Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement

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

All constituents of the Wikimedia movement (affiliates, groups, Wikimedia Foundation and individual contributors) are invited to express their support and commitment to the direction that is an outcome from phase 1 of the strategy process, or share their dissenting views.

Signatories in support of the direction commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good faith and to define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an agreement on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies that enable us to implement that future.

They pledge to consider the needs of the Wikimedia movement above their own, and to find the structures, processes, and resources for our movement that enable us to best move towards our common direction. Conversations in phase 2 will get more concrete than in phase 1 and will lead to decision making about the aforementioned issues.

The endorsement concludes phase 1 of the process, and we are currently drafting the next steps. The main goal of phase 2 will be to answer the question "How do we implement the strategic direction", which means identifying the resources needed for execution, and the activities it involves.

Please note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated, but will serve as the agreed upon groundwork for phase 2 conversations. In short, the endorsement means: “This is the right way for us all to move forward together. Let’s go!”

What it does not mean: Endorsing the strategic direction does not mean that the signing groups or individuals endorse all the steps that follow and the decisions that are being made in phase 2. How organizations and individuals use the outcomes of these conversations is up to them. Some may use it to inform programmatic or organizational strategy. Others may see it as a way to connect with the broader movement and invite others to contribute to Wikimedia. Some may not use it at all – and that’s okay!

How to endorse[edit]

Please sign the endorsement page with your username (make sure to be logged in), either on the section for organized groups or for individual contributors. To avoid edit conflicts, please edit your respective section and not the whole page.

You are endorsing the original English version of the strategic direction and the “What comes next” paragraph. The translations are used as a support to understand the context and meanings.

Use #wikimedia2030 on social media to celebrate and share your support with the world.

How to oppose and provide feedback[edit]

You can express concisely your opinion regarding the endorsement call by voting in the relevant subsection of the #Individual contributors section below.

For more elaborate statements, a dedicated page was created.

Our strategic direction: Service and Equity[edit]

By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us.

We, the Wikimedia contributors, communities and organizations, will advance our world by collecting knowledge that fully represents human diversity, and by building the services and structures that enable others to do the same.

We will carry on our mission of developing content as we have done in the past, and we will go further.

Knowledge as a service: To serve our users, we will become a platform that serves open knowledge to the world across interfaces and communities. We will build tools for allies and partners to organize and exchange free knowledge beyond Wikimedia. Our infrastructure will enable us and others to collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge.

Knowledge equity: As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. We will welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities. We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge.

Endorsements[edit]

Organized groups[edit]

This is the section for all Wikimedia affiliates, organizations, committees and other groups that support the Wikimedia movement. As representative(s) of each group, please copy the following format and use it for your endorsement. To avoid edit conflicts, please edit your respective section ("Organized groups" or "Individual contributors") and not the whole page.

*Name of your group (incl. link to meta page/website); country and/or project that your group is most active in, if applicable; optionally, you can add a sentence of support in the language of preference. --~~~~ (signature)

By endorsing this strategic direction, we declare our intent to work together towards this future. We commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good faith and to define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an agreement, on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies that enable us to implement that future.

We pledge to consider the needs of our movement above our own, and to find the structures, processes, and resources for our movement that enable us to best move towards our common direction.

Individual contributors[edit]

This section is for individual contributors such as editors, curators, photographers and volunteer developers, across different languages and Wikimedia projects. Please copy the following format and use it for your endorsement. To avoid edit conflicts, please edit your respective section ("Organized groups" or "Individual contributors")

*--~~~~ (signature) (optionally: project, country or region that you are most active in, if applicable; short comment in your language of preference)

By endorsing this strategic direction, we declare our intent to work together towards this future. We commit to participating in the next phase of this discussion in good faith and to define, by Wikimania 2018, how to come to an agreement, on roles, responsibilities, and organizational strategies that enable us to implement that future.

We pledge to consider the needs of our movement above our own, and to find the structures, processes, and resources for our movement that enable us to best move towards our common direction.

