]

Hi everyone,

I think there's a misinterpretation here. Saying that race and ethnicity
aren't meaningful distinctions among people doesn't mean that racism
doesn't exist. That's a lot of negatives, but the way I see it, it's just
recognizing that race is in fact a social construct, and thus because of
that it isn't truly meaningful. I would suggest using *inherently *meaningful
to clear up the confusion here, because I think that more clearly expresses
the sentiment.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:23 PM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> Hello, Anasuya and Whose Knowledge.
>
> (Context for those who don’t know me: I am the Vice President of Community
> Resilience & Sustainability, and among others I oversee the team
> shepherding the UCoC process.)
>
> Thank you very much for raising this issue. Foundation staff have been
> discussing this as well with the same points that you have raised, and it
> is something we’ve been thinking about how to address.
>
> As probably many of you know, the plan all along had been to get the UCoC
> policy, to get the enforcement approach, and then to see how they work
> together in operation. Our plan has been to review the policy and
> enforcement approach together a year after the ratification of Phase 2.
> However, we decided to prioritize a slower approach to Phase 2 to make sure
> it was functional out the gate especially for the functionaries and
> volunteers who enforce it, as a result of which the timeline we had
> imagined for Policy review has been considerably pushed back. If we had
> made our preliminary time plan, we would have started testing these out
> months ago. The Policy and Enforcement Guidelines would have been ripe for
> review sometime around November 2022.
>
> As you all know, the vote has just concluded on the UCoC Phase 2. In the
> vote, community members were asked if they supported it as written or not,
> with the ability to provide feedback either way - with the notion that the
> feedback would help us focus on major blockers to the enforcement approach.
> I have already spoken to several members of the Board about some of the
> concerns that have been raised about the enforcement guidelines; we’ve
> spoken about this passage in the Policy, too. I know from my conversations
> with the Board that they want to get this done right, not just get it done
> - and they are very open to understanding these major blockers.
>
> The project team is compiling a report for the Board on the challenging
> points surfaced during the vote. We think the enforcement guidelines are a
> very good first draft for the enforcement pathways, but–based on the
> comments we’ve seen–we are very aware there may be more work ahead before
> we reach a Board ratified version of those guidelines. As this passage in
> policy is not necessary to achieve the goal of the UCoC - which is to
> forbid harassment and attacks based on personal factors including race and
> ethnicity - our intention has been to recommend to the Board that the
> passage in question be reviewed simultaneously with any further Phase 2
> enforcement workshopping, instead of waiting for the “year in operation”
> review intended.
>
> I still think it makes sense to review how the enforcement guideline and
> policy work together to see how they are functioning once they have a trial
> period. But I ALSO don’t think it makes any sense to hold off on reviewing
> a passage from policy that community members (including some community
> members who are Foundation staff) strongly agree may be actively harmful
> just because Phase 2 is taking longer than anticipated.
>
> I also want to say that I have spoken to some of the individuals who were
> involved in writing the UCoC and understand fully that the intent of the
> composers was to avoid any implication that racism and ethnic bias are
> valid. As you said, Anasuya - honest intentions. I have spoken to many
> individuals who have felt personally hurt and erased by the phrase in
> denying their lived reality. I have also spoken to others who have feared
> that it makes it more difficult to talk about the actual harms of racism
> and ethnocentrism by implying that such topics are taboo to discuss.
>
> We ourselves are learning from all of these perspectives and concerns to
> ensure that people feel the representation they deserve. These
> conversations are hard, and I’m grateful to the people who are willing to
> have them and doing their best to listen and engage with empathy and
> respect. <3
>
> Best regards,
>
> Maggie
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:38 PM Anasuya Sengupta <
> anas...@whoseknowledge.org> wrote:
>
>> Tl;dr Urgent need to address the note denying race and ethnicity as
>> “meaningful distinctions among people” in the Universal Code of Conduct
>> (UCoC). The current wording is highly problematic and can result in
>> endorsing systemic and individual discrimination and violence on the basis
>> of race and ethnicity, rather than preventing it.
>>
>> Dear Wikimedians,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

[Maggie Dennis]

Hello, Anasuya and Whose Knowledge.

(Context for those who don’t know me: I am the Vice President of Community
Resilience & Sustainability, and among others I oversee the team
shepherding the UCoC process.)

Thank you very much for raising this issue. Foundation staff have been
discussing this as well with the same points that you have raised, and it
is something we’ve been thinking about how to address.

