Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Resource Allocation/Recommendations/G
Yes, absorbing resource allocations is a problem. But this proposal is so vague as to be useless. It comes across as an aspirational statement, not one that describes the problem & offers a solution. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
This recommendation reads:
This must be prioritised for new and emerging groups/people, especially in the Global South. We don’t want to prioritise growing capacities of established entities, and with doing so entrenching inequity.
There seems to be a confusion here regarding our goals and priorities. Our objectives for 2030 include achieving "knowledge equity" and avoiding "knowledge gaps." This would suggest that competing proposals would be evaluated regarding each proposal's merits and effectiveness in attaining our goals. There are many established central staff functions, chapters and affiliates with effective programs that should be given high priority because of their effectiveness, and those effective programs should be allowed to grow. Our goal is not to resolve the entrenched inequity of the world, but rather to provide free knowledge to everyone. With better access to knowledge, everyone can advance in life, but it is not the purpose of WMF to hold some movement components back for the sake of advancing societies who are impacted by global inequity. Please clarify what you are recommending? Hlevy2 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed – it's another strategy "recommendation" that shows that its proposers have forgotten what 'the movement' is about. EddieHugh (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also "global south" is not equal to "non-established entities". Either speak of Global South and Global North. Or talk about "geographies already supported by well established entities" versus "geographies under supported". Or talk of "already well represented geographies" versus "underrepresented geographies". Just avoid mixing concepts Anthere (talk)
What about physical sustainability of our editors and readers, and the impact of global heating on communities in hot climates?
We haven't mentioned environmental sustainability, or becoming a zero-carbon emissions organization anywhere in our recommendations. (Did I miss this?)
We say we want to do outreach in places like India, Africa, and the Middle East, where extreme weather, heat, droughts, and torrential rains are a problem for human health.
To support our editors and readers in places impacted by extreme weather, zero carbon emissions is a good first step. We have enough funds to do this, so let's put it into our strategic plan. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments from the working group (Sept 9th)
On behalf of the working group:
Our goal is indeed to provide free knowledge to the world. If we fail to engage with entire communities and help them share their knowledge, we have failed our mission. This recommendation wants to make sure that this doesn't happen, that we invest locally so that we ensure people can collaborate in their own regions and languages. The point about language is well-taken, it is something we have been discussing extensively, and we intend to harmonise the language across recommendations at the next stage of work. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)