Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org

Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org
Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
: Next unread message
: Previous unread message
j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
List overview
All Threads
newer
Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum
older
Re: Invitation to join the...
Wikimania Hackathon: Thanks for...
First Post
Replies
Stats
Threads by
month
----- 2026 -----
April
March
February
January
----- 2025 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2024 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2023 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2022 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2021 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2020 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2019 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2018 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2017 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2016 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2015 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2014 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2013 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2012 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2011 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2010 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2009 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2008 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2007 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2006 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2005 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
----- 2004 -----
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
Quim Gil
18 Aug

2022
18 Aug

'22
6 p.m.
Hello everyone,
The Movement Strategy Forum
(MS
Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement participants
to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to build community
collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
The Movement Strategy
is a
collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to
a full-time project.
Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations, and
ask questions in your language.
The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for
this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published
the Community Review Report
It
includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the
next steps.
We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
Best regards,
--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
Attachments:
attachment.htm
(text/html — 5.8 KB)
Show replies by date
Mike Peel
19 Aug
19 Aug
7:56 p.m.
Hi,
With respect, I think you have a big selection effect in your report. I
guess you're getting most of your positive comments directly on your new
forum, and you're matching them against your initial viewpoint, rather
than being unbiased?
If you look at comments on-wiki, they seem to be quite negative, e.g.,
have a look through discussions at:
and:
I strongly suggest running a Meta RfC about the existence of this forum,
following standard community processes, and then decide on its future:
Thanks,
Mike
On 18/8/22 17:00:36, Quim Gil wrote:
...
Hello everyone,
The Movement Strategy Forum
(MS
Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement
participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to
build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
The Movement Strategy
is
a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment
to a full-time project.
Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations,
and ask questions in your language.
The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal
for this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just
published theCommunity Review Report
. It
includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about
the next steps.
We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
Best regards,
--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
20 Aug
20 Aug
11:07 a.m.
Hello,
I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not based on actual discussions about the forum. Nevertheless, even if the summary was good, which is doubtful, the data presented in the discussion (
) is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the axis isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in percent but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something in these graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as a percent makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people participating in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world region where it seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in Sub-saharan Africa. But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5% of the Meta Users are from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users. But 12,5% of the Meta users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33 people. Is to say, there are more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan Africa using Meta than MS Forums. The graph is misleading also in this point, not only in the percent not adding up.
Then there are some interesting points about engagement. Is clearly going down. Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta engagement, so a comparison is difficult, but the data provided to defend that this forum is thriving is just saying the opposite.
If possible, I would like to have some clarifications on this data.
Thanks
Galder
________________________________
From: Mike Peel
email@mikepeel.net
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 7:56 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum
Hi,
With respect, I think you have a big selection effect in your report. I
guess you're getting most of your positive comments directly on your new
forum, and you're matching them against your initial viewpoint, rather
than being unbiased?
If you look at comments on-wiki, they seem to be quite negative, e.g.,
have a look through discussions at:
and:
I strongly suggest running a Meta RfC about the existence of this forum,
following standard community processes, and then decide on its future:
Thanks,
Mike
On 18/8/22 17:00:36, Quim Gil wrote:
...
Hello everyone,
The Movement Strategy Forum
(MS
Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement
participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to
build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
The Movement Strategy
is
a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment
to a full-time project.
Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations,
and ask questions in your language.
The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal
for this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just
published theCommunity Review Report
. It
includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about
the next steps.
We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
Best regards,
--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Quim Gil
21 Aug
21 Aug
1:18 a.m.
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Hello,
I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not
based on actual discussions about the forum.
Please provide excerpts of the report that make you think this.
...
Nevertheless, even if the summary was good, which is doubtful, the data
presented in the discussion (
is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the
axis isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in
percent but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something
in these graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as
a percent makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people
participating in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world
region where it seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in
Sub-saharan Africa. But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5%
of the Meta Users are from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users.
But 12,5% of the Meta users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33
people. Is to say, there are more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan
Africa using Meta than MS Forums. The graph is misleading also in this
point, not only in the percent not adding up.
