Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Drafting/French Wikipedia
Information[edit]
- Discussion coordinators summarize and submit local feedback to the draft via the summary skeleton.
- If a point is "above the bar" (priority 1) - strong sentiment by the local community that something absolutely needs to change, be removed or added - then the coordinator also adds comments to the talk page on Meta as well while referencing the sources statement - do this on an ongoing basis.
- Sections
- A - Direction: The future we imagine (green box).
- B - Remaining sections: Reasoning, Implications.
- Priorities
- 1 - This is absolutely necessary change (either to keep or to eliminate)
- 2 - This is a change, but not absolutely necessary
| Section | Priority | Summary Statement | Overall sentiment | Keyword or phrase |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1 | The « political » point « We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to our shared knowledge » is problematic and needs to be taken into consideration. The success of our joint work depends on the respect regarding our visitors. The principle of neutrality has made the reputation and prosperity of our movement for free knowledge. | concern | neutrality, politics |
| B | 2 | In « our networks [...] will connect with individuals and institutions to share knowledge through open standards and structures » there is lots of questions to be raised in order to have institutions involved : how shall be address conflicts between institution / volunteer, institution / institution? How will the votes be done? Touam | concern | institutions' participation |
| A/B | 1 | The current text strongly supports Wikimedia / Wikipedia confusion. What bothers me deeply is that all this approach is rooted in the principle that Wikimedia = Wikipedia. It can be specified that Wikimedia is not only wikipedia but also Commons, Wikitionary, etc. Fuucx, Trizek | concern | confusion |
| A/B | 1 | Financial questions need to be raised since, if the the movement is to engage more strongly in politics, it will be harder to explain the neutrality of our projects while they are supposed to be non-political, but simultaneously "funded" by the incomes generated by the movement, which movement is engaged politically. Fanchb29 | concern | neutrality |
| A/B | 1 | This text is written in favor of new communities while neglecting existing communities. The principle of neutrality will be threatened if communities are able to write articles as they wish. The text does not specify the necessary means nor how these objectives will be met. Fanchb29 | concern | existing communities |
| A/B | 1 | The text is too partisan. Who will decide which criteria to be used in order to identify which communities of knowledge "that have been left out by structures of power and privilege"? Jean-Christophe BENOIST, Jean trans h+ | concern | politics |
| A/B | 1 | « break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge », not matter how noble this cause is, This is already partisan. WP does not existe for serving a cause or a political or philosophical ideal. Jbdeparis | concern | politics |
| A/B | 1 | Wikipedia supports wikimedia since the funds come from notices exposed on wikipedia. If the image of wikipedia gets excessively distorted by emphasizing on politics or by departing too far from our mission of spreading serious and accurate knowledge, you are likely to "kill" in a certain manner the goose that has laid the golden egg. | concern | neutrality |