Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Spanish-speaking community - Telegram group

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

Information[edit]

What group or community is this source coming from?

name of group Spanish-speaking community
virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) offwiki (join us!)
Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) Telegram group
# of participants in this discussion (a rough count) 39

Summary[edit]

Fill in the table below, using these 2 keys.

Key Insight
  1. The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.
  2. Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.
  3. Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.
  4. The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.
  5. Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.
  6. Mobile will continue to grow. Products will evolve and use new technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality. These will change how we create, present, and distribute knowledge.
  7. As the world population undergoes major shifts, the Wikimedia movement has an opportunity to help improve the knowledge available in more places and to more people.
  8. Readers in seven of our most active countries have little understanding of how Wikipedia works, is structured, is funded, and how content is created.
Overall (either)
  • supportive
  • concern
  • neutral
Line Week # Key insight Summary Statement Overall Keyword
1 1 A Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it is not a textbook or a storybook. In spite of this, I believe that Spoken Wikipedia project should be relaunched. concern audio
2 1 A I totally adhere to the idea, we can't only keep the written format, because it generates inequalities. supportive format
3 1 A The issue is also related to ensuring access to blind and visually impaired people and usability with screen reader softwares. supportive disabled people
4 1 A Audio is obsolete with the next edition, and the problem will be widely solved by screen readers. I would think that Wikipedia should offer rich and deep content, and having tools to help answer readers' questions and useful ways to present them. supportive rich content
5 1 A The more nourished articles are, the more feasible is the use of semantic technology, since the range of action is broader and the response more accurate. neutral semantic wiki
6 1 A-B We should work on iconography, graphics and acoustics, as well as facilitating the communication of people from different countries and languages. It is more attractive, fast and dynamic. supportive multimedia
7 1 A-B Our interface is outdated and obsolete -- we are writing an encyclopedia that looks just like a book: text, text, and more text, and maybe some photos. The advantages of multimedia are completely wasted. supportive multimedia
8 1 A We have multiple tools that allow us to do complex things (e.g. chronological diagrams), but few people know how to use them. Often documentation doesn't exist, and if it exists it is usually outdated or only in English. neutral tools
9 1 A Maybe we don't even need to create a new tool that coexists with another that is already implemented, but create a more visual editor for that tool. neutral tools
10 1 A For me all these tools are neither modern nor current. That is why young people prefer other types of platforms today. supportive tools
11 1 A There is consensus that the format (layout) is obsolete and talk about iconography, audio, or even holograms is very interesting. supportive interface
12 1 B It is increasingly common to acquire the information and knowledge you need in your Facebook newsfeed, or by asking in the whatsapp/telegram group in which you know someone is going to answer (as examples). neutral social media
13 1 B I think we should be open to the social element. The issue is credibility. neutral social media
14 1 B I think that rather should create a more friendly support to share, many answer questions with links and many of those links are Wikipedia. And it should focus on how to build knowledge, not so much as producing and consuming. Maybe we could have a small space per article that allows suggestions with icons that express general themes -- Did you like this article? What could we improve? supportive communication
15 1 B These functions are already covered by the tak page, they don't correspond to the article page. In fact, the "what would you improve" corresponds fully to the purpose of the talk page. concern talk page
16 2 C I think it's time to expand the concept of what is a reliable source. If I'm in a little town and the only reference I have is the local historian, an interview recorded in audio or a YouTube video has to be valid. Written sources should not be the only ones valid. supportive oral sources
17 2 C We should be able to accept documentaries and video/audio recordings. There are some cultures that don't have a written tradition (e.g., Romani people). supportive oral sources
18 2 C Radio broadcasts, podcasts, etc. should also be valid, if possible by attaching the URL and the time when the relevant thing is said (it's the data equivalent to the page number in books and magazines). supportive audio sources
19 2 C The problem is that they aren't lasting sources, unless they reach a lasting third-party catalog (e.g. Web Archive). concern audio sources
20 2 C It is not a matter of accepting the anyone's opinion or fake news. Neither would consider my neighbor's documentaries as sources. neutral reliability
21 2 C I believe that one way to integrate knowledge now considered not linkable/verifiable is to make a big effort to digitize those sources that aren't available online, but which are found in archives, libraries, newspapers, museums, and social/popular organizations. supportive libraries, digitization
22 2 C Wikipedia is a good encyclopedia and there is no reason to distort it. Instead, an additional project should be created for allowing expressions don't have the Wikipedia's reliable sources, having the flexibility and adaptability that oral cultures need to fulfill the mission (the sum of knowledge). neutral sister project
23 2 C No new project to add new sources is needed -- this is why Wikibooks and Wikimedia Commons exist. neutral sister project
24 3 E It seems to me that the verifiability policies in force, imperfect as they are, have been working well. neutral policies
25 3 E We need to practice the consensus and analysis on the use of sources, not harden or change policies. neutral consensus
26 3 E Misinformation is hard to fight regarding sources, because on internet you will always find a person who contradicts everything else. Perhaps we should consider being a bit more rigorous with sources in the future. supportive policies