Support[edit]

  1. (Hey, its already 26 of October in Kyiv)--Звірі (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. As Australian co-ordinator for strategy - this is an excellent stage to be at :JarrahTree (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Photographer --Namrood talk) 00:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Lionster (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Xavier Combelle (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yger (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC) 300000 edits on Swedish Wikipedia
  7. I’m so pleased to, especially, endorse the aspiration to become the world’s most respected knowledge source. This can be done. —Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Léna (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Lester לסטר (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. Pavel Richter (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  11. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talkmail) 08:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  12. Jcornelius (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC) A strong and bold direction for the future!
  13. Dimi z (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  14. Beat Estermann (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  15. NickK (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  16. Patricio.lorente (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  17. Rlbberlin (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  18. Wholeheartedly - a great piece of work. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  19. Photographer from Nigeria, Kaizenify (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  20. John Cummings (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  21. Papuass (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  22. Wsduho (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  23. --Lahi (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC) | Wikimedia Argentina, Wikidata/WP. Ad astra.-
  24. Hilarmont (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  25. Lafemo 123 (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  26. *--Joshuagay (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  27. Wittylama (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  28. Argentina. --Jenniferparker (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  29. Argentina Esteban (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  30. Superzerocool (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Spanish Wikinews/Wikipedia; Wikimedia Chile Board Member. Muchas gracias a todas las personas que han participado de este proceso.
  31. I endorse. --Misosoof (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  32. Ukraine. --Oleh Kushch (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  33. Outstanding. Smallbones (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  34. Por un futuro como movimiento más equitativo y diverso. Desde la Ciudad de México --ProtoplasmaKid (WM-MX) (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (Wikipedia en español, Wikinoticias)
  35. --Gereon K. (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  36. We made our own strategic direction, more power to the wikimedians (Saroj,Nepal) --सरोज कुमार ढकाल (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  37. --Liang(WMTW) (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  38. Ciudad de México --Ix kimiaranda (WM-MX) (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (Wikipedia en español y Editatona)
  39. --Millars (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Spain. Active on Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Chair of Wikimedia Spain, member of Wikimedia Chile, Wikimedia Mexico and Wikimedia Venezuela.
  40. --Support Support Mohammed Galib Hasan (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  41. MisterSynergy (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  42. --Support Support from WMTW--魔法設計師(Shoichi) (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  43. --Support Support definetly approve of the general direction and vision. GastelEtzwane (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  44. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 18:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  45. --Giyuela (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  46. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  47. Jane023 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  48. Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  49. - Bernd - die Brücke (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  50. Matanya (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  51. Danalif (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  52. -- Support Support Gastón Cuello (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  53. Je soutiens! Serieminou (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (Je contribue sur Wikipedia en français, particulièrement sur l'Afrique, Wiki Loves Women)
  54. Support Support Blmurch (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Photographer working with Commons and Wikimedia Argentina
  55. Argentina TitiNicola (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  56. Gini10 (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  57. --Rodelar (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  58. Luisalvaz (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC) I am from Wikimedia Mexico / esWiki / Commons / Wikidata. Although there are some points in which I have some doubts, there was a lot of discussion and consensus around all points from people all around the world, so I endorse the 'strategy'.
  59. Carlos yo (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Spanish Wikipedia, Commons; Wikimedia Chile Board Member.
  60. Support Support BugWarp (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Member of Wikimedia Argentina / esWiki / enWiki / Commons /
  61. Chico Venancio (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  62. Joalpe (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC). Big effort, nice result. Congrats to the whole team.
  63. Koushik Avula (talk)
  64. Eloquence (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  65. VIGNERON * discut. 06:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  66. --Netha Hussain (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  67. Support Support --PierreSelim (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  68. Support Support Ofek Jerassi - talk 11:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  69. BradPatrick (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you to all who participated. Onward!
  70. Martinbayo (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  71. petrohs (gracias) 15:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  72. Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  73. DCEditingWiki (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  74. Warko (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  75. --Lcsrns (Talk) 17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  76. Mervat --Mervat Salman (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)7
  77. I, Kayusyussuf join my voice to support this vision Kayusyussuf (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2017‎
