Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
Thank you so very much for your reply, Anasuya and Asaf. And sorry you've been ill :( Your message was so helpful - thank you for explaining how the decisions were made, and for writing that you are open to changes in the strategy as you learn more about this process. That is much appreciated :) I also want to say that I don't want this to be seen as an attack on the strategy. I think you have done such great work already, and more importantly, have been open to learning from your mistakes (as we have as we've gone through this process with you) at a time when there has been tremendous changes at the Foundation - all of which I appreciate. I just think that there are some foundational challenges that the current strategy brings up that I've been thinking a lot about recently. I share them with you in good faith below :) 1. The first point is that there is a key symbolic and practical difference between focus countries and general support. As Asaf said at Wikimania (my paraphrasing): 'We won't go out of our way to support projects outside of these countries, but will be open to requests for support from anyone elsewhere.' I think the feeling in some countries outside of this scope is that, instead of welcoming their initiatives, they are sometimes met with immediate and pretty vehement opposition. This isn't to say that the WMF isn't supporting those initiatives, it's just that the tone of those conversations is often oppositional and sometimes even aggressive which doesn't bode well for good relationships between the Foundation and community members who, admittedly have a long way to go to developing strong proposals for support, but who need to feel supported and valued if they are to continue doing this work. This makes the 'active focus' so much more of a big deal than it would immediately be apparent: being in an area of active focus often means that the barriers are just much easier to overcome since it is in the WMF's best interests to make things happen there. 2. My second point is that the WMF has chosen to look mostly at active editors at a national level in order to decide on the focus countries, but has added more symbolic reasons in its decision to support Egypt. I totally support the decision to focus on Egypt but I think it points to the need for a systematic approach for choosing what active interventions the Foundation will make. The problem, I think, with the approach of using active editor counts as the primary way of deciding which countries to focus on are as follows: - Countries are being compared to one another without an understanding of the barriers to participation in different parts of the world. The unintended consequence of this is that it gives the impression by people working in places where it is a major success to get just one more active editor, just one more article about a relevant local topic, rather than scores more that their work isn't valued as highly. - We often choose a particular way of evaluating where to focus our efforts because of the availability of the data, rather than because it is the best way of understanding a problem. The problem with this is that it can result in us believing that this is the right way of evaluating whether something will be successful when other alternatives (perhaps more difficult) might prove to be more accurate. - Finally, I was struck that the number of *readers* of Wikipedia aren't taken account in this decision. There is a great paper by Judd Antin and Coye Cheshire called 'Readers are not free riders' [1] that speaks about the importance of reading Wikipedia in becoming a Wikipedian. Active editors shouldn't, I believe, be the only way to think about which communities are most engaged in Wikipedia. 3. All of these issues lead me back to the same question: what is the goal of this programme? And: how will we know when it is successful? Is it about increasing the numbers of active editors in particular countries? Or, is it about trying to actively solve the problem of weak representation of particular subjects and people at the level of geography? I would advocate for the former rather than the latter because increasing numbers cannot be seen as an end in itself. We have the benefit of being a community that doesn't have to be driven by numbers or shareholders or profits. We can think more deeply about the symbolic power of our interventions and about what it means to be successful as a global movement. We're trying to build an encyclopedia in which the sum of all human knowledge is represented. We're only going to do that with the involvement of people around the world. And as people like Mark Graham have shown [2], some of the weakest representation on Wikipedia is of places in sub-Saharan Africa. Understanding why this is a problem *by engaging in projects* in this part of the world seems to me an obvious strategy - but only if this is the type of goal that we're looking towards. 4. What I would advocate for is two
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
'Global Strategy countries'? I think this aligns with the intention of GS, which is to support initiatives that help make our movement more global by investing in areas/languages where editors and/or readers is low but potential is high. John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Aug 30, 2013 11:42 AM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: What about making it simply global...? Balázs 2013.08.30. 2:44, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org ezt írta: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term Global South with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning. No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ Global South is emphatically not on the agenda. The term Global South is pretty awful and deserves a quick death. Agreed... But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet. ...but what do we replace it with? This has been rehashed quite a bit, but no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise and is politically acceptable. (Personally I am happy with developing world and developing nations, but of course those terms are euphemistic as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.) I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity throughout all these countries. It is my understanding that most of the consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS countries the same. I hope it is by now evident we are not. Once again, I find no point to debating this. All who _are_ interested are welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a shortlist) to WMF for consideration. If a superior term arises, I promise to make an effort to adopt it across WMF. Until then, let's focus on the actual work rather than the nomenclature. I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and India will continue. There's a note that reads No WMF contractors on the ground any more, but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does the no contractors on the ground line mean only full-time staff will be working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation contractors? There are no WMF employees outside the US, so no contractors on the ground (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!) means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress), no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF grantees. Cheers, A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
Regarding missing alternatives to the GS _term_. 2013/8/30 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 'Global Strategy countries'? I think this aligns with the intention of GS, which is to support initiatives that help make our movement more global by investing in areas/languages where editors and/or readers is low but potential is high. I tend to say that it's not about areas/languages but about the challenges mentioned in Asaf's slides. Global -- in my opinion -- is a term that emphasizes _unifying_ aspects of a subject. At its core the GS initiative is about conditions (re: WP, accessing and contributing) that are _different_ between certain areas of the world and others. That's why global won't do the trick. The challenges: factors section in Asaf's slides suggests that this difference has its roots in * limited access to the internet and to materials, * diglossia and other language issues, * financial, political and cultural limitations. ...all of which are social issues (-- terribly unscientifc oversimplification alert). In other words: The challenges have nothing to do with latitude (or longitude) but have an inherently social nature. Thus, there may not be a need to find a geographical label at all. What matters is a priority list which determines in which countries support is both highly necessary and most likely to be effective. With the countries listed in the aforementioned slides the WMF has such a list. I guess if Greenland[1] met the priority criteria (showing a huge community potential, having web access issues and specific cultural issues, and so on and so forth), it would probably make the priority list, wouldn't it? My point is: An alternative term for global south could be something based on _what_ is addressed instead of _where_ things are addressed. Could be something in the direction of Social Access Initiative or the like. (Really, just an example for illustration purposes, I won't defend it :-) Best, Michael Jahn [1] My apologies to Greenland. I know nothing about you, except that you're way up north! It's a shame. Don't mean to insult you. John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Aug 30, 2013 11:42 AM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: What about making it simply global...? Balázs 2013.08.30. 