It's obvious that the number of users is way higher for Meta than the
Forum. Having more users than Meta is not a goal of the Forum. We are
sharing the numbers there only to better understand the percentages shown.
The point of these metrics is to compare the regional location of Forum
users vs the regional location of Meta users. The hypothesis is that the MS
Forum can be especially useful for users outside of Northern & Western
Europe and North America.
The percentages show the distribution of users by region on Meta and on the
Forum. ~18% for the ESEAP blue line means that in that month ~18% of Meta
users were located in that region. The red line means the % of Forum users
in that month without counting Foundation staff. The yellow line includes
Foundation staff as well (as the number of Forum participants grows, the
influence of Foundation staff should become irrelevant, as in Meta).
This is the first time we produce these metrics. Comparing Meta with the MS
Forum is complex for many reasons. Meta covers way more than Movement
Strategy and discussions happen (with some exceptions) in the Talk
namespace. We could explore a smaller subset of Meta pages getting closer
to the MS Forum scope. Again, the goal being to check regional distribution
of users, not "Meta vs Forum". Still, we thought it was useful to start
recording this data and sharing it.
We will include these metrics in our monthly reports. Over time we will see
whether we can learn anything comparing the regional distribution of Meta
and Forum users.
...
Then there are some interesting points about engagement. Is clearly going
down. Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta
engagement, so a comparison is difficult,
When a new space is announced, it is expected to receive a first bump of
activity. After that comes the actual curve of consolidation (or not) of
this new space. Two other factors influence in this case:
- Many users responded to the community review call, joined, tested,
maybe engaged a bit, and then left back to their routines, waiting for the
outcome of the review period.
- After mid June, Wikimedia activity enters a seasonal reduction of
activity that can be especially felt in global conversations.
We will see how the trends look for August-October, after the review period
has ended and in the context of a more active season.
About Meta, there is this: Active editors on Meta in non content pages
One can see that May-July has lower numbers than January-April. Maybe a
seasonal effect? We will see in the upcoming months.
There is also All Time active editors in non content pages
and in all pages
It took a couple of years for the new platform to consolidate and start
growing month after month. Just to put things into perspective.
...
but the data provided to defend that this forum is thriving is just saying
the opposite.
That's because we don't provide the data to defend anything, but to allow
everyone to check how the Forum is doing. Your critique based on that data
proves this point.
...
If possible, I would like to have some clarifications on this data.
Thanks
Galder
attachment
attachment.htm
Gnangarra
3:41 a.m.
Percentages look good, and show some comparison but the reality is the
actual raw number say just as much when meta has 4600 and formun has less
than 200 and without staff less than 150 its not exactly a like for like
engagement. By the end of the survey majority are those who are getting
heard on Forum are going to be the ones who fill in the survey. We see what
we want to see. Going right back to the early days of the movement the
biggest issue has always been splitting off discussion holding discussions
outside of the room and taking decision arbitrarily based on these
discussion areas. There has been many admin/crat users sanctioned for
taking decision based on an IRC discussion, an email, or other off project
discussions.
What we appear to be doing is taking everything off the projects because
"talking on the project is too difficult" excuse is being rolled out
everywhere, the only ones not able to discuss on the projects are those
that dont contribute to the projects. My single most frustrating issue is
that those being hired to run MS sections dont know the projects nor the
community and make no effort to fill that void in their knowledge and
prefer outside formats, outside paid for tools over the projects.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 at 07:18, Quim Gil
qgil@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Hello,
I agree with Mike's viewpoint: the report seems to be prewritten, and not
based on actual discussions about the forum.
Please provide excerpts of the report that make you think this.
...
Nevertheless, even if the summary was good, which is doubtful, the data
presented in the discussion (
is confusing, and I would like to have a clarification. First of all, the
axis isn't to scale, you are presenting three different monthly usages in
percent but some of them are not adding 100%. I think I'm missing something
in these graphs, because they should add up. Furthermore, presenting it as
a percent makes the things confusing: there's actually more than 10x people
participating in Meta, but the graph doesn't suggest this. The only world
region where it seems to be more interactions via Forum than via Meta is in
Sub-saharan Africa. But this is a percent, not a grand total. Around 12,5%
of the Meta Users are from this region and around 22,5% of the Forum users.
