Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Innovate in Free Knowledge
No[edit]
It's disappointing to see concepts that have been heavily criticised in previous 'consultations' retained, while ones that were supported have disappeared. I see that getting Wikipedia to rip up community-established notability and reliability criteria has been expressed as "encourage". Bluntly: let Wikipedia communities decide what counts as notable and reliable; if you want a resource of materials that doesn't meet those community-set criteria, then establish a separate website for them. And look at the direction of flow on reliability: fake news and disinformation are being fought against; people want to be able to separate dependable sources of information from opinion and hearsay. If we want Wikipedia (specifically) to be in the 'dependable' category, then respect what its editors set as its standards. If we want it to be in the 'opinion and hearsay' category, then aim to get a mass relaxation of standards. EddieHugh (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. The Movement Strategy recommendations were conducted with various Wikimedia communities im multiple languages, feedback from which was collectively accounted for, captured and shared back in the Conversations Summary (grid). Therefore, where you may have seen concerns in your community, there could be significant support in many others. The final phrasing in the recommendation, to "Consult with communities and experts" reflects the need for a balanced implementation in line with the communities wishes and consensus. While the recommendations call for more inclusivity and bridging barriers towards underrepresented communities, they also call to protect Wikimedia projects from misinformation and disinformation, highliting the equal importance of dependability and reliability. It's certainly not easy to achieve Knowledge Equity, but it's an essential part of the Direction these recommendations aspire for --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC).
- The addition of "(e.g. Notability)" at the end of the "Consult with communities and experts" indicates that it has been decided that notability is one of the "policies in Wikimedia projects that act as barriers...". The next line states "The goal is to allow" and gives the example of "refining reliability criteria to provide guidelines to identify reliable sources from oral or non-Western knowledge resources". So that's a stated goal (or are these examples meant to be hypothetical? I don't think they are). And who supported these changes? (The table presents a summary, as the previous version did, but without linking to where these opinions came from). EddieHugh (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Some examples of specific communities expressing support for these changes are available in the "learn more" section as well as in the summaries posted by various communities and affiliates in the talk page of the previous version (I realize it's not ideal to look for sources in this manner, sorry about that). Some examples of support for inclusive policies are: here, here, and here, examples of support for oral knowledge are also available from the Arabic and French communities. It's important to acknowledge that there has been various feedback regarding both issues: for instance, a separate platform for oral knowledge was seen by many communities as a more approrpiate outcome. Decisions on such matters are, again, inteded as a question for the upcoming Implementation Phase --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC).
- I commented in an earlier iteration that a lot of these summaries are of little use, because they don't provide numbers. The first direct link doesn't. Nor does the third, which is equivocal in content anyway. The second mentions "around 50 people" from the entirety of emerging communities in Africa+South Asia. EddieHugh (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Some examples of specific communities expressing support for these changes are available in the "learn more" section as well as in the summaries posted by various communities and affiliates in the talk page of the previous version (I realize it's not ideal to look for sources in this manner, sorry about that). Some examples of support for inclusive policies are: here, here, and here, examples of support for oral knowledge are also available from the Arabic and French communities. It's important to acknowledge that there has been various feedback regarding both issues: for instance, a separate platform for oral knowledge was seen by many communities as a more approrpiate outcome. Decisions on such matters are, again, inteded as a question for the upcoming Implementation Phase --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC).
- The addition of "(e.g. Notability)" at the end of the "Consult with communities and experts" indicates that it has been decided that notability is one of the "policies in Wikimedia projects that act as barriers...". The next line states "The goal is to allow" and gives the example of "refining reliability criteria to provide guidelines to identify reliable sources from oral or non-Western knowledge resources". So that's a stated goal (or are these examples meant to be hypothetical? I don't think they are). And who supported these changes? (The table presents a summary, as the previous version did, but without linking to where these opinions came from). EddieHugh (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I've looked into the history of this in more detail. I see that the desire to abandon the current notability and reliability standards can be traced to a 2017 dinner in New York. And who led this gathering? Katherine Maher, CEO of the WMF. This probably explains why it's being pushed through despite limited support (but I'd be happy to be contradicted). EddieHugh (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)