  78. Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  79. --Nattes à chat (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  80. Support Support - looking forward to this fresh direction and where it will lead. Alleycat80 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  81. --Kritzolina, since July 2017 also known as (CSteigenberger (WMF) (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  82. Support Support --Camelia (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  83. Support Support this is generative, honest. and the acts that may come of this maybe will, if not succeed, fail better Shameran81 (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  84. No red flags for me and important to be part of the conversation. -LauraHale (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  85. --Holder (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  86. Support Support --Discott (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  87. Support. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  88. Support.Looking foward to making it a reality all the way from Cameroon Leuwec (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  89. African Hope (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have decided to weak endorse this direction. Switching to "neutral". --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  90. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  91. MKramer (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  92. I endorse this strategic direction. Ckoerner (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  93. Awjrichards (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  94. ABaso (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  95. Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 20:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  96. notafish }<';> 20:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  97. CVirtue (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  98. Erika Bjune, WMF Staff 23:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  99. 3BRBS (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  100. TNegrin (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  101. Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  102. Argentina --Alexav8 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  103. JVargas (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  104. Jackiekoerner (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  105. AVasanth (WMF) (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  106. --Wshyam (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC) I am an academic librarian interested in editing articles. I endorse this strategy so we can move on to the next phase.
    Wshyam, your vote should belong in the #Support section. I'll move it for you if you want. --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    Being bold and moving to support. I helped her add the comment and I'm pretty sure she'd appreciate the help. Thanks --AVasanth (WMF) (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  107. Support Support concise, modest and realistic, good work! Alice Klarr (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  108. Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC) volunteer and Foundation employee
  109. Ganesh Paudel (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  110. Support Support Calei--Caleidoscopic (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  111. Support Support I worked on this project, but also happily endorse this final result with my volunteer hat (user:Quiddity). -Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  112. Support Support Anthere (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  113. Support Support Looking forward to the next stage!! Islahaddow (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  114. Support Support JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  115. Support Support--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  116. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  117. Support Support. I have been following the strategy process loosely and took part in the strategy discussions at Wikimania. I'm glad we're deciding on a direction and moving forward. Deryck C. 16:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  118. Elitre (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  119. Support Support This direction is ambiguous enough to be flexible for all possible issues we encounter over the next decade. A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  120. Support Support --Jaluj (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  121. --Tgr (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  122. Support Support Tpt (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  123. DerHexer (Talk) 11:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Support as a volunteer. Besides that, I am also holding a staff capacity with WMDE.
  124. Support Support, with some concerns generally presented here. DrPZ (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral Neutral too much bla (as in most vision and mission statements), too wide focus, too vague goals, and a bit too little modesty --Ghilt (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Neutral really want to endorse the statement, in fact I whole heartedly agree it but here I am concerned that Please note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated, .. “This is the right way for us all to move forward together. Let’s go!”... sounds more like w:The Emperor's New Clothes I'm not convinced I'm seeing some magical new cloth. Gnangarra (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Neutral Since there are positive elements addressing access disparities I cannot oppose. Because there is nothing addressing the urgent need for self-critical humility and decisive action concerning open abuse of the "technology of manufacturing consensus" on very visible parts of the WMF projects (WM France, en.wiki), I cannot support this document as written. "Tell no lies, claim no easy victories." (Amilcar Cabral) SashiRolls (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Neutral I've read the proposal and found no great reason to disagree. The problem is that I don't see great reasons to agree either. In my humble opinion, we are trying to collect all knowledge and make it available to all the people. My greatest problem by far when editing is the lack of a definition of all the knowledge. Language communities can be very parochial: a local singer is more easily relevant than one from the other side of the river, not to say from another continent. And what is considered a proof of relevance in one place can be inexistent in another place (then, many things/people from there are irrelevant by default). Having seen that happen, I expected some general proposal of definitions and rules, and also of enforcement of such rules. None of that seems evident in the text. So I'm not willing to endorse it. B25es (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. (Changed from Oppose to Support to here. --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC))Sure, the direction may appear vague, "knowledge equity" is more human-centric and narrow, "knowledge as a service" is... I don't know what other words to put it, and the direction might not last very long. However, the direction did not say that it should last forever or something like that. Going to this direction can lead to better things, like newer tools and inclusion of other groups, such as authentic experts. (See newer comments below.) I'm uncertain whether the movement would concentrate on solely Wikipedia, but that is not what the movement should be about. Otherwise, why the movement as Wikipedia has advanced very far enough? --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