But 12,5% of the Meta users is 575 users, and 22,5% of MS forums is 33
people. Is to say, there are more than 17 times more users from Sub-saharan
Africa using Meta than MS Forums. The graph is misleading also in this
point, not only in the percent not adding up.
It's obvious that the number of users is way higher for Meta than the
Forum. Having more users than Meta is not a goal of the Forum. We are
sharing the numbers there only to better understand the percentages shown.
The point of these metrics is to compare the regional location of Forum
users vs the regional location of Meta users. The hypothesis is that the MS
Forum can be especially useful for users outside of Northern & Western
Europe and North America.
The percentages show the distribution of users by region on Meta and on
the Forum. ~18% for the ESEAP blue line means that in that month ~18% of
Meta users were located in that region. The red line means the % of Forum
users in that month without counting Foundation staff. The yellow line
includes Foundation staff as well (as the number of Forum participants
grows, the influence of Foundation staff should become irrelevant, as in
Meta).
This is the first time we produce these metrics. Comparing Meta with the
MS Forum is complex for many reasons. Meta covers way more than Movement
Strategy and discussions happen (with some exceptions) in the Talk
namespace. We could explore a smaller subset of Meta pages getting closer
to the MS Forum scope. Again, the goal being to check regional distribution
of users, not "Meta vs Forum". Still, we thought it was useful to start
recording this data and sharing it.
We will include these metrics in our monthly reports. Over time we will
see whether we can learn anything comparing the regional distribution of
Meta and Forum users.
...
Then there are some interesting points about engagement. Is clearly going
down. Is there any reflection on this? We don't have data on Meta
engagement, so a comparison is difficult,
When a new space is announced, it is expected to receive a first bump of
activity. After that comes the actual curve of consolidation (or not) of
this new space. Two other factors influence in this case:
Many users responded to the community review call, joined, tested,
maybe engaged a bit, and then left back to their routines, waiting for the
outcome of the review period.
After mid June, Wikimedia activity enters a seasonal reduction of
activity that can be especially felt in global conversations.
We will see how the trends look for August-October, after the review
period has ended and in the context of a more active season.
About Meta, there is this: Active editors on Meta in non content pages
One can see that May-July has lower numbers than January-April. Maybe a
seasonal effect? We will see in the upcoming months.
There is also All Time active editors in non content pages
and in all pages
It took a couple of years for the new platform to consolidate and start
growing month after month. Just to put things into perspective.
...
but the data provided to defend that this forum is thriving is just
saying the opposite.
That's because we don't provide the data to defend anything, but to allow
everyone to check how the Forum is doing. Your critique based on that data
proves this point.
...
If possible, I would like to have some clarifications on this data.
Thanks
Galder
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
GN.
attachment
attachment.htm
Asaf Bartov
22 Aug
22 Aug
4:49 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Percentages look good, and show some comparison but the reality is the
actual raw number say just as much when meta has 4600 and formun has less
than 200 and without staff less than 150 its not exactly a like for like
engagement.
"Meta has 4600 and forum has less than 200", you say. 4600 what, though?
That number is the number of "Active users", meaning people who make
edits.
However, comparing the 4600 active users of Meta to the 200 active[1] users
is not comparing like with like: on Meta, edits are made on hundreds of
different topics, from requests for permissions through learning patterns,
global abuse investigations, to grant proposals and discussions. *And very
little discussion of Movement Strategy*. In other words, a very small
proportion (what proportion exactly, I don't have the means to ascertain)
of the 4600 active users of Meta are engaged in Movement Strategy, so the
number 4600 represents nothing relevant to this discussion. The Forum, on
the other hand, is dedicated to Movement Strategy discussion, so a large
number of the 200 active users are in fact discussing Movement Strategy.
(Personally I would like the Forum to be even more focused on Movement
Strategy and to discourage content-free "social" posts, but I am not
involved with the Forum's governance.)
