戦略/ウィキメディア運動/2018-20/2019コミュニティ会議/アドボカシー

概要

勧告

実装

報告書

よくある質問

アドボカシー

適性開発

コミュニティの健全性

多様性

提携関係

製品技術

資源配分

予算措置

役割と責任

範囲の格式

あなたの調査分野は何ですか?

アドボカシーワーキンググループのビジョンは: 2030年には、誰もが法的な環境と機能的な環境の中でウィキメディアプロジェクトにアクセス、使用、変換、構築できるようになり、知識の多様性を共有して自由に表現できるようになります。これらの環境は、ウィキメディア・ムーブメントの内外で作成および維持される自由な知識を育みます。 ビジョンを起草する際に、アドボカシーがその戦略的方向性にどのように貢献するかを調査するために、戦略的方向性から引き出しました。私たちの運動はさまざまな状況で機能しているため、現在、アドボカシーの統一された定義はありません。したがって、このプロセスは、さまざまな戦術とアプローチを説明する私たちの運動の擁護が何であるかを決定する目的を果たします。この概念を完全に定義するには、コミュニティの意見が必要です。 Advocacy means many different things to many different people, for this reason we are still working on a consensus definition of Advocacy.

Talk

現在の状況はどうなっているのでしょうか？

We felt it best to represent our current situation through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, which we have summarized below and which is available in full in the Appendix. This analysis is based on our own expertise and observation and is thus only a draft which will evolve as we continue our research. Strengths: Advocacy strengthens the image of Wikimedia as well as the community. It places the movement as part of a strong “free culture lobby” enabling to build tools and tactics applicable in various contexts. Weaknesses: Resistance to advocacy efforts. This work can be seen as non-inclusive and against neutrality. Opportunities:  Wikimedia advocacy operates in an environment of increased interest, awareness, and enthusiasm for digital rights, human rights, and access to knowledge on both an individual and organizational scale. Additionally, increased connectivity and access are creating more diversity online and within the Wikimedia movement. Threats: Advocacy in the Wikimedia movement is threatened by adverse perceptions of the movement, including negative perceptions of tech in general, misunderstandings about the effectiveness of technological solutions, hostility to truth and media, and both implicit and explicit censorship. Additionally, a lack of resources and support, both internal and external, limit the scope of advocacy efforts. Finally, because of the ever-changing nature of advocacy, time and resources often need to be spent on defending previous gains, rather than advancing free knowledge further.

Talk

なぜこの範囲なのか？

For extraction of scoping questions we used Theory of Change methodology. We defined conditions inside and outside our movement that need to emerge for achieving of advocacy vision. We grounded those conditions on a presumption that Wikimedia projects are run in ways that ensure representation and diversity. In order to reach 2030 strategic goals, advocacy is a necessary action to be taken by the movement. Necessary conditions: Advocates have tools and support from Wikimedia movement to work. Practices of using free knowledge exist and expand in as many contexts/geographies as possible. Frameworks promote & support access to information and knowledge. Integrated open movement advocacy toolkits, training packages, strategies etc. developed and shared. The pervasive use of and contribution to Wikimedia projects expands reach and value of free knowledge. Wikimedia projects are accessible across formats, technology, languages, modalities (visual, verbal etc.). The Wikimedia community is inspired to drive advocacy through understanding and collective passion.

Talk

幅広い質問

作業部会の分野における重要な質問は何でしょうか?

How do we ensure that our community’s various contexts are represented through advocacy? How do we advocate so that all people who want to access Wikimedia projects can do so, in the languages and ways the want? How do we use advocacy to turn “adverse” or “unaware” environments into enabling environments? How can we ensure that the movement's advocacy efforts are not harming the neutrality of the Wikimedia project's content? What is needed to encourage and inspire advocates for the Wikimedia movement? What sort of material, conceptual, resource and expert support do movement advocates need and where does it come from? How do we safeguard and protect the efforts of advocates (and contributors) within “adverse” or “unaware” environments? What external frameworks should we support and/or change to further ground contribution and access in free speech and free knowledge (e.g. legal frameworks or government departments)? How do we incorporate existing and future aligned partners in our advocacy efforts?

Talk