Rogol, The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase: - organized groups - on-wiki - experts - new voices I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team. - Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia Deutschland. She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover of craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based. New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in different markets. - *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now. Adele has grown from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through her innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission. - *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised, and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world. - *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his group. Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities. - I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it could be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the Middle East. - And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been involved in all of this as well. He has served the foundation well over a number of years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment. Perdoname, Jorge. These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen. One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing community discussions. For the on-wiki team: - We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain. Just to clarify the record. /a On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based. > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <teemu.leino...@aalto.fi> > wrote: > > > Hej, > > > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion > :-) > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons, > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that > large > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia. If > > WMF could do something to promote research looking beyond it would be > > great. > > > > -Teemu > > > > > Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> kirjoitti 24.6.2017 kello > > 13.00: > > > > > > Hoi, > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This > > bias > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge > > educational > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed, > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000 > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a > viable > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because > > > otherwise it will not get published [2]. > > > > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of > > projects > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential > readers > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these projects > > and > > > there is no research into its value. > > > > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any > collaboration > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that > habitually > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well > served > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data driven > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south > in > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable. > > > > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the process > > so > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the > > message > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>. > > > > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions. > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF > > > traffic. > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on > > > Wikipedia.. > > > > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com>: > > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for > > people > > >>> who > > >>>> are not involved with affiliates? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even the > > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life > > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process carefully, > > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that > > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular > > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2 weeks > > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to > > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material > > >>> available in the strategy process. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I was > > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some > > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored. > > None > > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of time. > > Round > > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened i > n > > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss > > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages > on > > 3 > > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot), but I > > have > > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round 1. > > May > > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really > > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is completely > > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a > > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want to > be > > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the > next > > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now. > > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> Yaroslav > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l > > >> New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
