Talk:Movement communications insights

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

Isn't this just The Signpost?[edit]

I can't speak for other languages, but in English, the task of communicating what's been going on within the Wikimedia movement is the role filled by The Signpost. I find it a little concerning that this whole fancy focus group etc. apparatus is being set up, rather than trying to integrate with and support the existing forums where this work is already being done. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Sdkb, The focus groups will be looking at overarching communications–across languages, regions, projects, etc. Our goal isn’t to communicate about what’s been going on in the movement, which, you’re right, The Signpost does very well as an information resource for English-speaking communities. Rather, the Foundation wants to hear specifically from communities about how we, as an organization, can build out our own communications in a way that best supports and informs communities and adds the most value to the objectives that different communities have. Things like delivering information, resources, opportunities in the right places, in the right ways, at the right times, across different communities/languages, and spotlighting contributions in the most helpful ways. So, the scope and focus are different. And we may well discover ways to better support existing forums, as you suggest. Of course, understanding current communications practices and past lessons learned is critical context, and there will be discussion and crowdsourcing activities along the way to gather this information and integrate it into the findings. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This description sounds like communication is one way. Does the WMF just want to know how to better speak to the community but also how to better listen? ChristianKl❫ 10:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
As the WMF is just a service organisation for the communities, its foremost interest should be to better listen to its employers, to those, who generate the wealth with their content. Talking to the communities, i.e. their superiours, is as well something they should learn better, but listening ist the part that's most deficient. If you look at the desasters regarding SuperProtect/MV, FLOW, FRAMBAN and now the renamig idiocy, it's mainly not listening at all on the side of the service org, not unclear talking from the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Qgil-WMF: This is so out of line that you should strike it out. Some of the issues identified by the community at COLOR are with the Foundation's communications:
  • Miscommunication and confusion.
  • Problematic evaluation and summary of feedback.
  • Neglecting the views of Wikimedia communities.
It seems absurd to try and hold a discussion about ways in which the Foundation can communicate with the communities with one hand on the scale, by choosing who the Foundation talks to, and refusing to address critics. If you're going to special-plead to avoid criticism, you're just going to have problems again, and the same problems that the communications department has been having for the past year will just repeat themselves. Rather than the approach of circling the wagons and taking pot shots at people who bring up communications problems until they go away, why not try adressing the points rather than the person, and seeing what can be improved about the Foundation's processes? TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 14:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi ChristianKl, figuring out how to best support an ongoing, consistent two-way exchange is going to be key here, absolutely. Listening to concerns, needs, etc. and spotlighting community work, as well as connecting communities with the things that interest them and would facilitate their work, is central to what this is trying to accomplish. That’s exactly why we decided to go with a series of focus groups—to explore communities’ needs in depth and how we might best be able to use our position as a Foundation to remove obstacles and add value. There is a lot of room for us as a Foundation to grow in this way, and communities have the knowledge to help jumpstart the process. I’m personally most excited to get to just listen. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the controversy of the past year isn't about the Foundation failing to remove obstacles but about the Foundation adding new obstacles and not listening to community pushback. Framing the inquiry as just being about finding ways to remove obstacles and add value raises the suspicion to me as a reader that the focus is on not listening to the concerns that produce the most conflict. ChristianKl❫ 23:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
ChristianKl Communications issues resulting from situations of strong disagreement are definitely in scope here. This is a good opportunity to explore them in depth. Maybe this is a simple problem with a simple solution, but maybe there is more complexity. And to go beyond specific examples, what are the underlying needs that aren’t being addressed and how could they be addressed? We invite you to start a new section (or as many as needed) to discuss these problems.
Also, situations of strong disagreement and massive discussion make one type of communication problems, but there are many more. There are many volunteers and affiliates working on different projects with different objectives, how can we better collaborate for their success? The goal of this exercise is to identify all the communications needs in our movement, with a special attention to those that become obstacles for the implementation of the Movement Strategy and its drive on equity and growth. Examples just to illustrate this point include where to find information about what is going on in our movement, how to promote activities to get more participants among Wikimedians or newcomers, how to share community news in multiple languages, how to collaborate effectively in social media outreach, how to collaborate to get more local press coverage, what type of documentation and training the communicators in our movement need, etc.
We believe that a discussion in a Talk page on Meta is unlikely to surface all the communications needs from the projects, communities and affiliates working on different topics in different regions and in different languages. This is why we have this place to discuss here and we are also going for focus groups representing the diversity of our movement, which is a standard research methodology. Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What improved controls are in place to make sure that the focus groups reflect the diversity of the movement? It's pretty clear that during the Branding Project, the use of focus groups didn't lead to an accurate assessment of community opinion, while discussion on-wiki did. What has changed? TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
TomDotGov Focus groups were not used during the Brand Project. Large workshops generated ideas for a brand concept, but that’s a different methodology. In this case, the findings from the focus groups and the on-wiki discussions will be compiled into a report that I will post here for community refinement before it is finalized, so that community members can identify what resonates, what doesn’t, and what could be expanded. The objective here is to uncover communications improvements that will best support communities in what they’re trying to accomplish with our collective movement work, so if it doesn’t resonate with at least a large segment of community members, we will have to continue to dig. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, related to your point, we have invited The Signpost to participate in this study. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Focus Groups[edit]