2:44, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org ezt írta: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term Global South with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning. No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ Global South is emphatically not on the agenda. The term Global South is pretty awful and deserves a quick death. Agreed... But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet. ...but what do we replace it with? This has been rehashed quite a bit, but no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise and is politically acceptable. (Personally I am happy with developing world and developing nations, but of course those terms are euphemistic as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.) I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity throughout all these countries. It is my understanding that most of the consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS countries the same. I hope it is by now evident we are not. Once again, I find no point to debating this. All who _are_ interested are welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a shortlist) to WMF for consideration. If a superior term arises, I promise to make an effort to adopt it across WMF. Until then, let's focus on the actual work rather than the nomenclature. I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and India will continue. There's a note that reads No WMF contractors on the ground any more, but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does the no contractors on the ground line mean only full-time staff will be working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation contractors? There are no WMF employees outside the US, so no contractors on the ground (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!) means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress), no program work in the GS will be
[Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
Hi, everyone. I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons. It took some time to add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania, hence the delay. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.pdf If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read this expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense. If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the link or re-share with this full version. I welcome discussion and questions. Cheers, Asaf -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
Asaf Bartov wrote: I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons. It took some time to add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania, hence the delay. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/102946507 Thank you for posting this. The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term Global South with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning. The term Global South is pretty awful and deserves a quick death. But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet. I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and India will continue. There's a note that reads No WMF contractors on the ground any more, but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does the no contractors on the ground line mean only full-time staff will be working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation contractors? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
Thanks Asaf, I've updated WMAR website with the new presentation. *Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina 2013/8/29 Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term Global South with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning. No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ Global South is emphatically not on the agenda. The term Global South is pretty awful and deserves a quick death. Agreed... But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet. ...but what do we replace it with? This has been rehashed quite a bit, but no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise and is politically acceptable. (Personally I am happy with developing world and developing nations, but of course those terms are euphemistic as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.) I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity throughout all these countries. It is my understanding that most of the consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS countries the same. I hope it is by now evident we are not. Once again, I find no point to debating this. All who _are_ interested are welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a shortlist) to WMF for consideration. If a superior term arises, I promise to make an effort to adopt it across WMF. Until then, let's focus on the actual work rather than the nomenclature. I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and India will continue. There's a note that reads No WMF contractors on the ground any more, but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does the no contractors on the ground line mean only full-time staff will be working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation contractors? There are no WMF employees outside the US, so no contractors on the ground (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!) means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress), no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF grantees. Cheers, A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
What about making it simply global...? Balázs 2013.08.30. 2:44, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org ezt írta: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term Global South with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning. No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ Global South is emphatically not on the agenda. The term Global South is pretty awful and deserves a quick death. Agreed... But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet. ...but what do we replace it with? This has been rehashed quite a bit, but no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise and is politically acceptable. (Personally I am happy with developing world and developing nations, but of course those terms are euphemistic as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.) I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity throughout all these countries. It is my understanding that most of the consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS countries the same. I hope it is by now evident we are not. Once again, I find no point to debating this. All who _are_ interested are welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a shortlist) to WMF for consideration. If a superior term arises, I promise to make an effort to adopt it across WMF. Until then, let's focus on the actual work rather than the nomenclature. I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and India will continue. There's a note that reads No WMF contractors on the ground any more, but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does the no contractors on the ground line mean only full-time staff will be working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation contractors? There are no WMF employees outside the US, so no contractors on the ground (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!) means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress), no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF grantees. Cheers, A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy
What about making it simply global...? Balázs 2013.08.30. 2:44, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org ezt írta: On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term Global South with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning. No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ Global South is emphatically not on the agenda. The term Global South is pretty awful and deserves a quick death. Agreed... But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead yet. ...but what do we replace it with? This has been rehashed quite a bit, but no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably concise and is politically acceptable. (Personally I am happy with developing world and developing nations, but of course those terms are euphemistic as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.) I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list of countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity throughout all these countries. It is my understanding that most of the consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the assumption that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS countries the same. I hope it is by now evident we are not. Once again, I find no point to debating this. All who _are_ interested are welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a shortlist) to WMF for consideration. If a superior term arises, I promise to make an effort to adopt it across WMF. Until then, let's focus on the actual work rather than the nomenclature. I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and India will continue. There's a note that reads No WMF contractors on the ground any more, but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation of the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements. Does the no contractors on the ground line mean only full-time staff will be working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future? Full-time staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia Foundation contractors? There are no WMF employees outside the US, so no contractors on the ground (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!) means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in progress), no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF grantees. Cheers, A. -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