As probably many of you know, the plan all along had been to get the UCoC
policy, to get the enforcement approach, and then to see how they work
together in operation. Our plan has been to review the policy and
enforcement approach together a year after the ratification of Phase 2.
However, we decided to prioritize a slower approach to Phase 2 to make sure
it was functional out the gate especially for the functionaries and
volunteers who enforce it, as a result of which the timeline we had
imagined for Policy review has been considerably pushed back. If we had
made our preliminary time plan, we would have started testing these out
months ago. The Policy and Enforcement Guidelines would have been ripe for
review sometime around November 2022.

As you all know, the vote has just concluded on the UCoC Phase 2. In the
vote, community members were asked if they supported it as written or not,
with the ability to provide feedback either way - with the notion that the
feedback would help us focus on major blockers to the enforcement approach.
I have already spoken to several members of the Board about some of the
concerns that have been raised about the enforcement guidelines; we’ve
spoken about this passage in the Policy, too. I know from my conversations
with the Board that they want to get this done right, not just get it done
- and they are very open to understanding these major blockers.

The project team is compiling a report for the Board on the challenging
points surfaced during the vote. We think the enforcement guidelines are a
very good first draft for the enforcement pathways, but–based on the
comments we’ve seen–we are very aware there may be more work ahead before
we reach a Board ratified version of those guidelines. As this passage in
policy is not necessary to achieve the goal of the UCoC - which is to
forbid harassment and attacks based on personal factors including race and
ethnicity - our intention has been to recommend to the Board that the
passage in question be reviewed simultaneously with any further Phase 2
enforcement workshopping, instead of waiting for the “year in operation”
review intended.

I still think it makes sense to review how the enforcement guideline and
policy work together to see how they are functioning once they have a trial
period. But I ALSO don’t think it makes any sense to hold off on reviewing
a passage from policy that community members (including some community
members who are Foundation staff) strongly agree may be actively harmful
just because Phase 2 is taking longer than anticipated.

I also want to say that I have spoken to some of the individuals who were
involved in writing the UCoC and understand fully that the intent of the
composers was to avoid any implication that racism and ethnic bias are
valid. As you said, Anasuya - honest intentions. I have spoken to many
individuals who have felt personally hurt and erased by the phrase in
denying their lived reality. I have also spoken to others who have feared
that it makes it more difficult to talk about the actual harms of racism
and ethnocentrism by implying that such topics are taboo to discuss.

We ourselves are learning from all of these perspectives and concerns to
ensure that people feel the representation they deserve. These
conversations are hard, and I’m grateful to the people who are willing to
have them and doing their best to listen and engage with empathy and
respect. <3

Best regards,

Maggie


On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:38 PM Anasuya Sengupta 
wrote:

> Tl;dr Urgent need to address the note denying race and ethnicity as
> “meaningful distinctions among people” in the Universal Code of Conduct
> (UCoC). The current wording is highly problematic and can result in
> endorsing systemic and individual discrimination and violence on the basis
> of race and ethnicity, rather than preventing it.
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> We are writing this letter as the Whose Knowledge? user group, both to
> Wikimedia-l, as well as adding it to the talk page for the UCoC.[0] We
> endorsed the UCoC in the community voting process because we are committed
> to its principles and intentions (indeed, some of us have been expressly
> working towards it within the movement for a very long time, in multiple
> ways).
>
> However, we continue to be deeply concerned about the current wording of a
> specific note in the UCoC: under Section 3.1 about Harassment, the note
> under Insults states that “The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race"
> and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion
> here is 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Anasuya,

Thank you for your insightful post. Just for clarification: do you
agree that insults based on "race" (social construct) should be
prohibited in general? And I mean, regardless of the "race" in
question?

And do you propose an alternative wording or do you just want to see
the whole part (that you quoted) removed? I mean, in order to prohibit
insults or vilifications based on "race" or "ethnicity".

