Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement/Concerns

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

This page has been set up to collect concerns regarding the endorsement of the Strategic Direction. The content of this page is displayed at the bottom of the main page.

Concerns regarding endorsement of the Strategic Direction[edit]

  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)


Declining request for endorsement[edit]

I have been thinking about the request for endorsement of this draft for some time.

I am troubled by the first words of the lead sentence, which currently read "Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge..." I think that for Wikimedia to be "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge" (emphasis added) would be both unhealthy and unwise. Diversity fosters opportunities and resilience. Also, both WMF and the Wikimedia community have histories of organizational problems, shortcomings, and all-too-human frailties which lead me to question the wisdom of entrusting WMF and the Wikimedia community to be "the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge." To me the draft has a tone of boldlness to the point of selfishness and vanity. I think that a measure of humility in regards to ourselves, and a measure of respect and generosity toward others' infrastructure, would be beneficial.

I also would suggest that, while "infrastructure" may be a good word to describe a high-profile function of WMF and contributors of many kinds, "infrastructure" probably is not the first word that crosses into the minds of content creators and content consumers when thinking about the nature of Wikimedia. I think that "Infrastructure" may be a word that is better suited for a place that, while high-profile, is elsewhere in the document.

I am troubled by the process of the request for endorsement, which in my opinion should instead be a request for comment requiring a community consensus or at least a simple majority in favor.

I would need to spend multiple hours to review the draft in detail, but the above problems are sufficient for me to decline to endorse both the document and the ratification process in their current form.

Regretfully,

--Pine 06:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And how do we encourage people to withdraw their endorsements on the finalized direction, Pine? --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
George Ho,
I'm not planning to campaign against the document, so I'm not going to reach out to people to encourage them to withdraw their endorsements.
I think that the strategy process started with good intentions, I understand the desire to articulate a strategy, and I'm glad that WMF made some meaningful efforts to have a bottom-up process. However, as I wrote above, I personally disagree with the document in its current form, and with the choice to request endorsements instead of submitting the document to an RfC or some kind of democratic process.
My dissatisfaction is unlikely to make any difference to those people who are responsible for the draft and for the ratification process (who, I would point out, are WMF appointees rather than community-elected representatives) and who have made clear that they are firm in their support of the current draft regardless of what anyone else thinks, so the situation is what it is. Unless someone wants to actively campaign against the document or the process, I think that those of us who are dissatisfied with the situation should register our dissatisfaction but continue to put one foot in front of the other, moving forward as we think best in consultation with others.
From my perspective it is disappointing that the good intentions of the process became weighed down with the problems that I mentioned. My guess is that if I walk through the document in detail that I will find elements that I like, but at this point no positive aspects could persuade me to endorse the document or ratification process as a whole.
Regretfully,
--Pine 07:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Me too. I fully agree with what you said. I will not endorse the statement, as I explained on a multiple previous occasions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I share Pine's concerns. The future information landscape needs more diversity than that implied here, especially given Wikimedia projects' proven susceptibility to various forms of manipulation. I also share his concerns about the endorsement process: anyone developing a strategy on behalf of the movement should have confidence enough in their work to believe that the result will be accepted by community consensus in a free democratic process. If instead you only ask for Yes votes, this is liable to create the impression that, rather than speaking for the movement, you have your own agenda and are afraid the movement might disagree with it. --Andreas JN466 16:47, 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)

