Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction/Drafts/G3

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

Suggested Edits to §3. Implications: Our destination by 2030[edit]

Suggested Edit to §3.1[edit]

Current text:

3.1 Together, we will advance our world by creating {original research?} knowledge that fully represents human diversity.

I suggest deleting this section because it is vague ("advance our world"); endorses original research ("creating knowledge"); and is ill-defined ("fully represents human diversity"). Either that, or someone rewrite it, as I truly do not understand it as written.

Suggested Edit to §3.5[edit]

Current text:

3.5 We will welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities.

Change to: "We will create a culture of hospitality where contributing is enjoyable and rewarding." (Which is the current first sentence--I'm suggesting making it the title. IMHO, building community has many interpretations and thus distracts from the central point--hospitality.)

Suggested Edit to §3.6[edit]

Current text:

3.6 We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to our shared knowledge.[edit]We will work to ensure that free knowledge is available wherever there are people. We will stand against censorship, control, and misinformation. We will defend the privacy of our users and contributors. We will cultivate an environment where anyone can contribute safely, free of harassment and prejudice. We will be a leading advocate and partner for increasing the creation, curation, and dissemination in free and open knowledge.

Change to: "We will participate actively in a communal effort to break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to our shared knowledge. We will work with governments, other organizations, and individuals to make knowledge freely available. We will stand against censorship, control, and misinformation. We will defend the privacy of our users and contributors. We will cultivate an environment where anyone can contribute safely, free of harassment and prejudice. We will be a leading advocate and partner for increasing the creation, curation, and dissemination of free and open knowledge."

--

Thank you for your kind consideration. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed "creating knowledge" to "compiling knowledge" before I saw your post, chuckle. A number of people have been raising the same concern about the creating language. Alsee (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes made by Markworthen[edit]

Here are the previous and current revisions from this diff:

# Previous revision Markworthen's revision
1 In January 2017, we, the constituents of the Wikimedia movement, started an ambitious discussion about our collective future. We decided to reflect on our past sixteen years together, and imagine the impact we could have in the world in the next decades. Our aim was to identify a common strategic direction that would unite and inspire people across our movement on our way to 2030, and help us make decisions. In January 2017, volunteer editors for Wikipedia and sister projects, initiated an ambitious discussion about our collective future. We reflected on our past sixteen years together and considered the worldwide impact we could have over the next 12 years. We discussed a strategic direction designed to help people around the world readily access high-quality, reliable, trustworthy knowledge.
2 From on-wiki discussions, to large conferences, to small meetups, to expert interviews, to deep research, the process has been exhaustive, messy, and fascinating. It didn’t take long to confirm that the greatest strength of the Wikimedia movement is the talent, dedication, and integrity of its members. Any successful strategy must accommodate the diversity of the people in our communities, including our particular interests, motivations, and contributions. Some of us write encyclopedia articles. Some of us develop software. Some of us donate money, time, or expertise. Some curate data, sources, or media. Some organize events, advocate for copyright reform, or remix artwork. Some are community organizers, educators, or wikignomes. Some are just very curious people. Some of us do all of the above, and more. From on-wiki discussions, to large conferences, to small meetups, to expert interviews, to research, the process has been exhaustive, messy, and fascinating. It did not take long to reaffirm the Wikimedia Movement's greatest strength: Our members' diverse talents, determination, and integrity. We agreed that our strategic direction must accommodate the diversity of the people in our communities, including our particular interests, motivations, and contributions. Some of us write encyclopedia articles. Some of us develop software. Some of us donate money. Some curate data, sources, or media. Some organize events, advocate for copyright reform, or remix artwork. Some are community organizers, educators, or wikignomes. Some of us do all of the above, and more.
3 We are all part of this movement because we share a belief that free knowledge makes the world a better place. Every human being deserves access to knowledge, and has innate capacity to participate in its creation, curation, and sharing. That is non-negotiable. We are all part of this movement because we share a belief that free knowledge makes the world a better place. Every human being deserves easy access to knowledge. And every human being should have an opportunity to participate in knowledge curation and its efficient dissemination.
4 Therefore, it is natural that this shared vision is the basis of the direction that has emerged. The direction goes beyond, though, and invites us to focus on equitable access and participation to move closer to that vision. (entirely removed)

Dark Goldenrod italics are minor differences. For major changes, strikethrough is used for the previous revision; green bold, for Markworthen's revision. Opinions on the changes made? --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"creating knowledge" → "compiling knowledge"?[edit]

I see that "creating knowledge" doesn't fit Wikipedia, Alsee. However, how does "compiling knowledge" fit all other Wikimedia projects? --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