Kind regards
Ziko

Am Fr., 8. Apr. 2022 um 19:38 Uhr schrieb Anasuya Sengupta
:
>
> Tl;dr Urgent need to address the note denying race and ethnicity as 
> “meaningful distinctions among people” in the Universal Code of Conduct 
> (UCoC). The current wording is highly problematic and can result in endorsing 
> systemic and individual discrimination and violence on the basis of race and 
> ethnicity, rather than preventing it.
>
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
>
> We are writing this letter as the Whose Knowledge? user group, both to 
> Wikimedia-l, as well as adding it to the talk page for the UCoC.[0] We 
> endorsed the UCoC in the community voting process because we are committed to 
> its principles and intentions (indeed, some of us have been expressly working 
> towards it within the movement for a very long time, in multiple ways).
>
>
> However, we continue to be deeply concerned about the current wording of a 
> specific note in the UCoC: under Section 3.1 about Harassment, the note under 
> Insults states that “The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and 
> "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion here is 
> to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis for 
> personal attacks." (emphasis ours)[1]
>
>
> This is both manifestly incorrect and entirely against what we believe to be 
> the principles and intentions of the UCoC. Other Wikimedians have already 
> pointed out the deeply contradictory nature of this statement, including 
> WJBScribe on the talk page in May 2021,[2] but their comments appear not to 
> have been considered yet.
>
>
>
> By stating that "The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and 
> "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people," those responsible for 
> this text do not seem to fully grasp that:
>
>
> Even though the concept of ‘race’ as a biological distinction has been 
> refuted, ‘race’ as a social construct has been fully accepted by modern 
> scholars.[3] Even more importantly, we know historically that the concept of 
> ‘race’ was created and developed to serve and justify European colonialism in 
> its quest to enslave, marginalize, oppress, dominate and exterminate black, 
> brown and indigenous peoples in the lands they colonized. This form of 
> “racial science” was also responsible for the genocide of Europeans who would 
> otherwise be racialized as white outside of Europe, in particular during 
> World War II. Since then the concept of ‘race’ has been used to develop and 
> create some of the most wide ranging systems of power and privilege that 
> currently marginalize and oppress the majority of the world.
>
> By denying or not ‘endorsing’ the existence of race as a “meaningful 
> distinction among people”, the Wikimedia movement is not doing non-white 
> people any favors or helping to end racism or racist demonstrations, such as 
> insults based on race. As we’ve said before, being silent about racism 
> doesn’t make it go away. It only creates the perfect environment for the 
> continued existence of the deep structural powers and privileges that created 
> it in the first place.[4]
>
> Additionally, it is equally manifestly important to acknowledge the ways in 
> which the concept of ‘ethnicity’ is used to create “meaningful” - including 
> violently discriminatory - “distinctions” amongst people, including 
> Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as two obvious examples. It is equally obvious 
> that the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are not equivalent and/or 
> interchangeable, and cannot be used so.
>
> By including such a problematic statement, the UCoC contradicts the 
> movement’s commitment to knowledge equity, clearly stated and approved as 
> part of our Wikimedia Movement Strategy for 2030. The Universal Code of 
> Conduct of a movement that doesn’t “see” race or ethnicity or acknowledge the 
> historical and current effects of our racialized and ethnically-driven world, 
> cannot and will not be able to “focus our efforts on the knowledge and 
> communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege.”[5]
>
> Leaving this wording in, also negates the ongoing efforts by individuals and 
> organizations across the movement who work with passion and commitment 
> towards knowledge equity in different ways, including through challenging 
> racist and ethnically discriminatory behavior in our projects.
>
>
> As long-time members of our movement, we assume good faith, and recognize 
> that this current wording may have happened through honest intentions gone 
> bad

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks Anasuya.  +1 to all of this!

For the backlog of specific change proposals like this that have been made
and not yet addressed/rebutted or implemented: how should these be sorted?
(Ditto for the possibility of implied revisions in the recent announcement)

Perhaps we could use more parallel drafts in order to compare specific
revisions.

🌍🌏🌎🌑

On Fri., Apr. 8, 2022, 1:38 p.m. Anasuya Sengupta, <
anas...@whoseknowledge.org> wrote:

