Talk:Global Data and Insights Team/Movement Data/Equity Landscape/Pilot & Consultation/Directed Review Questions

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

Question 1. Considering the output metrics developed to understand Wikimedia presence & growth; are there major domains we have failed to identify?[edit]

Please share your thoughts and sign with four "~" to sign and date your input.

  • Report WMF financial investment in all measured demographic communities When the Wikimedia Foundation identifies any demographic as worth examining or reporting, then in Wikimedia Foundation annual reporting disclose money that the Wikimedia Foundation invested in that community. When making this report, also distinguish money that the Wikimedia Foundation gave to that community in publicly awarded grants versus money that the Wikimedia Foundation invested on behalf of that community in any other way. Right now there are no easy ways to get current or historical data about how much money the Wikimedia Foundation has given to communities. Here are some demographics for which I would like financial reporting:
    • women/non-binary
    • each country (this helps with transparency for lower middle income countries and global south)
    • individuals versus organizations
If financial information already exists then share it, but I think it is not public. If the Wikimedia Foundation is unable to measure its own financial investment per community, then just report grant funding by demographic. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's nothing, M Bash Ne (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel that the movement could be termed as a community, a community has a bond of some sort, the strings that bind emanate from a Culture.What is the movements Culture? How is it expressed in the people and what is its impact on the projects?Can it be measured as a metrics?Is there a single culture?. Main Domain:I feel that administrative rights should be considered there and for my community,there are no Admins despite of the many experienced Wikimedians. General Inclusion and Equity:People living with disability could be carefully considered and onboarded successfully in the movement--Zend2020 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Affiliates presence: I feel like when identifying affiliates' presence in the movement, the metrics of affiliates that emerging but unrecognized by Afcon should be presented and this would help in forecasting the direction of the movement in the domain of Affiliates presence. CaliBen (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 2. Are there input measures that could be improved from the landscape of existing data or measures which should not be part of the measurement framework for Wikimedia presence & growth?[edit]

Please share your thoughts and sign with four "~" to sign and date your input.

Retaining new editors should be prioritized.--Zend2020 (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recognition of emerging and unrecognized affiliates . --CaliBen (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 3. Are you aware of any key data sources we have missed for understanding Wikimedia presence & growth?[edit]

Please share your thoughts and sign with four "~" to sign and date your input.

  • Self-organized Wikimedia community conversation is missing Right now when the Wikimedia Foundation seeks community feedback, it is Wikimedia Foundation staff who convene and moderate the conversation, and respondents are only the people who are comfortable leaving their peer communities to engage with non-peer outsiders at the Wikimedia Foundation. Because of the large number of social and ethical issues that arise, it would be better to keep community conversation channels open continuously to discuss important issues with their own peers, rather than use the current conversation model of outsider Wikimedia Foundation staff making periodic, unpredictable, unexpected calls for comment about random and unexpected issues. There is a major disconnect between Wikimedia community peer to peer conversations and the conversation which the Wikimedia Foundation actually collects through research and feedback processes such as this one. The solution to this should be that the Wikimedia Foundation should support regional and thematic Wikimedia community groups in asking questions to their own communities, and those communities can discuss among themselves in the way that is natural for them. In the end those communities can report feedback. When questions go from Wikimedia Foundation managers, to Wikimedia Foundation outreach coordinators, to the people who those outreach coordinators can reach through their global channels, then the missed opportunity is feedback from peer communities who would discuss the issue among themselves and respond in a way that is natural for that community. The Wikimedia Foundation should greatly lower the barriers to access for support for communities to organize their own conversations about social and ethical issues which guide movement strategy. Right now organizing such conversations is very difficult, and the Wikimedia Foundation is not prepared to receive, interpret, or appreciate that kind of feedback anyway. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 4. What are possible use-cases of these metrics for you?[edit]

Please share your thoughts and sign with four "~" to sign and date your input.

  • Financial transparency is inherently insightful, and can be an ultimate indicator of the Wikimedia Foundation's strategic interests. From a community standpoint, if the Wikimedia Foundation has reported a strategic interest in a particular demographic, but then there is no public record of financial investment in that demographic, then that information is useful for the community's own planning. It sometimes happens that there are mismatched expectations between what the Wikimedia community of editors anticipates versus what the Wikimedia Foundation does, and financial transparency would help immensely. Again, if the Wikimedia Foundation examines a demographic, then please report Wikimedia Foundation financial investment in that demographic. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diversity,Equity and Inclusion the ecosystem seemingly ignored and underrepresented.Accessibility could be included in planning,executing and reporting projects.Most Projects particularly Wikipedia lack accessibility features making it almost impossible for people with disabilities particularly the blind to be included into the community.The lack of adequate accessibility features show u from sign up ,creating an account to editing,their inability to use screen readers to edit or the provision of adequate guidance on how to navigate the interface.--Zend2020 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question 5. Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share with us about the Wikimedia presence & growth measurement framework or the planned dashboard elements?[edit]

Please share your thoughts and sign with four "~" to sign and date your input.