Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups

This is a discussion page for the Working Group page where you can share your ideas and provide any kind of feedback on them.

Which working group could review the licenses for Wikimedia content

Hi KVaidla (WMF), a topic that I propose for review during the strategy process is the licensing of Wikimedia content. Specifically, I propose reviewing whether Commons should allow noncommercial restrictions on media content, and I propose reviewing whether future text contributions to sites such as Wikipedia and Wiktionary should have reuse restricted to noncommercial use. Which working group do you think would be best suited to include these questions in the scope of their work? --Pine (✉) 02:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pine, thank you so much for sharing your perspective. As far as I understand this topic is already being discussed by the Diversity Working Group and this seems like the best fit for it in this framework. I am pinging the coordinators here to bring their attention to this point: User:Camelia.boban & User:JVargas (WMF). Thanks again for thinking with us and for proactive approach when sharing your perspective! Have a great summer ahead! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cross Wiki promotion

I'm going to post this here, too.

We have been discussing here about how it would be beneficial to promote the survey more widely on different platforms. Is there a way to promote this on a banner on English Wikipedia for example? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Megalibrarygirl, the survey was only one of many ways to engage, especially for those who did not want to engage publicly online or at offline events, but remain anonymous. We will share an update with additional ways to engage over the next weeks and months soon, so stay tuned. Thanks,--Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Engagement in discussions

The working groups are obviously avoiding taking part in the discussions they have started with their recommendations. Discussions, tat happen on-wiki, have to be the crucial and essential part of every decision process within the Wikiverse, anything off-wiki ist simply not really valid. When and how are the members of the working groups going to interact with the final deciders, the communities, about their recommendations? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden)

Hi Sänger, the groups are not avoiding taking part. They are currently working on looking at and digesting all the input they are getting via the different sources (Wikimania, strategy salons, community conversations in different languages and different channels, comments here on Meta, external experts, cross working group conversations etc) and then updating and adjusting their recommendations. We will provide an update on the timeline and next steps soon. Best, --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope on-wiki. as on-wiki is the only proper way of conversation in the wikiverse. Anything else is shady hidden backrooms. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 19:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

+1. --Yair rand (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nicole Ebber (WMDE): Why is the vast majority of WG members completely absent from these discussions with the community, and WG engagement in the whole is very small? You said they are not avoiding these pages, but they still are not here. This way the legitimacy of this whole process gets seriously damaged.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Nicole Ebber (WMDE): - I wanted to follow this up to. Just summarising what is said on the talk pages isn't sufficient, it needs active engagement because as well as our views, we also ask questions. Hundreds of them. And they direly need answering by WG members and most/nearly all of the WGs have not had active engagement. Whether that's a bit by everyone or a couple of active spokespersons doesn't matter, one big update claiming "a consultation was done" will not be accepted by anyone. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Hi, SGrabarczuk (WMF), I presume that folks are now packing up for Tunis or may be, the jet-lag is still in force? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, they have a week ahead before the Sprint, and might be preparing for efficient participation in the event. I don't contact them directly, sorry. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  What the heck could they do except engaging with those, who are the only ones, who should have something to say in this: the existing communities? Everything off-wiki is of nearly no value, only on-wiki discussions are valid discussions in the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  Is that so? I think some people may disagree with that. Effeietsanders (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'd disagree with nearly no value, but on-wiki is of the most value, with the most engagement and the most only real transparency. Their participation is critical for this consultation to even count as started - the click cannot be considered to be started until every query has had an initial response. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Effeietsanders: I assume you're talking about disagreement on whether they have value, not any disagreement about whether they're valid, correct? --Yair rand (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Yair rand: even that weakened statement I'm not sure there is universal agreement on. Especially when talking strategy and other movement wide topics, I think there is a lot of people who think that offline conversations are, if well designed, more inclusive and welcoming, safer and hence more valid than online on-wiki conversations where a small group of very active people exhaust the rest. I don't think that's happening here (yet), for the record, but that would be one of the reasons why I think the statement would not be universally agreed upon. Effeietsanders (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Translations?

Not everything is readable in /de. The paragraph about the new Synthesis Groups, whatever this handpicked random groups with no connection to the communities but obviously wished by some power-grabbers in the WMF, are. The whole paragraph is missing and not translatable. OK, it's obviously nothigng the general public should care about, they are not asked about any input, but the way it's done here is even beyond the community disdain usually shown by the ivory tower here,. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF), Nicole Ebber (WMDE), Abbad (WMF), and MPourzaki (WMF): Could someone please mark the missing paragraph for translation? Or should other languages be left in the dark about the Synthesis Groups? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 11:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

On it. And the members of the new groups have not randomly been selected, but these are the people from the nine working groups who signed up to continue the work. You can read about the initial selection process from 2018 here. Early next year, the document they produce will be published for community review, so please stay tuned. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Reduction in number

Given that over half of the recommendations received either general or, in most of those cases, specific, repudiation that wasn't rebutted by WG members (or other editors), I assume that the synthesis will only be considering the remaining 40 odd. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)