> Tl;dr Urgent need to address the note denying race and ethnicity as
> “meaningful distinctions among people” in the Universal Code of Conduct
> (UCoC). The current wording is highly problematic and can result in
> endorsing systemic and individual discrimination and violence on the basis
> of race and ethnicity, rather than preventing it.
>
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> We are writing this letter as the Whose Knowledge? user group, both to
> Wikimedia-l, as well as adding it to the talk page for the UCoC.[0] We
> endorsed the UCoC in the community voting process because we are committed
> to its principles and intentions (indeed, some of us have been expressly
> working towards it within the movement for a very long time, in multiple
> ways).
>
> However, we continue to be deeply concerned about the current wording of a
> specific note in the UCoC: under Section 3.1 about Harassment, the note
> under Insults states that “The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race"
> and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion
> here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis
> for personal attacks." (emphasis ours)[1]
>
> This is both manifestly incorrect and entirely against what we believe to
> be the principles and intentions of the UCoC. Other Wikimedians have
> already pointed out the deeply contradictory nature of this statement,
> including WJBScribe on the talk page in May 2021,[2] but their comments
> appear not to have been considered yet.
>
>
>
> By stating that "The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and
> "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people," those responsible
> for this text do not seem to fully grasp that:
>
>
>-
>
>Even though the concept of ‘race’ as a biological distinction has been
>refuted, ‘race’ as a social construct has been fully accepted by modern
>scholars.[3] Even more importantly, we know historically that the concept
>of ‘race’ was created and developed to serve and justify European
>colonialism in its quest to enslave, marginalize, oppress, dominate and
>exterminate black, brown and indigenous peoples in the lands they
>colonized. This form of “racial science” was also responsible for the
>genocide of Europeans who would otherwise be racialized as white outside of
>Europe, in particular during World War II. Since then the concept of ‘race’
>has been used to develop and create some of the most wide ranging systems
>of power and privilege that currently marginalize and oppress the majority
>of the world.
>-
>
>By denying or not ‘endorsing’ the existence of race as a “meaningful
>distinction among people”, the Wikimedia movement is not doing non-white
>people any favors or helping to end racism or racist demonstrations, such
>as insults based on race. As we’ve said before, being silent about racism
>doesn’t make it go away. It only creates the perfect environment for the
>continued existence of the deep structural powers and privileges that
>created it in the first place.[4]
>-
>
>Additionally, it is equally manifestly important to acknowledge the
>ways in which the concept of ‘ethnicity’ is used to create “meaningful” -
>including violently discriminatory - “distinctions” amongst people,
>including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as two obvious examples. It is
>equally obvious that the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are not
>equivalent and/or interchangeable, and cannot be used so.
>-
>
>By including such a problematic statement, the UCoC contradicts the
>movement’s commitment to knowledge equity, clearly stated and approved as
>part of our Wikimedia Movement Strategy for 2030. The Universal Code of
>Conduct of a movement that doesn’t “see” race or ethnicity or acknowledge
>the historical and current effects of our racialized and ethnically-driven
>world, cannot and will not be able to “focus our efforts on the knowledge
>and communities that have been left out by structures of power and
>privilege.”[5]
>-
>
>Leaving this wording in, also negates the ongoing efforts by
>individuals and organizations across the movement who work with passion and
>commitment towards knowledge equity in different ways, including through
>challenging racist and ethnically discriminatory behavior in our projects.
>
>
> As long-time members of our movement, we assume good faith, and recognize
> that this current wording may have happened 

[Wikimedia-l] Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

[Anasuya Sengupta]

Tl;dr Urgent need to address the note denying race and ethnicity as
“meaningful distinctions among people” in the Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC). The current wording is highly problematic and can result in
endorsing systemic and individual discrimination and violence on the basis
of race and ethnicity, rather than preventing it.

Dear Wikimedians,

We are writing this letter as the Whose Knowledge? user group, both to
Wikimedia-l, as well as adding it to the talk page for the UCoC.[0] We
endorsed the UCoC in the community voting process because we are committed
to its principles and intentions (indeed, some of us have been expressly
working towards it within the movement for a very long time, in multiple
ways).

However, we continue to be deeply concerned about the current wording of a
specific note in the UCoC: under Section 3.1 about Harassment, the note
under Insults states that “The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race"
and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion
here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis
for personal attacks." (emphasis ours)[1]

This is both manifestly incorrect and entirely against what we believe to
be the principles and intentions of the UCoC. Other Wikimedians have
already pointed out the deeply contradictory nature of this statement,
including WJBScribe on the talk page in May 2021,[2] but their comments
appear not to have been considered yet.



By stating that "The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and
"ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people," those responsible for
this text do not seem to fully grasp that:


   -

   Even though the concept of ‘race’ as a biological distinction has been
   refuted, ‘race’ as a social construct has been fully accepted by modern
   scholars.[3] Even more importantly, we know historically that the concept
   of ‘race’ was created and developed to serve and justify European
   colonialism in its quest to enslave, marginalize, oppress, dominate and
   exterminate black, brown and indigenous peoples in the lands they
   colonized. This form of “racial science” was also responsible for the
   genocide of Europeans who would otherwise be racialized as white outside of
   Europe, in particular during World War II. Since then the concept of ‘race’
   has been used to develop and create some of the most wide ranging systems
   of power and privilege that currently marginalize and oppress the majority
   of the world.
   -

