Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/Spanish Wikipedia
< Strategy | Wikimedia movement | 2017 | Sources(Redirected from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources Cycle 2/Spanish Wikipedia)Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)||es:Wikipedia:Estrategia 2017|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||local wiki|
|# of participants in this discussion (a rough count)||21|
- Theme key
- Healthy, inclusive communities
- The augmented age
- A truly global movement
- The most trusted source of knowledge
- Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem
- Questions key
- What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
- How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
- 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?
- What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
- Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?
|1||A||1||A good environment for newcomers is fundamental if we want to increase significantly the number of active wikipedians, which is the reason for having good introductory courses to Wikipedia.||New users|
|2||B||1||With the Wikidata development advances, I don't have a doubt that by 2030 it can be achieved a notable advance in the possibilities to apply Wikidata to education, while I am slightly skeptical about achieving quality automatic translations in the same period.||Adapting to technological context, Automation|
|3||B||2||The other themes are important, but this is the most relevant, because it not only aims to increase the reach of Wikimedia, but to introduce (artificial) intelligence and semantic management.||Adapting to technological context|
|4||B||3||We must continue what we have already done. Only if the plans have a stumbling block in terms of funding, specialists recruitment, or other shortcomings, the new projects could evaluate to slow down, restructure or adopt alternatives.||Innovation|
|5||B||4||Both closed and open training, supplementary or extension activities should be developed, and a scholarship program for students to achieve a continuous training.||Quality content|
|6||B||4||We must bet to improve education with a mix of orientations, technologies, and organizational methodologies, using the Wikipedia contents and the collaborative focus.||Expanding to other medias|
|7||C||1||This aspiration is very attractive at a theoretical level, but hard and slow to achieve in practice, due to the existing (and future) inequalities in the world.||Emerging communities|
|8||C||2||This is the least viable among the five themes, so it should have less priority.||Sustainability & growth|
|9||C||1||We must get people to explore Wikipedia and not just for task-related uses. For this, communication between users, photos use and reach should be improved.||Outreach & awareness|
|10||D||1||If we follow and focus our efforts on this topic, we would make Wikipedia and its sister projects to inspire more confidence towards the rest of ordinary people, and they could help us to encourage others to participate and trust in Wikimedia.||Reliability & credibility|
|11||D||2||Although all themes are important, this is especially important because it is a recurrent topic for people who do not know the movement, since many of them ignore the policies that rule the content (reliability, neutrality).||Reliability & credibility|
|12||D||3||It is possible to achieve this theme without leaving aside the others, since it can be easily treated if there is willingness to do so.||Achievement|
|13||D||4||One way to promote our projects as reliable information sources is by teaching (either through editatons or workshops) our policies related to the content created and published, such as reliability, NPOV, copyright, notability, etc.||Reliability & credibility|
|14||D||5||To put this topic into action, I think the Wikimedia chapters would be good allies, since they can organize different workshops or sessions where these aspects could be explained both to teachers and other common users who are not familiar with our projects.||Reliability & credibility|
|15||D||4||Wikimedia should be a much more respected organization but it is not, largely because of traditional media which criticize and blame Wikimedia with false affirmations (superficiality, anarchy, etc.) by ignorance or simple snobbery. They probably see it as a threat.||Reliability & credibility|
|16||D||2||It is an important subject — although I believe that, to some extent, this matter has already been attained, at least partially.||Achievement|
|17||D||4||One of the most important shortcomings is the recurrent vandalism. Efforts should be made to cut off (or at least minimize) vandalism.||Quality content|
|18||E||1||This theme will have a big impact, because the pattern is already tested. The only thing to increase is our reach scale, by having more and bigger on-line and offline Wikimedia activities.||Education|
|19||E||2||This issue has enormous importance, as it could allow us to reach a large population, with resources that are already being tested.||Education|
|20||E||4||Knowledge seekers specialized in the handling of Wikipedia entries will be trained -- our hope is to build a new generation of knowledge suppliers and seekers, who will take care of the growing knowledge body that is forming.||Education|
|21||D||3||The ability of any reader to edit Wikipedia should be limited, in order to become a reliable, high-quality, and neutral source of knowledge, by giving more control to the admins.||Reliability & credibility|
|22||D||3||It is necessary to exercise greater control over contents, by limiting the edition of some of them to the people with the enough experience or studies to do so.||Reliability & credibility|
|23||D||1||It is fundamental for Wikipedia being the most respected source of knowledge, not only because it is the most famous one but also because of the impact it has/will have on our future generations, being the most precious tool of our future.||Knowledge|
|24||A/C||2||We should focus on themes A & C -- they are core themes, as well as those that require doing more things. The basis of what needs to be done is in the very definition of movement: a group of volunteers tries to gather all the knowledge to make it available to the whole world.||Sustainability & growth|
|25||A||3||To gain more newcomers, we should have in mind that nobody is born wise and the long-time wikimedians have to express themselves clearly.||New users|
|26||A||4||Universal non-negotiable criteria has to be set to rule the users (mainly editors) relations and the task definitions, which must govern all the language communities.||Community health|
|27||C||3||To be truly global, we must combat localism (as the establishment of peculiar norms according to language versions) -- There should be no excluded topics for language reasons, because we have to recieve (and be able to distribute) all knowledge.||Availability across languages|
