Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/Wikimedia Polska 2017 meeting

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


What group or community is this source coming from?

Name of group Wikimedia Polska off-line meeting at Wikimedia Polska Conference 2017
virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) Bydgoszcz/Poland, 03.06.2017 from 9 till 11 a.m. CEST
Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) off-line, 2 hrs long in-person meeting
# of participants in this discussion (a rough count) 14
Group 2 final statements
Group 1 final statements
Group 1 at work
Group 2 at work
Final summary discussion
Reporting outcomes by Aegis
Reporting outcomes by Wojciech


The summary is a group of summary sentences and associated keywords that describe the relevant topic(s). Below is an example.

Fill in the table, using these 2 keys.

Theme key
  1. Healthy, inclusive communities
  2. The augmented age
  3. A truly global movement
  4. The most trusted source of knowledge
  5. Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem
Questions key
  1. What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
  2. How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
  3. 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?
  4. What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
  5. Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?

Line Theme (refer to key) Question (refer to key) Summary Statement Keywords
1 A 1 The most important issue is to find and answer why the number of editors is not growing; then we should focus on solving the main problems preventing people to join Wikimedia projects. users retention
2 A 4 Answering the above question it was found that: people think that Wikipedia already contains everything so why to add anything new. completeness of the content
3 A 4 Answering the above question it was found that: writing is hard due to templates, syntax of references and other technical obstacles technical obstacles
4 A 4 Answering the above question it was found that: editing is hard due to unfriendly and hierarchical community of current editors. unfriendly community
5 A 4 Answering the above question it was found that: people are leaving projects due to problems to make progress inside community - such as lost admin elections unfriendly community
6 A 5 In order to solve the problems with non understanding how Wikipedia works and that it is still unfinished a PR company and/or friendly NGO and/or education institutions could be partners to organize big scale campaign to explain this to the public. PR campaign
7 A and B 3 Method of editing should be changed in order to get rid of unnecessary technical obstacles and more friendly attitude towards newbies - i.e. resignation from templates or automating them, make editing button more visible, make harder or resign from one-button revert button etc. editing interface improvements
8 A 4 There should be a semi-automatic system to list the most "toxic" users (for example by finding those who makes most reverts and deleting) and then screen their behaviour and asking community to remove their wiki-functions or blocking if needed. toxic users
9 A 4 Instead of blocking toxic users some sort of organized "therapy" of them might be implemented toxic users
10 A 4 There should be created a technical or social methods to give newbie users an initiation time during which they would be protected from toxic users' actions. newbies vs toxic users
11 D 3 At the current state of contributors' communities of Wikimedia projects it is hard to engage experts due to egalitarian methods of decision making; therefore current contributors should somehow resign from part of their normal "editing powers" to make room for experts. experts vs egalitarism
12 D 4 Expert's role might not be necessary absolute decisive; they might however play a role of external advisors or reviewers, but this roles should be somehow defined and organized to be really useful. advisory experts
13 D 4 Experts can be attracted by doing common projects with their mother institutions, so they can be slowly and gradually transformed into wikimedians during cooperative work with regular wikimedians. outreach for experts
14 D 3 We need at least 2 experts in each field as otherwise there is a danger that one expert can force his/her own POV; when there is only one available he/she should be very carefully screened towards pushing their own POV. POV of experts
15 D 4 We should first recognize the most important content gaps and then focus on finding and engaging experts in these fields content gap
16 D 4 Once found and engaged important experts should be under special care preventing them from community hate and harassment. harassment of experts
17 E 2 In order to be really useful as content provider for mainstream, official education processes, we first need to have most trusted content, therefore theme D goals must be achieved first then we might think about theme E. quality of content
18 E 4 However the Wikimedia project's content can be used as a good example how to recognize good knowledge from fake information by analysing the quality of sources in a process of teaching critical reading and thinking. fake information recognition

Detailed notes (Optional)[edit]

The Strategy meeting during the Wikimedia Polska 2017 Conference took place on Saturday, 03.06.2017 in Bydgoszcz, in Hotel Ikar small conference room and took 2 hrs. 12 participants were involved in the entire session, 2 others joined us only part time.

After initial lecture provided by host of the discussion: Polimerek, the attendants were asked which themes in cycle 2 they think are most important. They could choose up to 2 themes.

5 attendants selected theme 1
3 attendants selected theme 3
3 attendants selected theme 4
3 attendants selected theme 5
Nobody selected theme 2

Based on this the attendants were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 focused on theme 1 & 3, Group 2 selected themes 4 & 5. Each team selected their secretaries.

Group 1: Themes 4 & 5: Krokus, Gytha, Wojciech Pędzich (secretary of the group), Maire, Ented, Gdarin.
Group 2: Themes 1 & 3 (in practice mainly 1): Julo, PiotrekD, Karol007, Aegis Maelstrom (secretary of the group), Wargo (observer), and part time User:Halibutt

Basically, attendants were trying first to answer together the 5 "standard" questions per theme, but then they rather discussed what are the most important goals in each theme and how to achieve them. After finishing discussion both groups wrote their statements on posters and presented to the all participants of the session. The outcomes were discussed together which resulted in adding some more statements and refining the others.