Talk:Strategy project

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also the archive for this page.

Thoughts on content so far[edit]

My thoughts on the content so far are based on my experiences largely as a Wikinews contributor. From this perspective, some of the things listed seem great in terms of Wikipedia, but less great for a news site. (Which has a unique set of challenges, if you accept the premise that Wikinews should be fundamentally about encouraging original reporting, and quality journalism.) On the whole though, I think the page does a good job at discussing the broader strategy issues that need to be addressed in the movement.

I just want to walk through a few of the issues as the specifically relate to a Wikinews perspective:

  • "Being respectful of others, especially not-too-notable living people profiled on our projects".
    • The word notable has a very specific meaning for Wikipedia. The concept is not utilized on Wikinews, where the over-riding concept is "Newsworthiness." (The latter of which changes from language to language, and often dependent on the history of journalism where that language is spoken, but I digress.) Less-than-notable people may be worthy of a news article. For example, the players in this article and the two guys here would not in general be notable for Wikipedia, but their actions are worth mentioning. Inside Wikinews (at least on Spanish and English Wikinews), being respectful means making sure everything is neutral and everything is verifiable. Neutrality on English Wikinews tends to be taken to a bit of an extreme, compared to Wikipedia and other Wikinews projects. You cannot say on English Wikinews that someone felt some emotion or believed something. On English Wikipedia, you could probably say "Obama was angry over the Republican response.[1]" On English Wikinews, you would have to say something like either of the following, "During Obama's press conference, he pounded his hands on the lectern while saying he was disappointed with the Republican response." OR say, "According to the New York Times, Obama was angry at the Republican response." (The sources for these facts would then be in the source section.)
    • I believe there are similar issues regarding how notability and hence related policies are used on Wikivoyage. I am unsure if Wikiversity has any policy.
  • "Ensuring children using our projects (reading, editing) have a safe environment"
    • While I agree with this in principal, my concerns are the codification of a safe reading (and image viewing) environment in the context of children. News environments have, in my opinion, important and different expectations. If Wikinews reporters started writing extensively about gay pride parades, some people may complain that this is not a safe environment for children. This also broadly relates to "Allowing readers to set preferences for seeing/hiding NSFW content". Similar problems occur. (And on smaller projects with a smaller contributor cohort, you're risking huge POV pushing and cultural clashes.) Any definition of safe environment needs to be clear, easy and universally understandable. If it is not, then we risk continuing similar problems that we current have.
  • "Allowing casual readers to contribute knowledge they care about, regardless of notability (even if it doesn't end up on "Wikipedia")"
    • This feels like a situation where Wikipedia speak is potentially being used on projects where it is not appropriate. And to a degree, there is a lot of frustration on Wikipedia about non-notable topics that are recently in the news. A number of these things would be imminently suitable for an article on Wikinews or worth a mention on Wikivoyage. In many cases, I have seen Wikipedians say "Go away" rather than helpfully suggest that the person might consider contributing to a more suitable project. (I'm actually working on a way to make it easier for some people to interact with Wikinews as non-editors by creating a Wikinews version of HARO (helpareporterout) that I have shown to a few people.)

Otherwise, broadly speaking, the strategies seem fine. Actual implementation would probably require things being more specifically tailored for each project. That feels like it may set up sister projects for disappointment, as realistically, it has been demonstrated, and rightly so, that larger language Wikipedia projects are of more strategic importance. --LauraHale (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, LauraHale, that's very helpful. I've updated the page a bit in response. Each of the questions and issues will eventually need its own section. And I'm sure there are still scores of important topics missing, this is just a first pass. SJ talk  21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Lila Tretikov on Strategy[edit]

Lila Tretikov gave a strategy update in the metrics meeting September 4, 2014. (starting at 13') @Sj:. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noting it here, Ad. Part of the WMF strategy development will involve a public request for comments and ideas, starting soon. This WMF strategy will be for the organization, and not the movement. Let us start the movement-wide discussion as well, to provide a touchpoint for all of the individual strategies developed over the next year. SJ talk  13:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)