Are these focus groups physically meeting? If they're not, why does the focus group funds page say "per person per day, for 2, 3, or 4 days" - at most, presumably, it would need a day's reimbursement if someone could only attend by taking a whole day etc

If they *are* physically meeting, well that's fairly significant in the current climate, but is probably not impossible, but is going to be limited to a country's residents at most, and that subject to lockdown changes. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Nosebagbear. This text was adapted from a different scenario and that sentence was left over. I removed and clarified the duration of the groups. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Which Recommendations?[edit]

I'm curious as to which recommendation this discussion is attempting to address. (And I think that Sdkb might be confused in a similar way.) Is this based on Coordinate Across Stakeholders, Manage Internal Knowledge, both, or something else? I will say that "establishing stronger communications within our movement" makes me think this is about coordination, but then "communicate about our collective work, and better highlight community contributions from across the movement" make it seem like this is more about the news.

I would suggest that a big problem with communications seems to be the relatively heavyweight nature of Foundation-community communications. Even before starting to discuss what the problem is, there is talk of paying people to travel, and a schedule that is set to stretch out for at least a couple of months, if not longer. That makes exploring problems and solutions a lot of more difficult, since it turns a dialogue into a series of monologues. (Or worse, it allows dialogue with a selected group, while minimizing communications with those that haven't been selected, leading to in-group/out-group concerns.)

Also, how does the schedule of this project mesh with the moratorium on virtual events and official meetings announced here? TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 23:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TomDotGov These discussions will attempt to touch on the areas for communications improvements that are embedded throughout various Movement Strategy recommendations, rather than tackling one in particular. Yes, Coordinate Across Stakeholders and Manage Internal Knowledge have clear implications for this work, and Provide for Safety and Inclusion and Invest in Skills and Leadership Development also pose some relevant ideas. The above reply to Sdkb probably helps clarify to some extent, but this is less about establishing information resources and more about how we as a Foundation can better support communities in achieving their objectives through communications (highlighting work is a part of it, but building more effective and inclusive communication overall is too). In terms of the timing, we are not planning to hold any focus groups between December 14th and January 5th, although we are encouraging people to sign up now so that we can begin to form the groups and schedule in advance. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ELappen (WMF): After reading this and the section above, I'm still unclear about what the Foundation is trying to accomplish here. I think the easiest way to illustrate this would be for me to start with the mainspace page, and remove everything from it that isn't related to the mechanics of how and where the discussion will occur:

The Movement Strategy recommendations published this year made clear the importance of establishing stronger communications within our movement.