    Later further note, being one of the few non-WMF editors who (somewhat) endorse this direction is the sad part. As noted in the talk page, most of the endorsers are WMF staff (and WMF-affiliated volunteers), making others wary and suspicious about this process and the WMF itself. Attempts by WMF to move concerns to the subpage were IMHO poorly done and put a further divide between WMF and the non-WMF. I was close to switching back to "oppose" due to the votes done by the WMF members and concerns on the document raised, but I also noticed that most of the "oppose" side who proficiently write English well also edited either German, Ukrainian, or Russian Wikipedia. This may reinforce my earlier views that the whole Direction document is US-centric and would leave other non-English communities out. However, I would not switch sides yet as I've not seen yet more non-WMF editors from all communities voting on the Direction. The whole document speaks improvement and diversity, yet complaints about the document are inevitable. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

    Moving to Neutral Neutral. Right now, I'm no longer sure whether the direction will lead to better things. I now remember that I discussed word "knowledge" in the Drafting cycle, which I think has been the movement's theme. I'm now also convinced that "knowledge" is vague at best. I'm also convinced that the vagueness of this direction would allow openness of abuse. Also, "projects" is used twice, but the "Strategic direction" section doesn't say it. I also noticed that "beyond Wikimedia" was changed from "beyond Wikipedia". Therefore, I'm becoming more worried that the movement would become more Wikipedia-centric, which I have raised concerns about, regardless of what "beyond Wikimedia" means. Is this direction intended for mostly the encyclopedia project? Will this direction affect all communities? Will this direction be ineffective? How would this direction affect all non-encyclopedia projects whose purposes are different from Wikipedia's? Will more projects be created without the help and efforts of the movement? --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose I can not endorse the "direction". Ziko (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose as more editors that have expressed their concerns on this page which should be linked to here for reasons of clarity and fairness.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose as long as the new direction of the "movement" is to silence critical voices, this resolution cannot possibly be a way forward --Cirdan (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose For visible dissent - against a document of unlimited hybris. --Mautpreller (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose, do not agree with the document nor with the process--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Oppose The strategic direction is couched in very nebulous terms, which can mean everything or nothing. I cannot endorse this.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Oppose --Matthiasb (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Oppose this meaningless document. --Alexander (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Oppose Alsee (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. BA candidate.svg Weak oppose see my comment on Talk: or on ../Concerns. --Base (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    Oppose - See my comments at /Concerns. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    Switching to endorse this direction. --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC); see "Neutral". 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  11. I disagree both with the text of the document and with the process which resulted in the production of the document. --Wanderer777 (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Oppose I particularly dislike we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. This false flag is abused so much, that it is harmful rather than constructive. I also dislike the overall bla-bla tone. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Oppose Grueslayer (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Oppose since more than 13 years I write articles and launch WMF projects without having such "vision". I would like to continue in the same way. And I know we have a lot of problems and need solutions. First, we need such very concrete slutions and no global player visions, secondly I'm not sure if the discussion process of this document considered the real feeling and opinion of the huge community. -jkb- 00:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Oppose I do not agree to become a knowledge collecting slave of the all-mighty knowledge providing sect called Wikimedia movement. If this becomes the knowledge platform then we have created the next monopoly. --Varina (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Oppose -- O.Koslowski (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Oppose is not the kind of document that I expected. Already explained why in talk pages before ÀlexHinojo (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Oppose there are some good points both in the process and final documents but there are more points I cannot endorse --Barcelona (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Oppose A strategy direction should be tight and crunchy and focused. But this comes over as bland blancmange verbiage. More importantly, however worthy these aims are, the true strategic focus should be on the real existential survival issues for Wikimedia in the next years: (i) staying relevant to readers, and (ii) keeping life and vibrancy in the community. Jheald (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Oppose We probably need a strategy document, but not this strategy document (though much of it might work as the strategy for a US chapter). I spelled out some of my concerns a few days ago. There are important strategic issues that we need to face as a community, but this document misses or flubs too many of them. WereSpielChequers (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Oppose. The new draft superficially addresses the concerns I raised. However, it's plainly clear that the WMF has refused to learn from the blatant unforced errors it makes in the Third World and refuses to acknowledge the fact that not everyone is capable of contributing to Wikimedia projects constructively. Instead, they signal that they will double down instead ("we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege", "we will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from [...] contributing to free knowledge"), while not giving a rat's arse about the subsequent negative impact on the quality of the free knowledge we curate. I also disagree with the process this document was made. MER-C (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Oppose I don't see what's gained by the document. It also ignores the core challenge of declining editorship. The Wikimedia foundation should focus on determining what works in gaining new editors and double down on what works instead of trying to win everyone. If a project to increase the number of women inside of Wikimedia works: "Great, increase the size of the project." but if it doesn't work, fund something else. The same goes for interacting with other "marganalized communities". ChristianKl (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Oppose per ChristianKI, I genuinely have the idea that the drafted strategy is all just empty buzzwords and it doesn't seem to address any content- or community-related issues. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 12:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Oppose Nowy15 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Oppose, I find this 'strategy' to be made of platitudes and corporate jargon only, it's not related to the real needs of local Wikimedia communities, and the WMF has the ambitions to become supreme organisation of something that it cannot even specify. I see no "volunteer" or "volunteering" in this vision, there is also no one word about outflow of active and competent users (sometimes caused by WMF top down decisions, ignoring community decisions or more importantly ignoring the fact that Wikimedia projects are build by the bottom up activities and the WMF should only support local communities in the way they ask and not try to manage or govern them in any way). I also support what ChristianKI and MER-C wrote. I wanted to write here a long statement, but it would be just as pointless as this whole strategy thing. I see no value in this for Wikimedia projects communities and I think it's not even US-centric, but only WMF-centric (it's not suprise, in fact) and it'll be ok if it remain as a WMF PR statement – but by its ambiguity and vagueness, putting it in practice has too many dangerous possibilities. Wostr (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Abstention[edit]