   By denying or not ‘endorsing’ the existence of race as a “meaningful
   distinction among people”, the Wikimedia movement is not doing non-white
   people any favors or helping to end racism or racist demonstrations, such
   as insults based on race. As we’ve said before, being silent about racism
   doesn’t make it go away. It only creates the perfect environment for the
   continued existence of the deep structural powers and privileges that
   created it in the first place.[4]
   -

   Additionally, it is equally manifestly important to acknowledge the ways
   in which the concept of ‘ethnicity’ is used to create “meaningful” -
   including violently discriminatory - “distinctions” amongst people,
   including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as two obvious examples. It is
   equally obvious that the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are not
   equivalent and/or interchangeable, and cannot be used so.
   -

   By including such a problematic statement, the UCoC contradicts the
   movement’s commitment to knowledge equity, clearly stated and approved as
   part of our Wikimedia Movement Strategy for 2030. The Universal Code of
   Conduct of a movement that doesn’t “see” race or ethnicity or acknowledge
   the historical and current effects of our racialized and ethnically-driven
   world, cannot and will not be able to “focus our efforts on the knowledge
   and communities that have been left out by structures of power and
   privilege.”[5]
   -

   Leaving this wording in, also negates the ongoing efforts by individuals
   and organizations across the movement who work with passion and commitment
   towards knowledge equity in different ways, including through challenging
   racist and ethnically discriminatory behavior in our projects.


As long-time members of our movement, we assume good faith, and recognize
that this current wording may have happened through honest intentions gone
badly wrong. As Wikimedians who believe in shared improvements through
collective editing, we hope that this mistake too will be immediately
acknowledged and removed from the UCoC. We are not entirely sure who is
ultimately responsible for this change, but if the Wikimedia Foundation
Board is in charge of reviewing the policy, we believe it is incumbent upon
the Board to share with us what possible next steps they will take, towards
this.

We look forward to a UCoC that lives up to its principles and intentions,
and we commit to its practice as Wikimedians.

Wi

[Wikimedia-l] Re: WIKIMOVE - New Podcast on our Changing Movement

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

If we really want to "critically question colonial and unequitable
systems", maybe we should question the way Wikimedia has become an adjunct
to US Big Tech, actively partnering with these firms to help them expand
their inequitable and tax-evading business practices into less well-off
countries that really could do with tax income to fund health and education
systems.

Here is some reading:

On Wikimedia's Big Tech partnerships see e.g.:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Google_Partnership
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2019/01/22/google-and-wikimedia-foundation-partner-to-increase-knowledge-equity-online/
https://inc42.com/features/can-wikipedia-overcome-gender-gap-as-it-looks-to-translate-articles-in-indian-languages/
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Enterprise

On Big Tech's tax-dodging:

"The world’s largest and most successful companies, including Google,
Amazon and Facebook, are avoiding paying taxes in the countries where they
operate. Instead, they shift their profits and hide in tax havens." –
https://www.libdems.org.uk/a21-f7-towards-a-fair-global-corporation-tax-system

"India, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria and Bangladesh are the countries with
the highest tax gaps involving these three companies. –
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/26/big-tech-accused-of-avoiding-28bn-in-tax-to-poorest-countries


"Big Tech companies like those examined in the report have users and
customers all around the globe. But the structure of international
corporate tax laws means that companies tend to pay taxes in the countries
where they are headquartered. For most Big Tech companies, this means the
global North, particularly in the United States." –
https://www.dw.com/en/fairer-taxes-on-big-tech-could-cover-cost-to-vaccinate-entire-planet/a-57576889

This economic system has exactly the same effect as colonialism did: wealth
from poorer countries flowing to a rich one.

So while we're patting ourselves on the shoulders for decrying colonialism,
we're actively supporting the 21st-century version of it. There's a word
for that kind of double-think.