In other words, I suggest that those of you determined to only discuss
Movement Strategy on Meta *do more of that*, to lead by example. It is
within your power to move the critical mass of active discussion of
Movement Strategy and the liveliest proposals and plans to Meta. Remember
that it is *as a response* to the difficulty[2] of gaining traction for
Movement Strategy conversations that the Forum was created.
Asaf
(personal opinion)
[1] I think discounting staff engaging on the Forum is a mistake. Staff is
also engaging on Meta, yet is included in the 4600 figure. I am guessing
more staff engage on the Forum, by design, but surely that engagement is a
good thing, as it is on Meta.
[2] that difficulty is certainly not solely due to the technology of Meta;
there were other factors dampening engagement about Movement Strategy, some
of them, I daresay, the fault of the Foundation. But Meta's shortcomings
as a venue *are* indicated in surveys as a major reason people aren't
engaging in conversation about Movement Strategy, so the Foundation acted
on that input. Again, you can demonstrate that that reason is *not* a
significant factor by creating and participating in lively Movement
Strategy discussions on Meta.
Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)
Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
Wikimedia Foundation
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
attachment
attachment.htm
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
2:36 p.m.
Dear Asaf,
You are right, Meta users are talking about whatever. It should be interesting to know what are the strategic discussions about, and how are them of a better quality through the MS Forum.
The forum topic with more interactions is interesting: 日本とのつながり / Japanese Connection
. Then the next with most comments is "Say hello!
". We have then one related to the Strategy, Sub-saharan Africa Strategic Talk
, and the next most used 6 forum topics are about the platform itself, not about strategy. From the next 20 more commented topics, only 2 are about the MS. There's another one about the elections.
It seems that, as in Meta, the interactions are not especially about the Movement Strategy. And even those that are about the MS are not really impactful ([DRAFT] Minimum Criteria for Hub Pilots
), with less than 7 users actually discussing, and at least 3 of them members of the WMF.
I don't know how to measure impact. I know that this is not a good metric in any way.
Cheers,
Galder
________________________________
From: Asaf Bartov
abartov@wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:49 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Invitation to join the Movement Strategy Forum
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 4:43 AM Gnangarra mailto:gnangarra@gmail.com
> wrote:
Percentages look good, and show some comparison but the reality is the actual raw number say just as much when meta has 4600 and formun has less than 200 and without staff less than 150 its not exactly a like for like engagement.
"Meta has 4600 and forum has less than 200", you say. 4600 what, though? That number is the number of "Active users", meaning people who make edits.
However, comparing the 4600 active users of Meta to the 200 active[1] users is not comparing like with like: on Meta, edits are made on hundreds of different topics, from requests for permissions through learning patterns, global abuse investigations, to grant proposals and discussions. And very little discussion of Movement Strategy. In other words, a very small proportion (what proportion exactly, I don't have the means to ascertain) of the 4600 active users of Meta are engaged in Movement Strategy, so the number 4600 represents nothing relevant to this discussion. The Forum, on the other hand, is dedicated to Movement Strategy discussion, so a large number of the 200 active users are in fact discussing Movement Strategy. (Personally I would like the Forum to be even more focused on Movement Strategy and to discourage content-free "social" posts, but I am not involved with the Forum's governance.)
In other words, I suggest that those of you determined to only discuss Movement Strategy on Meta do more of that, to lead by example. It is within your power to move the critical mass of active discussion of Movement Strategy and the liveliest proposals and plans to Meta. Remember that it is as a response to the difficulty[2] of gaining traction for Movement Strategy conversations that the Forum was created.
Asaf
(personal opinion)
[1] I think discounting staff engaging on the Forum is a mistake. Staff is also engaging on Meta, yet is included in the 4600 figure. I am guessing more staff engage on the Forum, by design, but surely that engagement is a good thing, as it is on Meta.
[2] that difficulty is certainly not solely due to the technology of Meta; there were other factors dampening engagement about Movement Strategy, some of them, I daresay, the fault of the Foundation. But Meta's shortcomings as a venue are indicated in surveys as a major reason people aren't engaging in conversation about Movement Strategy, so the Foundation acted on that input. Again, you can demonstrate that that reason is not a significant factor by creating and participating in lively Movement Strategy discussions on Meta.