George Ho, I think it's a excellent fit for wikipedia, wikidata, wikiquote, wikisource, wikibooks, commons, wiktionary, wikivoyage, and wikispecies. Wikinews and wikiversity are a bit odd and the poorest fit, but I think 'compiling' works well as an umbrella term.
I would exempt the following list as 'support' sites rather than projects: MediaWiki, MetaWiki, Incubator, Labs, and the Foundation wiki. I think I've covered the full list? Alsee (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... How about "providing knowledge", Alsee? "providing" fits better for Wikinews and Wikiversity than "compiling", doesn't it? I think we can also change "knowledge equity" to "knowledge diversity", "knowledge provision", or "knowledge giving" and either eliminate "that represents human diversity" or simply eliminate "human". As I said previously, I find "knowledge equity" either too preachy, too vague, or too narrow. May you or I change the draft then? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
George Ho, we could use the standard WMF term: "curating" knowledge. (Just kidding, that would be awful. Chuckle.) You're right that "providing knowledge" would fit wikinews and wikiversity a bit better, but in my opinion "compiling knowledge" fits the message better. I'd like to see what the WMF-people think when they check in. Regarding 'equity', I also see it as something that might be changed. However I'm not seeing a good alternative for it yet. The alternate options so far would significantly change the meaning of the message there. It might take a significant rewrite of the three 'knowledge equity' sentences to capture that message in a better form. Alsee (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
What about "contribute to human knowledge development" or something like that? It begins with "contribute", which I would be surprised to be denied within our movement, and "development" can both encompass compiling works and creative works, at least to my mind. Other similar verbs like "foster" might be used. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical error in topic sentence[edit]

Topic sentence (emphasis added): The goal of the Wikimedia movement for 2030 is to make it possible for anyone in good faith to join us in our quest for free knowledge.

"in good faith" is an adverbial, which modifies verbs: e.g. She acted "in good faith". The corresponding adjectival form "of good faith" would make Wikipedia sound rather cultish. You could correct the grammatical error by adding the word "acting" before "in good faith", but this does not get at the philosophical problem underlying the shunning of those who draw attention to problems with the mob rule dispute resolution system (aka "the drama boards"). SashiRolls (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

SashiRolls: Thank you for pointing out this error; I'm not a native English speaker. The sentence is going to change when I start merging different documents, but I'm curious what you think of something like "anyone with good intentions". It is (I think) the meaning I intended with "anyone in good faith" but without the religious ambiguity; it is also probably more easily translatable. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've changed it to "anyone who shares our commitment" (in the live draft) because "good intentions" felt a bit too Boy-Scout-y to me. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
That's undeniably better. :) SashiRolls (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I copy-edited a couple sections of the draft, then reverted my edit. If there's anything worth borrowing feel free. Incidentally, I think the polysemic nature of "equity" is kind of amusing (economic value / fairness), but you might consider being upfront about the "economic value". Transparency concerning the donor class would be welcome, and maybe even wise. SashiRolls (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Responding, reviewing, and merging[edit]

Hello folks,

This is just a quick note that I'm back from my short time off and I'm going to start responding to comments, reviewing edits, and merging drafts. My goal is to have a better draft by the end of this week, for final comments before we stabilize in mid-September. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Guillaume (WMF), your "mostly unstructured" edit inadvertently made the problem worse. You're using the word in an extremely obscure programmer-jargon sense. 99+% of the people reading it are only going to hear the common-English meaning of the word, leaving you with a nonsensical sentence. Even most programmers are going to miss your jargon meaning, and find the sentence nonsensical. As I suggested my edit summary, you either need to drop the word or you need to replace it with something that people will understand.
My concern above is clarity. However as different but related matter, does the structured content point originate from the Strategy discussions? It so, could you point me to the page(s) it's based on? Or was the structure point inserted by the WMF independent of the community Strategy discussion? Alsee (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Alsee: It seems that you now understand the meaning I intended. What would you recommend as a replacement "that people will understand"? I will look for the source in the meantime. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It's challenging to phrase it clearly for a non-technical audience. May I suggest we drop the word for now? If there is significant strategy discussion on the point, that discussion would probably clarify the message and language here.
To be honest, I'd prefer to see it dropped because I have concerns. The document gives no clarity what it would mean in practice. I fear that lack of clarity overlies issues where the WMF&community are painfully out of alignment. However rather than engaging in rambling discussion of my concerns, I think we can take the wiki-editor approach. The job here is to summarize what was said, rather than debate details of the strategy itself. If there was significant Strategy-discussion of the topic, that should tell us what belongs in this document. Alsee (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I've removed "unstructured" for now (in Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction, into which I'm merging the G3 draft) because I think the other qualifier ("long-form") partly addresses my meaning without going into the jargon and ambiguity issues you raised. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)