Andreas

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:35 PM Nicola Zeuner 
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland's Movement Strategy and Global Relations team is
> excited to announce the launch of our new podcast on all things Movement
> Strategy: WIKIMOVE
>
> The podcast will be a forum for open and frank conversations about topics
> related to movement strategy.
>
> The first episode will be available next week on the WMDE website and the
> WIKIMOVE Meta page. 
>
> Make sure to subscribe on Meta
>  to get notified for
> each episode.
>
> In 2017 our movement produced a strategic direction, and in 2020
> recommendations were published that shed light on the changes that the free
> knowledge movement will need to make to stay relevant and grow in size and
> diversity.  Change is never easy. We hope that the conversations in the
> podcast will inspire people, and open up opportunities for thinking and
> working together.
>
> What will WIKIMOVE be about?
> The topics we discuss will dance around the strategic direction, the
> recommendations, the principles, the initiatives. But we will also look up
> (or out) and examine larger issues and concepts from the knowledge
> ecosystem or beyond that are relevant to the transformation of the
> Wikimedia movement. By creating this space we hope to let the audience know
> about the latest happenings, new ideas, present opportunities to
> participate, contribute and provide feedback. We hope that new ideas are
> born from the conversations and collaborations are kick-started.
>
>
> What can you expect of WIKIMOVE ?
>
> The show will be a space for respectful exchange and mutual support.
> Looking into the future, optimistically, rather than complaining about the
> past or present. While paying respect to the ‘old’ movement, critically
> questioning colonial and unequitable systems, structures, policies,
> narratives and habits. Shining a light on those who try new things, develop
> innovations, whether they succeed or fail while doing so. Iteration,
> ambiguity, and uncertainty are welcome. We especially welcome people with
> questions, and don’t expect ready made solutions.
>
> Who are the guests?
>
> People who are working on 2030 initiatives, or are participating in our
> governance reform, people who come from underrepresented communities,
> people from other movements who have experiences and inspiration to share.
> We aim to strengthen mutuality and solidarity and to show that there are
> people inside and outside of our movement that have already developed
> solutions for our challenges and questions.
>
> Who are the hosts?
>
> Nicole Ebber and Nikki  Zeuner from Wikimedia Deutschland’s Movement
> Strategy and Global Relations team will be hosting the show.
>
> When can I hear this?
>

[Wikimedia-l] WIKIMOVE - New Podcast on our Changing Movement

[Nicola Zeuner]

Dear All,


Wikimedia Deutschland's Movement Strategy and Global Relations team is
excited to announce the launch of our new podcast on all things Movement
Strategy: WIKIMOVE

The podcast will be a forum for open and frank conversations about topics
related to movement strategy.

The first episode will be available next week on the WMDE website and the
WIKIMOVE Meta page. 

Make sure to subscribe on Meta
 to get notified for
each episode.

In 2017 our movement produced a strategic direction, and in 2020
recommendations were published that shed light on the changes that the free
knowledge movement will need to make to stay relevant and grow in size and
diversity.  Change is never easy. We hope that the conversations in the
podcast will inspire people, and open up opportunities for thinking and
working together.

What will WIKIMOVE be about?
The topics we discuss will dance around the strategic direction, the
recommendations, the principles, the initiatives. But we will also look up
(or out) and examine larger issues and concepts from the knowledge
ecosystem or beyond that are relevant to the transformation of the
Wikimedia movement. By creating this space we hope to let the audience know
about the latest happenings, new ideas, present opportunities to
participate, contribute and provide feedback. We hope that new ideas are
born from the conversations and collaborations are kick-started.


What can you expect of WIKIMOVE ?

The show will be a space for respectful exchange and mutual support.
Looking into the future, optimistically, rather than complaining about the
past or present. While paying respect to the ‘old’ movement, critically
questioning colonial and unequitable systems, structures, policies,
narratives and habits. Shining a light on those who try new things, develop
innovations, whether they succeed or fail while doing so. Iteration,
ambiguity, and uncertainty are welcome. We especially welcome people with
questions, and don’t expect ready made solutions.

Who are the guests?

People who are working on 2030 initiatives, or are participating in our
governance reform, people who come from underrepresented communities,
people from other movements who have experiences and inspiration to share.
We aim to strengthen mutuality and solidarity and to show that there are
people inside and outside of our movement that have already developed
solutions for our challenges and questions.

Who are the hosts?

Nicole Ebber and Nikki  Zeuner from Wikimedia Deutschland’s Movement
Strategy and Global Relations team will be hosting the show.

When can I hear this?

The first episode will be released next week, both as an audio podcast and
a shorter video version. It features Tochi Precious and Guillaume Paumier,
discussing knowledge as a service. Stay tuned!!!



Nikki Zeuner
Senior Advisor Global Partnerships

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-32
Mobile (0151) 50824711
https://wikimedia.de

Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
https://spenden.wikimedia.de

Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende
Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter: Zur
Anmeldung .

Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RTJKJ7WZTS3GALLUX4UDAICTTN2KJQ5K/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org