To this end, the Foundation wants to gather insights from communities on ways we all might more consistently communicate about our collective work, and better highlight community contributions from across the movement. ...

How can we best communicate with your community on an ongoing basis? In what ways does the Foundation currently support your work? We ask you to share your thoughts on these and other questions...

What happens next? The insights gathered will be turned into a report that will be published for review by communities before being finalized. The final report, along with ongoing discussions and opportunities for input, will be used to inform how communications might be used to build greater understanding of movement work.

I don't think there is clear problem statement in this. Looking at the above, I think it's a confusing as to when "we" and "our" refer to the Foundation and when it refers to the Movement. I think that when writing for consumption inside the movement, it might make sense to explictitly say "Projects" and "Affiliates", rather than more broad words like "communities" and "across the movement.", so as to make it more clear what is addressed to each movement component.
Trying to rephrase the questions using this language, I come up with:
  • How can the Foundation best communicate with Projects and Affiliates on an ongoing basis?
  • How does the Foundation support the communications needs of Projects and Affiliates?
I don't know if this is right, but I think it might be better to just explicitly state things than rely on ambiguious pronouns. I also think that these are two fairly distinct questions, and it's best to treat them as such when it comes to organizing discussions and reporting results.
I think it would be helpful to understand what's going to be done with the report that is intended to be the final result of this. Is this something that's going to be sent up to the Board and CEO? The management of the communications department? Without knowing who the recipient(s) of the report will be, it seems like it will be hard to present relevant information for inclusion. So if that could be made more clear, it would be useful - I think it's hard for many people to invest time without understanding how that time is being used.
I'm writing this instead of the feedback that I wanted to write, which is that the mw:Talk pages consultation 2019 (but more importantly, the early history at Talk pages consultation 2019, is probably the model to follow for communication between the Foundation and the Projects. I think I would like to deep dive into how that consultation was conducted, in the hopes that it can be repeated. If you look at en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Discussion_Tools_RFC_responses, you can see oppose votes (that is, votes opposing suspending the rollout) that seem to come from a place of trust that project created. I'd like to start a discussion here about what went right about the way the Foundation communicated with Projects there, but before I spend the effort to write it up, I'd like to know if it would be welcome and how it will be used. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 16:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
TomDotGov That rephrase of the questions is a good characterization. They contain more context as standalone questions than the ones embedded in the Meta page, so I think we can safely use your wording to guide discussion here.
Doing a deep dive into the Talk pages consultation would be constructive and absolutely welcome. I think there are a number of insights to be gathered from it that could really enrich the report. The team is working right now on drafting some basic lessons learned from prior work in order to spark discussions just like this, but I’d encourage you to dive right in.
To clarify how the report will be used: a draft will be published with communities first for feedback and refinement. Once finalized, it will be posted publicly and disseminated across communities; hopefully it will be useful to anyone working on communications within the movement. It will be presented across Foundation departments, to the ED, and to the Board, all of whom are interested in recommendations for movement communications improvements. It will then be used to make decisions about how this work will be structured and prioritized. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The TP consultation is absolutely the gold standard for community/WMF consultations - but failures are also key, which includes large scale (Strategy consultations), mid-scale (rebranding) and small-scale. There are also small-scale successes, like the Growth Team discussions Nosebagbear (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
TomDotGov In new sections below, I have reused your rewording of the two overarching questions (fine tuning the second), in an attempt to start unpacking them in this Talk page. Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pasting from Babel[edit]

LOL. Attempting to really communicate would be a good start, contrary to the Decision... has... been... made... attitude. All of the link being generated from 2020 event is saying something. — regards, Revi 22:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to visit this page after saving this page. I typically don't receive pings in conventional way (email only) and my email client is buggy for a few weeks that they don't send notifications. Please reply @ Babel. Thank you. — regards, Revi 00:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Google?? Ewww[edit]