  1. Ø Abstention Abstention I don't think this strategy will last for the years predicted and we will face a new one before 2020 is over. Why this hassle with top-heavy administration activities? The Foundation may produce texts without bothering the community. There's so much to do at the base. All in all, too much fuss about a simple PR text. Go on, but I will only benevolently watch ;-) --Sargoth (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Ø Abstention Abstention, I too, find I cannot endorse this strategy, as I find it too vague and potentially open to abuse. It is like the horse designed by a committee which ended up a camel. I accept that it was apparently done in good faith, and it is not blatantly bad, so I do not oppose as much as abstain from support. It leaves me with an uneasy feeling that something is not right, without being able to pin down exactly what it is. The process of endorsement was also deeply flawed. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Concerns[edit]

You can elaborate your concerns and dissenting opinion by editing Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement/Concerns.

  1. Oppose Oppose I can not endorse the "direction". Ziko (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    why, ziko? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, it is the focus on "highly structured information" (linked data) that worries me because there are also other types of important content. I oppose the "redefinition" of the "community". I think that the movement should be open, as a collection of wiki communities, but this redefinition includes practically everyone on the planet. I am also afraid that the Direction will be used to support "oral traditions" (as in the texts leading to the Direction), and to define "oral traditions" as "reliable sources". Ziko (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. Comment Comment A link to this page should be made available on the Endorsement page. I have a concern with the wording, "We pledge to consider the needs of our movement above our own" and have made comment elsewhere, but will restate here, as more appropriate. While an altruistic notion, why does the ENDORSEMENT of a strategy necessitate considering "the needs of [a] movement above [one's] own"? Altruism is selfless concern for others, yet is an INDIVIDUAL act born out of love & freedom. It is sacrifice FOR a cause, not TO a cause. Merely <thinking out loud> about wording. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Two quotes come to mind: "A mass-movement always places the 'cause' above the individual person, and sacrifices the person to the interests of the movement. Thus it empties the person of all that is his own, takes him out of himself, casts him in a mold which endows him with the ideas and aspirations of the group rather than his own...." —Thomas Merton on mass-movements in Disputed Questions (1953) and the [albeit out of context] idea that "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. Oppose Oppose Alsee (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    Comment I feel that "Equity" and "Service" direction is more US-centric (if not human-centric), isn't it? I don't know how the endorsers will implement this direction. Agree that "Concerns" subpage should be linked if WMF allows it. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    Also, knowledge is to not be treated as a "service" but a "value". Does "service" indicate dumbing or watering down something valuable and grand, like knowledge? If a reader doesn't care for knowledge, why serving a reader the knowledge? Also, I still think "knowledge equity" is too human-centric disguised as promoting "diversity". Is "human diversity" more important than "diversity" in a general sense? BTW, I see that the "Concerns" subpage is already linked at the Endorsement page, so that's good. --George Ho (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    George Ho, it is there because I put it there. Please watch the page to help ensure it stays that way.--Cirdan (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    Switching to opposeI find "knowledge equity" still too narrow and "knowledge as a service" appearing vain at best. --George Ho (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    Switching to the "endorsement" side soon. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) (Would no longer endorse it but not yet switching to "oppose". --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC))
  2. Oppose, bad process, bad document (at the edge of being dangerously bad), and should have been put up to RfC-equivalen process rather the to have solicited endorsements.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose --Mautpreller (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC) I'll never endorse a document that doesn't leave room for opposition.
  4. Strongly oppose. I reject the process and its outcome so far because the concerns of the German-speaking community have not been considered, and there is no room for opposition at all. It is a case in point that opposing opinions are not tolerated in the vote. So, those who would rather abstain or deviate from the hitherto result of the process have been forced to put their signature on this page which itself has not been linked to from the "endorsement" page. Let me say, for one, that Wikipedia is not Facebook where you can only express whether you like something or not. Dissent is at the very heart of Wikipedia culture, and as long as the Wikimedia Foundation does not tolerate dissenting opinions in discussions about its future direction the whole process is nothing but a farce that indeed would fit totalitarian systems such as the former East Bloc countries or North Korea, but not a process in an open and civilised community. A vision for all editors cannot be imposed upon them, it has to be agreed by a healthy majority. This is why I ask you to, first, include this page of dissenting votes in the original voting page on this wiki, and, second, to change the process so as to make it truly democratic as it should be. Only a vote of equals can serve as a legitimate reason for such a paper.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. at first, we don't need it - it worked until today without this. Second, the way it came to this point was at least "probelamtic". The WMF knew from the beginning, what would come out at the end. Even there was a call for participation, nearly everything what not wantes even before the call was ignored. We are not the Foundations Dumbasses. This is not what respect look like, this is not, how Democracy works. This is dictatorship. And third: everything here, the text, the ideas, are in form and meaning America centered. Once more: that the WMF is centred in the US was always a bad idea. "Der Weg zur Hölle ist gepflastert mit guten Vorsätzen." Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. [This is a copy of my comment on Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement, some local references may point there --Base (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)] I do BA candidate.svg not endorse the statement as well. There are many reasons. When I first was reading pre-Cycle 1 materials both as a new Meta-Wiki strategy coordinator and as an invitee to strategy track of Wikimedia Conference I saw a lot of vague highly philosophical gibberish. It was promised that in the end we will see something more solid, less vague. I do not see it. I realise it is strategy, I do not expect a script or a to do list as the outcome, just to be clear. But what I see is a document which does a worse job than the Vision statement and Wikipedia's 5 Pillars (extrapolated to wider Wikimedia) and a couple of other things we have (e.g. Founding principles). I cannot say that I oppose the document. I do not, it has points I agree with. But I know that some things in there are either naïve or untrue. Motives behind people contributing for one. My native community, Ukrainian, it is not fuelled by that almost divine mission of goodness on the way of free knowledge spread out. Fight for Ukrainian language place in the Internet, in society, and in the world. Ukrainian language's and Ukraine's. I cannot say if majority's but a considerable part of community's goal. Free knowledge is just a side-effect. In fact many would prefer a local Baidupedia if it existed. I am sure it is not the only community with similar motive present. I am sure it is not the sole "ulterior" motive we Wikimedia movement have in. That the "divine" reason is the common thing. Yes, OK. But the text makes one feel we are some angels dedicating our lives to free knowledge. We are not. Not all of us are anyway. Some of those who do not are though some of the most prominent contributors. I also see that some points do not resonate with an amount of community members' believes. Nor they do with some of WMF's actual actions and positions. Not always transparently stated, but widely known. I can give examples for both, mostly repeating other people's thoughts from other places, but it is too long a comment as it is.
    I was involved in the process around Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 and I didn't like it. My own performance was crappy, but the whole process even if one order of magnitude less than myself crappy was still. At the beginning it was all very raw, very hasty. The criteria by which languages to have coordinators were selected is an enigma. Reliance on discussion coordinators to do the same job as paid language coordinators was unfair and was not a best encouragement for them to appear. Insert more factors here. One of the main problems I saw when trying to be a discussion coordinator too was that communities just do not care. I know that some language coordinators had the same problem (while others on contrary had to deal with amount of work exceeding what one person should have been doing). This not caring is on the one hand probably a sign of lack of proactive encouragement from coordinators, on my part it is for sure. But it not completely this. People not caring is just a position of many. In Ukrainian Wikipedia we have a somewhat popular userbox "Do not chat idly, but write articles". Most Wikimedians know what they are doing. They know the problems of their segment of work. They know their own goals. Short and long term. I am pretty sure it is not just about individuals. I also was present (just observing) at a Belarusian conference on a strategy session they had. They were just mainly not ready to discuss strategy. With so much tactics to plan. The question is do they, the people who know what they are doing, need strategy? I doubt so. I am pretty sure that the majority of our wide community does not actually need this thing. I am not though talking that it is unneeded. It is an interesting thing to have, just another essay to link to on occasion (to justify a grant application for one). But local RfC on concrete issues, local RfCs on wider issues, or even local strategy discussions of our constituencies I think would be more useful. For instance is this document really useful for Wikinews? I don't think so. Not harmful, perhaps even not completely useless for instance recognising different forms of free knowledge resonates with WN, but no not really useful. I am pretty sure a Wikinews strategy direction would be more useful. Mediawiki. Translators of global Wikimedia stuff. Editors of Wikiproject Whatever. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Whatever. Wikiquote. Readers of Wikipedia from Wherever. This applies to any of them. Now, the process was we ask everyone equally, in reality those caring to respond, we build this thing. Now the entities like the one mentioned build their strategies within the frame. Isn't it an irony that this document talks about equity? I am pretty sure that the order should have been different. You need bricks to build a house. You do not make a house of clay and then chisel it to look as though made of bricks.
    And I agree with Pine. The document ended up arrogant(ish) and this phase of the process is not in wiki mood. Asking people to endorse something would actually get you win a ban for canvassing in many wikis. Having a two-side say is always the way Wikimedians chose.
    Disclaimer: Insert "IMHO" where it is not explicitly there; I am not trying to rally for opposition.
    --Base (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    MeatBall:SuperordinateGoal comes to mind. Nemo 21:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Oppose Preposterous. Fossa (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Lost voice I have concerns as where to place them I not to sure as it clearly on page says put them here, once you get here is put them there. My concern is the line on the endorsement page Please note that the strategic direction will not be renegotiated, but will serve as the agreed upon groundwork for phase 2 conversations. In short, the endorsement means: “This is the right way for us all to move forward together. Let’s go!” (emphasis is as posted) I understand the intent to keep the process focused on further developing the strategy, but some how this feels as if its not possible to raise any concern as we move forward even if the process itself appears to be failing, On En:WP AGF says its not a suicide pact this heavy handed statement implies that the process is the only one by which we will sink or survive and look out anyone who may see an alternative. Hopefully we don't get in to the position of the Emperor walking down the mall without any clothes. Gnangarra (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Oppose Very beautiful and sweet text. What we are good fellows. But the text has nothing to do with reality and practice. And how to implement it - there is no possibility. --Wanderer777 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Oppose When I read the draft text for Wikipedia in 2030, I am disturbed by the shere positive tone of voice. As if I am reading a leaflet of an advertising agency. The reality, that I experience in the four years since I have joined Wikipedia, is a bit rougher. Here, in The Netherlands and I presume also in other countries, there is a small minority within WP that argue/fight endlessly about minor details. Sometimes it looks like kindergarten. This infighting spoils the atmosphere within the organisation and discourages people to join the discussions.