Asaf Bartov (he/him/his)
Senior Program Officer, Emerging Wikimedia Communities
Wikimedia Foundation
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
attachment
attachment.htm
Quim Gil
21 Aug
21 Aug
1:17 a.m.
Hi,
If anyone finds the report
biased, it would be helpful to share the excerpts or the absences that
prove this bias. We are happy to amend any mistakes, but for that we need
to identify them.
Also, it would be useful to know your perceived gravity of any bias you
detect. In other words, the report supports our decision to commit to the
long-term maintenance of the MS Forum. Based on your interpretation of the
community review, would you still support this decision or would you decide
something different (and what)? This helps knowing whether we are talking
about details or high impact perceived bias.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 7:57 PM Mike Peel
email@mikepeel.net
wrote:
...
Hi,
With respect, I think you have a big selection effect in your report. I
guess you're getting most of your positive comments directly on your new
forum, and you're matching them against your initial viewpoint, rather
than being unbiased?
If you look at comments on-wiki, they seem to be quite negative, e.g.,
have a look through discussions at:
We have included the feedback of this page in the report. We already
reflected it during the review period as we were publicly drafting the
summaries of each question, week after week. We even re-posted some of that
feedback in the corresponding forum discussion, to give forum users a
glimpse of the discussion on Meta (example
).
What feedback in that Talk page do you miss that is relevant and should
have been reflected?
...
and:
That discussion started after the community review ended but the feedback
follows the same lines as the page on Meta. Still, same question, what
ideas are missing in the report?
I strongly suggest running a Meta RfC about the existence of this forum,
...
following standard community processes, and then decide on its future:
This is a forum to support the Movement Strategy implementation. The
community review was advertised in all Movement Strategy channels and
beyond. The feedback clearly reflects an overall preference to try the MS
Forum further rather than shutting it down. Users will decide about this
forum with their own feet (fingers), consolidating it as a community space
or not.
Given that this Forum is especially conceived to better support those who
can't or won't use Meta for discussions and collaboration, we don't think a
Meta RFC would be the right tool for this task.
...
Thanks,
Mike
--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
1:11 p.m.
Dear Quim and all,
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:18 AM Quim Gil
qgil@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hi,
If anyone finds the report
biased, it would be helpful to share the excerpts or the absences that
prove this bias. We are happy to amend any mistakes, but for that we need
to identify them.
I would start with the first sentence of the summary. This currently reads:
"The result of the community review is positive."
This is not a neutral summary of even the report's own content, which
accurately describes sentiments as "mixed". The summary continues:
"The goal of the MS Forum is: *to improve community collaboration around
Movement Strategy (MS) on a multilingual platform that is welcoming and
easy to use. *The participation and support received during the community
review support the premise. Close to 300 people participated in the
community review; many participants were from Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. Many are contributors from medium-size and small Wikimedia
projects."
We all know few people read Wikipedia articles from beginning to end. Most
just scan the first couple of paragraphs. The same will apply to this page.
The fact that none of the negative community feedback has made it into the
Summary's first paragraph makes this report come across like an
ideologically driven ad, designed to shape opinion rather than reflect it.
So, revising the summary, starting with the first sentence, would be a good
place to begin.
Best,
Andreas
attachment
attachment.htm
Mike Peel
3:17 p.m.
On 21/8/22 00:17:59, Quim Gil wrote:
...
Given that this Forum is especially conceived to better support those
who can't or won't use Meta for discussions and collaboration, we don't
think a Meta RFC would be the right tool for this task.
I think this is a good example of the problem here. You've already
decided that on-wiki is not the answer, so any appeals for you to do
things on-wiki get noted down in documents like this, and promptly
ignored. It's a very high impact bias that undermines the whole report
and process. A more neutral (and independent?) review that took into
account more of the options would have helped.
BTW, personally I'm worried about scope creep here - if it is just
movement strategy, then the damage is at least limited to that topic,
but it's already crept into being involved in the WMF board election,
for example. Hopefully at least that trend won't continue?
Anyhow, see you on-wiki.
