Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 3/Spanish-speaking community - Telegram group
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|
Fill in the table below, using these 2 keys.
- Key Insight
- The Western encyclopedia model is not serving the evolving needs of people who want to learn.
- Knowledge sharing has become highly social across the globe.
- Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources.
- The discovery and sharing of trusted information have historically continued to evolve.
- Trends in misinformation are increasing and may challenge the ability for Wikimedians to find trustworthy sources of knowledge.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
|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|4||1||A||Audio is obsolete with the next edition, and the problem will be widely solved by screen readers.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)
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.