27 3 E Post-truth is not something new, there are the many conspiracy theories that resist any argument that refutes them. They are usually groups that have a very limited set of trusted sources -which it doesn't mean that they are encyclopedically reliable- and that they simply dismiss any other source accusing it of manipulation or worse. neutral post-truth
28 3 E There are many people in Wikipedia with this type of conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, in the discussions the one with most time available prevails. neutral wikipedians
29 3 E Journalism is turning towards sensationalism. Perhaps one way to face this is adapting the methodology fact-checking organizations have around the world. supportive fact checking
30 3 E I agree that the issue is not having policies "against the post-truth", but adapting and promoting fact-checking methodologies. I think that reliable sources can be found on internet, they are still there and continue appearing, the problem is to have the tools to find them. supportive fact checking
31 3 E Perhaps an thumb up/down extension to validate sources could be installed. neutral tools
32 3 E The problem is not that simple, because sometimes it is not about the falsity of the data, but of emphasis and bias. For example, it is very common for the press to use sensationalist headlines and then the news is not related with it, which you don't realize until you read it. concern clickbait
33 3 E We could spread neutrality policies better and make them easier to understand. Also through initiatives such as 1Lib1Ref or Annotating All Knowledge, which creates a "layer" of annotations on the web, which gives the information more context when navigating. supportive NPOV, partnerships
34 3 E Some artificial intelligence system could be created to check the sources veracity (e.g. Fake News Detector AI). Something like ORES but for reliable sources. It may never be infallible, but it may help. supportive AI, tools
35 3 E Not because a media is satirical or humorous, all its information is false. For example, the Mongolia magazine has a real-news section on some aspects of Spanish society. On the contrary, a medium considered serious may publish false information or propagandistic-sourced (e.g. North Korea news). That's why sources can not be accepted/discarded without context. neutral context
36 3 E It is useful to think in artificial intelligence as "decision-making aid" instead of "decision maker". AI can perfectly assemble lists of doubtful links for a review of some hierarchical (human) community entity dedicated to the extermination of dubious sources and publications. supportive AI, fact checking
37 3 E Increasing levels of misinformation are difficult to counteract. But historically it has always been like this, there is nothing new under the sun. And we will have to look for source after source and verify data as journalists do. concern misinformation, fact checking
38 4 F The content presentation and distribution must be adjusted to the new ways in which the internet will be consumed. Although it is a challenge of the knowledge-contributor community, it is the Foundation that must provide these new mechanisms. supportive content
39 4 F The new technologies development must fall into a mixed formula, with hired and volunteer people, and always under the model of free software. Emphasis should also be placed on improving free technologies to produce/nterpret knowledge in multiple formats: translation-free tools, optical character recognition, speech recognition, etc. neutral format
40 4 F The current model of WMF software governance is not good, as it is very difficult for volunteers to actively contribute to the mediawiki development. The Code of Conduct is a positive step, but much still remains to be done. concern software, mediawiki
41 5 G It seems interesting to me that, as the population of editors is constantly renewed, the contents are 'automatically' renewed and updated. If the population of publishers stagnates, the contents necessarily age and become irrelevant. supportive population
42 5 G The passage of time causes new editors to approach and others to withdraw. Interests on what to write change, which is the natural operation of the platform. neutral writers
43 5 G I don't think Wikipedia meets the needs of readers. Probably more of the editors. How to do it in the future? Broadening the spectrum of publishers. The more diverse the people, the more likely we will satisfy different readers. supportive diversity
44 5 H The Wikimedia movement must work on strategic communication, which would help to break the inbreeding dynamics that are seriously harming the movement. If we don't want to be perceived as a Silicon Valley company, communication can not pretend to mimic Silicon Valley business strategies. supportive communication
45 5 H There are also communication problems in the fundraising campaign. Some friends told me the bad impression the banner caused on them, because it had made them understand that the WMF was finishing and that Wikipedia was about to close. There are important cultural differences to consider when placing banners. support fundraising, banners
46 5 H The communication issue has been worked with the WMF, but it has not been possible to change the style of the messages, which we pointed out to the WMF team at Iberconf 2017 and was reflected in the "Buenos Aires Letter". neutral communication
47 5 H In countries like Bolivia donation is not enabled, only when I was in Mexico I could see the banner. After reading it, I realized that this type of ads would not be effective in me country and also understood why users consider it aggressive/annoying/not effective. supportive fundraising, banners
48 5 H There is a need for general reflection on the WMF strategic communication and its objectives, which must be connected not only with the donations/economic priority but with making visible the work, value, wealth and diversity of the communities that are part of the movement. supportive communication
49 5 H Wikimedia should begin to understand that we can't meet the current and future needs of our readers as long as we continue with a unique anglo/northern view. They should understand that cultures diversity necessarily implies diversity of looks. Wikipedia is not synonymous with English Wikipedia. supportive diversity
50 5 H In the background, Wikimedia echoes anglo-american cultural imperialism. On the surface, it gives the impression of promoting linguistic and geographical diversity. However, if you scratches, it is clear that his focus is on the United States and English. supportive communications, diversity, language

Detailed notes (Optional)[edit]

If you have detailed notes in addition to the summary, you may add them here. For example, the notes may come from an in-person discussion or workshop. If your discussion happened on a wiki or other online space, you do not need to copy the detailed notes here.