When we develop a vision for the future of WP, I would wish that it would not be an ecosystem ( I hate that word, it is so hip) for free information, but , as the first social media, a safe environment, in which people cooperate with dignity and respect towards the other, to make WP a better place. And if they don’t posess this capacity, maybe the organisation can provice lessons to be learned. Furtheron the draft text speaks about lowering the threshold in order to give people that live in remote places, with not to much education, a possiblity to join Wikipedia. This also is in harsh contrast with my experience with Wikipedia. You have to go through so much, detailed and complicated information about sources, copyright, linking etc.etc. that you need an university degree to be a proper Wikipedian. My plea would be to create a Wikipedia for dummies. Best regards.Hamnico (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


Alternative proposal[edit]

The community should propose an alternative, so that instead of simply asking for endorsements, the two can be compared. For example, instead of knowledge as a service, we could offer project improvement as a service, Education Program improvement recommendations as a service, and backlog sorting as a service. We can offer concrete recommendations for attracting new editors such as replacing or supplementing the pencil icon on the mobile view with the word "edit" in square brackets, autosave in javascript, a more sophisticated diff algorithm and wikitext delimiter pseudosectioning for reducing edit conflicts, and proposals for securing the permanent rights to edits via sliding-scale extrinsic rewards, as a service. 185.13.106.227 21:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)