Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2/The Most Respected Source of Knowledge

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Other languages:
العربية • ‎български • ‎বাংলা • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎עברית • ‎हिन्दी • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎қазақша • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎Türkçe • ‎Tiếng Việt • ‎中文
The following discussion is closed.

Cycle 2 of the discussion is now closed for final sensemaking and drafting. Please join us soon for the next cycle of this process.

We will work toward ever more accurate and verifiable content. By 2030, Wikimedia projects will be seen as the most high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of knowledge. We will increase the depth of knowledge available and maintain our standards for verifiable and neutral content. We will invite experts to join us. We will help people understand how our processes make us reliable. We will show the most relevant information to people when and where they need it.

Sub-themes[edit]

This theme was formed from the content generated by individual contributors and organized groups during cycle 1 discussions. Here are the sub-themes that support this theme. See the Cycle 1 Report, plus the supplementary spreadsheet and synthesis methodology of the 1800+ thematic statements.

  • Quality content
  • Neutrality
  • Reliability & credibility
  • Knowledge
  • Free
  • Open source

Insights from movement strategy conversations and research[edit]

Insights from the Wikimedia community (from this discussion)[edit]


Insights from partners and experts[edit]

Insights from user (readers and contributors) research[edit]

Other Research[edit]

Open citations[edit]

  1. I4OC, Initiative for Open Citations: https://i4oc.org/
  2. Mozilla Internet Health Report, see section on open innovation and access to cited work: https://d20x8vt12bnfa2.cloudfront.net/InternetHealthReport_v01.pdf
  3. "The Enclosure of Scholarly Infrastructure," Geoffrey Bilder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWPZkZ180Ho&feature=youtu.be

Scholarly articles[edit]

  1. "Distinguishing Scholarly from Non-Scholarly Periodicals: A checklist of criteria, introductions and definitions," Cornell University Library: http://guides.library.cornell.edu/scholarlyjournals

Questions[edit]

View discussion of these questions on the talk page

These are the main questions we want you to consider and debate during this discussion. Please support your arguments with research when possible. We recognize you may not have time to answer all the questions; to help you choose where to focus, we have listed three types of questions below. The primary questions are the ones most important to answer during this discussion cycle.

Primary questions
  1. What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?  
    • Note that if you already submitted key ideas that answer this question for this theme in the previous discussion, consider just adding a link to that source page versus rewriting the whole statement. (see spreadsheet). If you have something new to add to a comment you made previously, however, please do.
  2. How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
Secondary question
  1. Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
Expansion questions
  1. What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
  1. Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?

Other comments:

Remember, if you have thoughts about the strategy process or larger issues, please share those here, where they are being monitored daily!

If you have specific ideas for improving the software, please consider submitting them in Phabricator or the product's specific talkpage.