Thanks,
Mike
Samuel Klein
5:20 p.m.
Quim, thanks for sharing. This feels like a project where going part-way
and stopping could make things more confusing, but seriously embracing the
challenge of integrating the strengths of discourse and wikis, and ensuring
the result helps streamline and integrate and improve communication, could
be excellent -- and well received / used by more people than just us.
+ Automatic translation of discussions is essential, tangibly useful for
our communities, and very satisfying.
--> how can we bring this to Mediawiki? This is a core question for
community health, movement development, and tech. It is a straightforward
concept, not exclusive to Discourse, and we should learn from it.
+ Forum threading and features (tags, emotes) are nice, beloved by some.
This is the third attempt to start a WM-related discourse.
--> how might we support integrating discourse into a) mediawiki, b)
interwiki links? (so that a forum post could link to *m:Power_structure*,
and a meta post could link to *f:Wikischool*)
– Wikimedia Space was closed after a year, and its links no longer resolve.
--> how can we add discourse into current versioning + archiving workflows?
I would appreciate it if reports on this Forum could explicitly address
~ how & why Space was closed, and implications for the approach here,
~ how to keep links to Space discussions working/redirecting appropriately,
and implications for how to ensure the same linkrot doesn't happen here,
~ how conversations there & on the Meta Forum
& on other evergreen pages on Meta
are intended to be kept in synch, for both short-term discussions (like
rfcs) and long-term strategizing (like a page describing the history and
state of an initiative)
~ what it might look like for this to later become a more standard part of
our wikiverse (e.g., *forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy
*).
Warmly, SJ
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:18 AM Mike Peel
email@mikepeel.net
wrote:
...
On 21/8/22 00:17:59, Quim Gil wrote:
...
Given that this Forum is especially conceived to better support those
who can't or won't use Meta for discussions and collaboration, we don't
think a Meta RFC would be the right tool for this task.
I think this is a good example of the problem here. You've already
decided that on-wiki is not the answer, so any appeals for you to do
things on-wiki get noted down in documents like this, and promptly
ignored. It's a very high impact bias that undermines the whole report
and process. A more neutral (and independent?) review that took into
account more of the options would have helped.
BTW, personally I'm worried about scope creep here - if it is just
movement strategy, then the damage is at least limited to that topic,
but it's already crept into being involved in the WMF board election,
for example. Hopefully at least that trend won't continue?
Anyhow, see you on-wiki.
Thanks,
Mike
attachment
attachment.htm
Gergő Tisza
23 Aug
23 Aug
7:03 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 8:22 AM Samuel Klein
meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Automatic translation of discussions is essential, tangibly useful for
our communities, and very satisfying.
--> how can we bring this to Mediawiki? This is a core question for
community health, movement development, and tech. It is a straightforward
concept, not exclusive to Discourse, and we should learn from it.
I filed T309920
a while ago, it
has some technical details. IMO it's doable (although things usually turn
out harder than they look when they have to be built on top of an
unstructured soup of wikitext, but AIUI the Editing team has done some
great foundational work to make MediaWiki discussion pages more manageable,
so maybe these days that's less of an issue) but it would be a largish
project that would have to be slotted into the WMF's annual planning.
...
Forum threading and features (tags, emotes) are nice, beloved by some.
They aren't "nice", they are essential for scaling discussion. Just like
you can't manage thousands of articles without some kind of category
system, you can't manage thousands of discussions without some kind of
tagging system. And likes or reacjis allow scaling up the number of
participants without excluding anyone from the discussion who is unwilling
to spend several hours a day on reading new comments - they both cut down
on the number of comments, and allow software to highlight the most
important or most representative comments.
...
--> how might we support integrating discourse into a) mediawiki, b)
interwiki links? (so that a forum post could link to *m:Power_structure*,
and a meta post could link to *f:Wikischool*)
MediaWiki is concept-addressable; forum software aren't because they need
to deal with more and messier content. You could have something with like
*f:123* but I'm not sure it adds value over plain links.
...
– Wikimedia Space was closed after a year, and its links no longer resolve.