Do we have to use Google infrastructure for this? Can't WMF or anybody else do it? Google is not so great for privacy. --2001:14BA:9C99:AE00:0:0:0:8EA 09:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

They use this anti-privacy company quite often, there seems to be not a wee bit of data security concern within the WMF. Be it Facebook, Google, Instagram or whatever, those companies live from the defiling of everyones privacy, they ar the anathema of a good internet company. Nothing important for the Wikiverse should be done on such completely untrustworthy plattforms. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Assuming that this is about Google Forms, it is a tool vetted by the Foundation and used frequently in our movement. If you want to participate in a focus group but don’t want to use Google Forms, just send us the information via email at movementcomms(_AT_) Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are (imho mindlessly) using this company, that makes money with the defiling of privacy, quite often, despite having a huge server farm lots of good devs, more then enough money and the whole range of open source software at their disposal. I really don't have a clue, why they still use this evil commpany for anything. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest that this might be a discussion for some other forum? While I think it should be a movement goal to avoid the use of proprietary systems like google forms, and that it would be a really good idea to enable workflows that would allow forms to be defined on-wiki, this is probably off-topic for this discussion now that email is a reasonable alternative. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 17:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on specific examples :)[edit]

Having this discussion in the abstract will be difficult. Confusion around abstractions and their implications is one of the central sources of confusion.

How can we identify a set of explicit examples (a project that could have been better known, an opportunity that was only responded to by a small subgroup, a very successful campaign that was nevertheless misinterpreted, a successful initiative that was never replicated, a translation effort that stalled) that can be used to illustrate what's at stake? Then discussions around those can include a few parallel elements:

  1. Clarifying and specifying what took place [often the WMF and different communities can have multiple, conflicting understandings about this]
  2. Clarifying what parameters are important and could be repeated or changed [those closest to an event often aren't the ones who have formulated or estimated such simplified summaries]
  3. Discussing what might have been better outcomes [different parties agree, there's no single answer; be explicit about what change a given choice would have made]
  4. Discussing how better communication could have led to a different outcome [the core of this conversation, but must refer to the others]

Warmly, –SJ talk  13:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sj, I had a draft reply before you posted this comment, and I have published it above ("Also, situations of strong disagreement..."). There are some generic examples offered there that hopefully express the wide range of topics to cover. While the discussion might sound abstract right now at the start, communication needs are very tangible for whoever is seeking or producing information in our movement. We are all aware of communications problems that get in our way when trying to accomplish something. As the team organizing this study, we are reluctant to come up with specific examples ourselves because that is likely to alter the conversations online and in focus groups with our biases. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Quim! I rewrote the above slightly: How can we (and at what point can we) settle on a set of examples to work through? Discussions about abstraction will take time and energy, be unsatisfying and hard to translate, and leave us no wiser. –SJ talk  21:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Explaining Wikipedia outside[edit]

Recently I've found out that there have been too much examples (Catalonia, Poland, Argentina, also India and many that I might have not seen) of people trying to discredit Wikipedia/the Movement/the Communities by pointing out some "political biases". Thoses biases might exist, but the accusations always are based on disinformation and poor knowledge about how the projects work. It is a insight I have and I need to share it, so that's why I write it here.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks TaronjaSatsuma. This is a great example of how stronger movement communications can address an obstacle that's pressing for you in your Wikimedia work. I see you've signed up for a focus group, thank you! I'm looking forward to hearing more in depth about examples like this one. If you know of anyone else that might be interested, please pass along the invitation. And if anyone else wants to discuss disinformation and discrediting around "political bias" as barriers to doing good work, happy to talk more here as well. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a communications issue, not at all[edit]