Thanks for writing this, it is actually helpful (though probably will have no effect whatsoever).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I put my name in the list of “individual contributors”, with a Oppose Oppose template. Alas, it has been removed, and located in a different page: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement/Concerns. Obviously it is the idea to make it less visible. --Ziko (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ziko, I restored it. It is abusive to modify or blank people's comments. Alsee (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Pine, George Ho, Ymblanter, Base: Ziko and I have responded with opposes. Merely declining to endorse is to let them make us invisible. If you want to oppose, go ahead and oppose. Alsee (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • 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. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    Peter (Southwood), and others: Note that declining to respond results in in being BANNED from participating in further discussions. Quote: necessary step in order to participate in phase 2 discussions. Alsee (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    To be honest, I consider Phase I sufficiently broken to have no incentive to participate in Phase II. I do not foresee any potential development of the situation which could lead me to endorse the outcome of Phase II.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    And that actually identifies what I find most objectionable about the whole warped process. I refuse on principle to be coerced like this. Does anyone know who made this decision? I wonder when and where the principle of consensus was swept under the carpet as inconvenient. Thank you for pointing this out, I now know what it is that was bothering me about the process. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    The WMF budgeted $2.5 million[2] for consultants and contractors etc for this strategy process. Rather than utilizing community members with experience in processing responses into a consensus summary, they took a conventional authoritarian-top-down approach. Items were cherry-picked to support the WMF's internal agendas, while more widely supported things were tossed in the trash. Alsee (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know whether your analysis is correct, but it does agree with the impression I am getting of the process. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


I join concerns raised here, so most likely I will individually vote against the endorsement. As Pine, I praise the effort of the foundation to create emulation around strategy discussion within the movement. Also, for what I was able to participate in the process, that was interesting, informative, sometimes frustrating, more often joyful. Now for the global result endorsement, while as some stated in more details above, this is more a party politics stuff. So I would advice to make your decision to (not) respond with political considerations in mind. As far as I'm concerned, I will encourage any user group in which I am active to endorse the proposal, for pure promotional purposes, especially under-represented user groups. --Psychoslave (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. Comment Comment 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) 17:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I can’t say that I can endorse it because it seems to be the epitome of a non-Neutral Point-Of-View, particularly the bit where they say that an overrepresentation of male 🚹 contributors distort the knowledgebase or makes it less reliable for females, I don’t think 🤔 that knowledge has a gender gender, nor can 🥫 I find any real concrete strategies to add female 🚺 representation so the plans seem more like empty buzzwords than anything else, which brings to the more important question, how would it benefit the community? Although on paper 📰 the Wikimedia “communities” are based on the best arguments winning 🥇 and that the argument and not the person making the argument is important in reality most of the time “consensus” is used outside of Wikimedia Commons (where copyright © laws do prevails over the “vote”-based system) it is essentially a vote-based system but that’s probably an issue in the community and not the Foundation, what is an issue with the Foundation is that they see knowledge as being “gendered”, well as someone from Viet-Nam I also write ✍🏻 about Japanese subjects like w:nl:Japanse mon (munteenheid) or Korean subjects like w:nl:Koreaanse mun, does that mean that my knowledge on the subject is inherently less valuable than someone of their ethnicities, how about Okinawan subjects like w:nl:Riukiuaanse mon? Because that is essentially the door 🚪 the Wikimedia Foundation would be opening by saying that “female knowledge” is different from “male knowledge”, because I know that these strategic directions don’t really affect any real Wikimedia projects in any tangible way I won’t oppose it, and honestly as long as the Foundation won’t perma-ban people by bot because they accidentally used a link 🔗 that’s considered “spam” I don’t really take much issue with strategic directions and honestly just hope that they’ll invest more in things like Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons, and upgrade the Mediawiki software. I personally don't see 🙈 the merits in differentiating between male and female contributors. 🚻 = Equal.

How about investing some of those millions in making mobile editing more convenient? As someone who exclusively owns a wireless telephone 📞 to edit and upload with a mobile version of the Wikimedia Commons UploadWizard would be swell, or the ability to select “edit the whole page” from clicking on the pencil “✏” on top, the Wikimedia Foundation needs to respect mobile-users, and recognise that cell.-phones aren’t just tools for viewing. When signed out talk pages aren’t visible at the bottom of a page, when signed in it is still hardly accessible, editing Wikimedia Commons files with the mobile browser is next to impossible (half the data won't show up, so you're forced to use the desktop-browser to edit categories, Etc.) and I can name a hundred 💯 complaints more, but from what I’ve learned on the IRC actually naming any issues with mobile-editing will get you banned. Guess that us mobile-users will forever be underrepresented second-class citizens.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 10:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

Was not transcluding, moved to Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Alternative proposal. 185.13.106.227 12:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)