I apologize for that. Space needs to be migrated from Debian Stretch to
Buster as part of a generic upgrade of Wikimedia Cloud infrastructure. I
volunteered to do it but it turned out to be non-straightforward, or
possibly I've been going at it wrong, I ran out of time, and then kinda
forgot about it. I'll try to wrap it up soon.
...
--> how can we add discourse into current versioning + archiving
workflows?
A good question regardless! There was some discussion in T235235
, but it didn't go far.
See also T262275
, which is
about a different Discourse site (which I didn't think was worth keeping
up), but it shows a minimal-effort solution for keeping discussion content
available and links working in perpetuity, although in a rather ugly format.
~ what it might look like for this to later become a more standard part of
...
our wikiverse (e.g., *forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy
*).
There's a bunch of discussion at
on why a *.wikimedia.org domain is unlikely to be used anytime soon.
attachment
attachment.htm
Željko Blaće
9:25 a.m.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:15 AM Gergő Tisza
gtisza@gmail.com
wrote:
...
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 8:22 AM Samuel Klein
meta.sj@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Automatic translation of discussions is essential, tangibly useful for
our communities, and very satisfying.
--> how can we bring this to Mediawiki? This is a core question for
community health, movement development, and tech. It is a straightforward
concept, not exclusive to Discourse, and we should learn from it.
I filed T309920
a while ago,
it has some technical details. IMO it's doable (although things usually
turn out harder than they look when they have to be built on top of an
unstructured soup of wikitext, but AIUI the Editing team has done some
great foundational work to make MediaWiki discussion pages more manageable,
so maybe these days that's less of an issue) but it would be a largish
project that would have to be slotted into the WMF's annual planning.
Thank you for this info. I hope it can be realistic and a priority for the
next annual plan.
...
...
Forum threading and features (tags, emotes) are nice, beloved by some.
They aren't "nice", they are essential for scaling discussion. Just like
you can't manage thousands of articles without some kind of category
system, you can't manage thousands of discussions without some kind of
tagging system. And likes or reacjis allow scaling up the number of
participants without excluding anyone from the discussion who is unwilling
to spend several hours a day on reading new comments - they both cut down
on the number of comments, and allow software to highlight the most
important or most representative comments.
Well said...will only add that even most simple option to add 'like'-like
feedback makes huge difference as it at least partly cuts down on extra
messages that feel like unnecessary spam in big mailing-lists and telegram
groups (those that did not turned on that recent feature).
...
--> how might we support integrating discourse into a) mediawiki, b)
...
interwiki links? (so that a forum post could link to *m:Power_structure*,
and a meta post could link to *f:Wikischool*)
MediaWiki is concept-addressable; forum software aren't because they need
to deal with more and messier content. You could have something with like
*f:123* but I'm not sure it adds value over plain links.
From what I learned as Drupal user is that having multiple (fixed and
flexible) taxonomies for tagging could be super useful and I hope this
feature gets developed in both core Discourse and MediaWiki (even if just
on user end).
...
...
– Wikimedia Space was closed after a year, and its links no longer
resolve.
I apologize for that. Space needs to be migrated from Debian Stretch to
Buster as part of a generic upgrade of Wikimedia Cloud infrastructure. I
volunteered to do it but it turned out to be non-straightforward, or
possibly I've been going at it wrong, I ran out of time, and then kinda
forgot about it. I'll try to wrap it up soon.
Thank you for volunteering for this, but I think it should be
systematically done by more than one person and as part of WMF workflows.
...
...
--> how can we add discourse into current versioning + archiving
workflows?
A good question regardless! There was some discussion in T235235
, but it didn't go far.
See also T262275
, which is
about a different Discourse site (which I didn't think was worth keeping
up), but it shows a minimal-effort solution for keeping discussion content
available and links working in perpetuity, although in a rather ugly format.
Think living with ugly is kind of bearable in Wikimedia world ;-p
...
~ what it might look like for this to later become a more standard part of
...
our wikiverse (e.g., *forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy
*).
There's a bunch of discussion at
on why a *.wikimedia.org domain is unlikely to be used anytime soon.
IMHO use of w.wiki subdomains, should not be bad option :-)
...
