Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Advocacy/5
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by the new three Working Group members in their work of developing the final Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
Hub run[edit]
What is a hub run? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- It should be read like "Movement advocacy efforts are streamlined and reinforced by a hub, run with and for current and future advocates." In the meaning of "operated". Does that help? Alice Wiegand (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Amazing the difference a comma can make. It might be worth clarifying the hub a bit more too. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Non native speaker's suprise on my side that it can be read that way ;-) And yes, it definitely needs some more context, which we try to create together with people at Wikimania and from comments and input here and elsewhere. Alice Wiegand (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I support the hub concept which would incorporate both staff and volunteers. However, as I noted regarding Recommendation 6, the decision on what positions to take should be made by the community outside the hub by a broader section of the community. Advocacy volunteers and staff have an inherent bias in favor to undertaking advocacy campaigns and expanding the topics upon which we will advocate in the name of the Wikipedia movement. Thanks, Hlevy2 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- The value of a hub is as a centralised venue for discussion and records, and a place where one can find assistance. Maybe even expert assistance. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I support the hub concept which would incorporate both staff and volunteers. However, as I noted regarding Recommendation 6, the decision on what positions to take should be made by the community outside the hub by a broader section of the community. Advocacy volunteers and staff have an inherent bias in favor to undertaking advocacy campaigns and expanding the topics upon which we will advocate in the name of the Wikipedia movement. Thanks, Hlevy2 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Non native speaker's suprise on my side that it can be read that way ;-) And yes, it definitely needs some more context, which we try to create together with people at Wikimania and from comments and input here and elsewhere. Alice Wiegand (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Amazing the difference a comma can make. It might be worth clarifying the hub a bit more too. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
What will this hub consist in?[edit]
Although it seems like a good idea, dont we allredy have this hub with all the different projects? If there yet another system to communicate (Meta - projects - trello facebook twitter + chapter web sites and wikimember space + hub) is that not going to be really timeconsuming for volunteers? Nattes à chat (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are raising an important aspect. The advocacy hub is not only virtual. In our thinking (at the moment) it is a real place as well with opportunities to meet in person and to bundle and share knowledge and experience. We need to explain this better and work on it. Alice Wiegand (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)