@ELappen (WMF): Sorry to disappoint you and all the other WMF staff. This is not a communications issue and hiring even more communications people won't help. You can't explain the great achievements by the fantastic WMF project managers any better to those unwilling unwashed volunteers. The issue at hand is, that WMF has for years invested in programs and developments that are despised by the volunteer communities. In my understanding the main reason is money. To much money. Way to much money. The volunteer created content is so successful in raising donations that WMF is growing way beyond its tasks. All that staff has to come up with something - anything - to justify their salaries. Unfortunately most of those ideas are so far removed from the reality of our programs, that the abysmal quality of the projects is a blessing. Imagine the projects would actually do something, anything. We volunteers had to spend even more of our precious time to fight the employees on their payed time toes and nails over control of the projects. Fortunately the projects quality is so lousy that pointing out the most egregious flaws is usually enough to stop the nonsense before it gets rolled out.

The solution would be to reduce the number of staff to one third at max and set much smaller donations goals in the fundraiser. The product communications teams should be abandoned. Or turned around: some might try to distribute community knowledge into the WMF teams, not the other way. --h-stt !? 21:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

h-stt no worries, I don't think you are disappointing anyone. All perspectives are welcome. Reading your comment it seems that you don't have specific communications needs. Other volunteers in projects and affiliates feel differently. This study is an attempt to map all their needs and inform plans to address them, in the wider context of the implementation of the Movement Strategy recommendations. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

How can the Foundation best communicate with Projects and Affiliates on an ongoing basis?[edit]

This is an invitation to dig into this big question. Big because our movement is big, diverse and complex, there are many families of topics and multiple communications channels. All ideas are welcome, as well as links to resources or past discussions that are still relevant today. If you prefer to share your feedback somewhere else, privately or in another language, it's all good. We will do our best to gather all the feedback and consolidate it. If the discussion becomes too wide, we could spin off topics as needed. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


When reading the reactions on de.wikipedia to an announcement by the WMF (or WMDE for that matter), I regularly encounter complaints about the style and the length of those messages. There seems to be a preference for messages that are short and to the point. What exactly was the problem you were trying to solve? What have you done about it? What are the results (preferably with a link to more detailed data, so we can check your conclusions)? What are you planning to do next (especially if the the results are not overwhelmingly positive!)? And please, please, please avoid fashionable buzzwords. Many of us are all too familiar with the language of grant applications and press releases, some of us appear to ardently hate it. Yes, some of your readers may know absolutely nothing about the matter at hand, but at least some others have probably been following the discussions and work on said problem quite closely (and possibly for longer than you personally have been working on it). --HHill (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, HHill. These framing questions you've suggested for announcements are helpful, and applying more standardization could probably go a long way. And yes, length, tone, vocabulary seem to all be fairly consistent sticking points. I'm curious if others have more points to flesh out on the style and content of Foundation announcements. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Communications in an international movement[edit]