|28||C||1||The impact would be the gaps reduction, such as gender or geographical ones, which we inherited from traditional encyclopedias but, unlike these, we are aware of and we are working to reduce those gaps.||Accessibility in emerging communities|
|29||B||3||New technology will appear and we will have to apply it -- The only thing we can do is to have an open mind.||Adapting to technological context|
|30||E||1||It is the simplest theme, because we have things in our favor. Eliminated the other general sources, the user ends up in Wikimedia. Therefore we are a dominant factor on knowledge and we have to consider how to play that card.||Education|
|31||B||1||Wiki[p/m]edia is an example of how freedom of knowledge enriches the internet ecosystem with free and open premises, which contributes to create a healthy and necessary counterweight to the data growth and accumulation model that leads the Internet "big players", which record, accumulate and monetize the people's data and human knowledge for the purpose of economic exploitation.||Accessibility of content|
|32||B||3||Wikimedia does its best as far as its resources and possibilities in adapting its platforms to technological changes, considering that the advance of the Internet is strongly determined by the markets, whose actors will have a study and technological development substantially superior to that of a voluntary community.||Accessibility of content|
|33||B||4||Accessibility should be an element to be considered permanently in Wikipedia's technological development, both in its reading and editing phase. Maintaining the right standards for the most common reading software for people with different abilities is substantial to keep it available to more people.||Accessibility of content|
|34||B||4||Automatic tasks and innovation should also be promoted to more actors who wish to support the improvement of the experience for those who write and maintain Wikipedia. WMF's speech in the search for innovation and automation is usually read-oriented, but the editing work is the other half of the project.||Automation|
|35||D||4||I don't agree that the media misrepresents Wikipedia, in fact I rarely hear the media mention WP in USA. I think the best way to combat these poor perceptions is to admit that we have reliability issues and make it more reliable. With the exception of encyclopedias, we are not in competition with the other media -- on the contrary, we need them as sources of information.||Reliability & credibility|
|36||D||1||Vandalism is something common in a website that allows free editing, even allowing anonymous IPs doing so. I agree that it is necessary to eradicate it but without affecting the philosophy of free editing and a potencial censorship.||Free, Quality content|
|37||D||2||This topic is the most important of which have been raised. We can not be satisfied with providing knowledge in a free way, we also have to make sure that the knowledge we give is accurate and unbiased.||Free, Neutrality|
|38||D||3||This theme is not necessarily an alternative to the others but goes hand in hand with some of them. For example, a way to improve the quality of our content is to involve more and better to individuals and groups that don't currently contribute (theme E), as well as to extend the editors community to people from underrepresented communities in terms of gender, profession or geography (theme C).||Importance|
|39||D||1||I think we would have a great impact, by becoming the world leaders in reliable information.||Reliability & credibility|
|40||D||2||Wikipedia is a source of references where to find a summary about a topic and the sites to find more information about it, rather than a (more respected) "source of knowledge", which is inconsistent. How will I respect a source of knowledge whose compilers are anonymous? And although the "editors" are multitude, knowledge is not democratic. It seems to me that is a point to ignore.||Reliability & credibility, Knowledge|
|41||D||2||The wiki is a source of references, is what it should be, but I don't think its obvious subjectivity is something negative -- Everyone has seen how "prestigious" journalists and locutors commit spelling mistakes, how they don't know using verbs and having a tiny view of reality.||Reliability & credibility|
|42||E||4||I prefer to say "cultural context" to "knowledge ecosystem", which sounds strange to me. I think Wikipedia is more focused on the university system, I certainly do not see any utility in the preschool level since those children still don't know how to read.||Education|
|43||E||1||Like the French encyclopedia was one of the icons of the Enlightenment in the 18th century, Wikipedia should be ambitious and to become an icon of the 21th.||Institutions|
|44||E||2||This theme is closely related to its prestige -- If Wikipedia does not have good reputation, no serious institution will associate with it.||Institutions|
|45||E||4||I agree that we should develop knowledge seekers specialized in the handling of Wikipedia entries, as sometimes forgetting a single accent spoils the Wikipedia search engine.||Existing programs|
|46||B||2||This theme is more important than the others, since the evolution of technology is being discussed here, which affects both Wikipedia and Wikidata.||Adapting to technological context|
|47||A||3||The priority to English must be stopped because the other languages remain lagged.||Diversity & inclusion|
|48||C||3||To be more global and incorporate knowledge from all over the world, we have to be less local. Projects like Wikisource and others should be multilingual as Wikimedia Commons.||Availability across languages|
|49||C||2||Perhaps this subject alone is not so viable, but all of them are viable together.||Viability|
|50||D||3||The public and press interest for the number of articles of certain Wikipedia versions has made the community forget about the quality and maintenance of the contents that already exist.||Quality content|
|51||D||2||The neutral point of view is one of the great challenges of Wikipedia in its search for quality. The proliferation of paid accounts and the post-truth phenomenon of the future jeopardise the neutral point of view proposed by Wikipedia.||Neutrality|
- A user suggested extra Spanish bibliography relevant to theme B:
- Campos, Anna Lucia. "Neuroeducación: Uniendo las neurociencias y la educación en la búsqueda del desarrollo humano". La educ@ción, OAS, June 2010, N° 143.
- Menichetti, Pablo. Aprendizaje inteligente y el educador del futuro. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, Chile, 2014, ISBN 9562584097 - ISBN 9789562584098 (source).
- "RASGOS DE UN BUEN EDUCADOR DEL FUTURO". Un maestro enREDado, February 27, 2014.