- I don't how this would be different from what is done currently; we have a whole website dedicated to outreach and expansion of our projects. John M Wolfson (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Some concrete examples speak for themselves (e.g. if we succeed in getting Wikipedia unblocked in a country)
Others, while "concrete" (a specific result could be named), can't actually give the concrete results that is most critical. The primary purpose for all of us is, and must remain, the project (for Wikipedians, the encyclopedias). Both the creation of, and readership of.
So concrete examples are going to need to be able to give examples of how this works - e.g. My success X led to an increase in readers of 10% of Serbian Wikibooks. Or success A led to editathons being adopted as a school activity in Peru, bringing 400 first time registered editors to Peruvian Wikipedia.
On-wiki work can be both more easily noticed by others but also more easily quantified and understood by them. So giving examples of the successes of those participating in advocacy is certainly good if there are concerns about a lack of "social credit" being given, but I feel you'll have way more success if a little bit of research is done in the aftermath of an advocacy success, before pushing it, to see that that has actually impacted what matters most to the onwiki contributors. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Nosebagbear, thanks for your input. Not all working groups were able to develop their ideas equally. For Advocacy recommendations 7, 8, 9 and 10 particularly, they were discussed and developed in the brief timespan between Wikimania and Harmonisation Sprint. Recommendations right now are aiming to propose change at a structural level. Wider community consultations, research and concrete examples are what will help us inclusively and gradually shift into implementation. --MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)