Communication in our international movement and on the current platform is dependent on translation, mainly done by volunteers. This is known, so please consider to use simple sentence constructions rather than nesting information into subordinate clauses. And please avoid to use phrases like "movement work" without any hint what you mean with that. Keep your translators in mind! Alice Wiegand (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alice Wiegand. Use of simple sentence structure and avoiding ambiguous terms has been noted. I know it's a major pain point for translation purposes and also for general readability. It is always helpful to have an up-close example to look at. Like Movement communication's own Meta page, for instance! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@ELappen (WMF): - a couple of factors on that aspect: one is that consultation times often get set, and we haven't even got the 10 biggest language translations done before we're a couple of weeks into it. Either timings need to be extended, or a set-up made to ensure translations are completed within, say, 72 hours of any release/update to a consultation. It is unfair that community's be impaired in their participation.
I would also note that various WMF teams have specifically noted (and accepted) excessive complexity of content, but then failed to correct the issues. For example, the strategy recommendations, if you analyse them, are at phd-level English not just in their first form but in every form. That both makes accurate translations near-impossible, but causes ambiguity even for fluent English speakers - coupled with the unhappiness generated by a known issue not being resolved.
Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
No deadline for anything slightly important must ever start before at least 20 languages are properly translated. The worst case of complete disregard for the international community was the feedback round for the new bylaws etc. Even the always pampered anglophones just got a meagre two and a half weeks for commenting on this massive changes. Up to the deadline a lot languages were not even started to translate. That was a complete invalid discussion. You didn't bother to take some time to listen to the community outside the anglocentric bubble. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
would the Foundation consider contracting professional translators? this would be a step up in quality and timeliness of communication. Slowking4 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4: This is something I have been working with the Foundation on since I was a volunteer and helped coordinate professional translations for some Board elections. The traditional use of professional translators has raised a number of concerns in the past related to scalability, cost, and quality of translations for a Wikimedia audience. Simply put, a lot of traditional solutions are cost prohibitive for the scale and timelines we are often discussing, and the quality is often lower than expected as the translators are not as intimately familiar with our movement's terminology as active community members. Keeping all of this in mind, we have been piloting a sort of hybrid approach that has helped us make progress towards making more of our content available in seven target languages. This is our second such pilot effort (the initial workspace for both pilots was the Wikimedia Foundation website), and so far the results have been promising. However, the project is still in relatively early stages and we are actively looking at ways to increase its capacity, quality control, and number of languages. Additionally, the Foundation has a medium-term goal related to increasing the number of languages we make organization materials available in. Basically, we agree completely that we need more translation support to reach more audiences and will continue to explore this area of work in ways to help us expand our reach without overburdening volunteer translators. I welcome feedback and ideas on future ideas to explore in our effort to achieve this goal. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thank you for your efforts. given the strategic push in global south, and non-English areas, it seems a necessary investment. i imagine building a network of people with the skills to understand and translate wiki-jargon, into local cultural nuance must be difficult. it has been a pain point for a long time. i would suggest a recruiting, training, on ramp to contractor career path, may be necessary. and translator quality circle, with psychological safety. Slowking4 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

How can the Foundation best support the communications needs of Projects and Affiliates?[edit]

This is an invitation to dig into this big question. Big because there are very different types of roles and organizations in our movement, and they may have very different types of communications needs. Many volunteers work specifically in communications roles, forwarding information to their projects, announcing events, writing blog posts or newsletters, reaching out to potential newcomers through social media... All ideas are welcome, as well as links to resources or past discussions that are still relevant today. If you prefer to share your feedback somewhere else, privately or in another language, it's all good. We will do our best to gather all the feedback and consolidate it. If the discussion becomes too wide, we could spin off topics as needed. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Office hours 2 December[edit]

Just posting a reminder that we will be hosting office hours tomorrow, Wednesday 2 December at 17:00 UTC. Join us with your questions, initial feedback, and to collaborate on how to best structure some of the upcoming work. The recording of the meeting will be made available after. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the video is up. It's linked on the Resources section of the main page, where we'll be compiling files like this. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Its not going to work[edit]

We've been through this a few times but there is no way to get around the fundamental problem. The foundation now does enough stuff that most people aren't going to have time to pay attention to all of it. Thus any reasonably comprehensive communications channel be ignored by most editors. Any less comprehensive channel will result in people complaining they weren't consulted.

Remember as far as most editors are concerned as long as the servers stay up they don't care what the foundation does until it actively negatively impacts what they are doing.

I suppose you could argue that the foundation to could resolve the issue by doing less stuff (would help with budget control issues) but I doubt that is going to be an acceptable recommendation.Geni (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Geni, Getting lost in a sea of information is always a risk, and it’s something many community members are experiencing today. You're absolutely right that not everyone is interested in everything, and better categorization and distribution can help people find the information that is relevant/interesting to them. The goal is not to flood editors with everything the Foundation is doing at all times. The goal is to distribute what is going on in the movement (with the Foundation and communities) for easier consumption, delivering targeted information that will support volunteers in achieving their objectives, whatever they may be. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)