- 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". :)
I hope that building up the Global South organizations can be done in a way that we don't make the diversity situation in the US even worse.
As you know, the US has considerable income inequality, and the prices in big cities are very high. Just because there's lots of wealth in the US doesn't mean it reaches everyone, or that everyone here is a San Francisco techie drinking lattes and spending US$12 on avocado toast. Some editors go hungry if there is no food at an event, or walk and bicycle long distances in summer heat to get to events because nobody is willing to pay their transit fare.
I feel some concern that the push to move at least 50% of resources to the Global South means that now there will never, ever be funds available for working folks in the US who volunteer, or for US women, who still typically only earn a fraction of what men earn. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I see with regrets the return of the global south terminology, in spite of so many discussions where we (collectively) acknowledge that this term was not the best idea. Some so-called Global South areas are actually fairly well-served whilst geographies in the Global North are actually very underrepresented and very unsupported. I think you need to reconsider the use of the global south term in your recommendations. Anthere (talk)
Thematic and cross-region structures
Whether affiliates or non-affiliates, an increasing number of activities are being run by formal or informal groups, which do not fit into a region. I might mention Art and Feminism, or Les sans pagEs as two examples, but there are many others. How would those structures or efforts, more international in nature, fit into this new regional model ? Anthere (talk)
- I found part of the answer here: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Resource Allocation/Recommendations/E. I suggest a note be made in this recommendation to refer to the other (maybe it is there and I did not find it though). But in E, it is suggested that the thematic hubs will be more meant for partnership/collaboration. Which lets the issue of funding open... Anthere (talk)
On behalf of the resource allocation working group:
Re Global South: There are many different aspects and understanding of the term. We had changed this to another term, but our work with Whose Knowledge? showed that Global South may actually be the right word we need to use. In any case, we are very conscious that the term has been debated at length in the Wikimedia Movement, and we will make sure, whatever term we end up choosing, that that choice is clearly explained.
Re geographical distribution of privilege: It is a valid point and thank you for the observation. "Global South", if anything, is a shorthand for the situation of significantly limited possibilities to participate in the Wikimedia Movement (actively or just passively) due to various socioeconomic, cultural (e.g. linguistic) and other reasons. While traditionally it is connected with large geographic regions, we recognize the complexity of the world, including examples of underpriviledged people in generally well served areas and populations, as well as cases of the privilege in the regions and populations considered as "underpriviledged" in general.
We want to point out that this redistribution is not about *moving* from one day to the next all resources from one place to another, but very clearly about rethinking how we distribute further growth. However, you make a very good point in showing that we should not forget the disparities within regions we are already working in. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Legality and internal charters
I know legality is specifically considered, but in cases where there are pre-existing bodies (which would logically transfer or merge and transfer into regional hubs) there could be issues - they'd be enacting major mission changes. Especially with regard to those becoming net donors, some may have to resolve major clashes with their internal charters (depending on how they describe resource usage and fundraising) and potentially legislative rules about nonprofit. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Creating a strategy for 2030 using wrong schemes
I would like to inform you that the world is changing and that in 2030 it will be very different from today. So using old patterns and old concepts or wrong patterns and wrong concepts only helps to allocate resources badly.
The term "Global South" especially if used in the geographical terms (as you are doing) is an inaccurate and wrong assumption because there is no relationship between geographical position and human development but above all because the most important current trends growing in the coming years, such as the population migration, creates a global south more linked to society than to the geography. That is not a personal opinion but can be checked comparing the statistics and their evolution.
There are also very rich nations which, however, have marginalized sections of the population and this group is mainly linked to migration which, it seems to me, you have not even considered: "there are Souths in the geographic North and Norths in the geographic South".
In this case if you are looking to help marginalized communities and you say: "A certain percentage of all movement resources will be allocated to global south countries. This percentage should be refined and researched in a later process but has a minimum value of 50%. This percentage of movement resources allocated to be spent in global south countries specifically includes all staff paid through, oversight bodies, and senior management in, the global Wikimedia movement" probably you are doing a big mistake because the selection of "global south countries" cannot be done or, at the opposite, can marginalize more the existing marginalized communities not based geographically in an undefined "Global South".
Basically is not the concept Global South wrong but it's the association of this concept to a specific geographical area. We know that, for instance, India and China or Indochina cannot be included in the Global South, but someone could say that this inclusion is done because in these countries still exists a big social difference and the human rights are not yet consolidated, but that's true also in USA or in Western Europe (i.e if we consider the immigrants that are around 10-20% of the population in those countries). --Ilario (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
When equity is discriminatory
The definition of a certain percentage of geographically allocated resources, in fact, creates discrimination. It is not clear why the division is geographical and not by thematic areas (i.e allocating resources for diversity).
In fact it seems that someone is better or more capable because he/she lives in a certain country and in fact this proposed solution to reduce the difference brings another difference.
The Global South is not a geographical connotated concept and it can drive to a serious mistake above all by reading 2030 on the basis of today's scheme.
I understand the argument that some communities benefited from the political, social and economic context, but I don't see the reason why they should be disadvantaged considering that they are still the core of the community. It looks a bit like a horse racing where the jury puts more weight on some horses to make them run more slowly.
My suggestion is to review your concept of Global South, probably using a different concept more adapt to a long-term vision (there will be a Global Southe in the 2020?) but definitely to leave the geographical distinction to introduce more a thematic distinction mainly looking at other recommendations (mainly the "regional hubs"). --Ilario (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)