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Andreas Kolbe
20 Aug
20 Aug
3:13 p.m.
Dear all,
It's unfortunate that this has to be said, but:
– A community review report should be written by the community, not the WMF.
– The idea of democracy is not that the government should elect a new
people.
Regards,
Andreas
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 5:02 PM Quim Gil
qgil@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello everyone,
The Movement Strategy Forum
(MS
Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement
participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to
build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
The Movement Strategy
is
a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to
a full-time project.
Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations, and
ask questions in your language.
The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for
this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published
the Community Review Report
. It
includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the
next steps.
We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
Best regards,
--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
attachment
attachment.htm
Quim Gil
23 Aug
23 Aug
1:22 p.m.
Alright, thank you for the additional feedback.
To wrap up this discussion, I'll list the homework we are taking from this
discussion. We will post our updates about this homework on the report talk
page on Meta
and its corresponding MS Forum topic
On Meta, everyone can enjoy the new section notifications (opt-in beta
feature), which are ideal for this kind of discussion. On the MS Forum, you
can also subscribe to specific topics if you wish.
We will...
* review the report summary to reflect better the content of that summary
in the first paragraphs
* propose a way to include Meta in the periodical surveys mentioned in the
report
* review the MS Forum goals and metrics to better define minimum
expectations on participation
* address any questions related to Wikimedia Space when the site is back
(in addition to Gergo's reply, see SJs related proposal
About missing more discussions directly linked to Movement Strategy vs
discussions about the forum itself or social/collateral topics, we miss
them too. :) Part of this is normal in a new online space that for many, is
a new community too. Part of this reflects a deeper problem related to the
state of the Movement Strategy process where the Forum is part of the
solution and not the problem. The Wikimedia Summit is around the corner.
This year it is all about Movement Strategy. It is a hybrid event, we
expect strategic discussions to start in the upcoming days, and we hope
this will help to focus, reactivate, and promote Movement Strategy
discussions in multiple venues.
Before ending this email I want to mention this apparent polarization
between Meta and the Forum. Our reality as a movement is way more complex,
even within the subset of Movement Strategy. For complementary reasons,
Meta and this Forum are very good venues to collaborate, document, and
agree on the next steps. Polarizing these spaces so that you are either
with "us" or "them" is not only pointless (who benefits from it?) but also
misses the years-old fact that there is plenty of Wikimedians using other
channels in (most of the time) disconnected or even invisible ways (despite
everyone's good intentions).
One example: the most strategic discussion during the community review was
the Minimum Criteria for Hubs Pilots. The discussions that went to the
deepest levels of multi-party discussion and nuance happened on... Meta?
The Forum? No, on the Hubs group on Telegram. There was also a SWAN call
with an interesting after-party. We took useful feedback from all the
channels we were able to watch.
Another example: this discussion here, off-wiki, on a mailing list that
lacks the basic features of Meta, the MS Forum, or social media. It also
lacks the diversity of representation, perspective and discourses that
these other channels (Meta included) can offer. And yet it retains enough
social privilege to be a go-to channel for certain discussions. We also
collect useful feedback here, keeping it into the perspective of our
movement.
We humans are complex and amazing, and the problems we want to solve in
Wikimedia are complex and amazing too. Let's recognize this and work
together for our common goals. This is what Movement Strategy is all about.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 6:00 PM Quim Gil
qgil@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
Hello everyone,
The Movement Strategy Forum
(MS
Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about
Movement Strategy implementation. We are inviting all Movement
participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to
build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.
The Movement Strategy
is
a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia
Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to
a full-time project.
Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, engage in conversations, and
ask questions in your language.
The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for
this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published
the Community Review Report
. It
includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the
next steps.
We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!
Best regards,
--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
--
Quim Gil (he/him)
Director of Movement Strategy & Governance @ Wikimedia Foundation
attachment
attachment.htm
1340
Age (days ago)
1345
Last active (days ago)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
14 comments
9 participants
tags
(0)
participants
(9)
Andreas Kolbe
Asaf Bartov
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Gergő Tisza
Gnangarra
Mike Peel
Quim Gil
Samuel Klein
Željko Blaće