Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2016-2017/revised

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Convoluted language[edit]

Nice to see that there were changes in a (small) subset of sections, but please try to not further worsen readability. For instance, parentheticals make for over two thirds of the sentence «To grow content and contributors [...]» and aren't placed very strategically in the sentence flow. Nemo 05:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff bugs[edit]

Let's make a list while we're at it, to make the revision even more productive. :) Nemo 05:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Map usage[edit]

Thanks for adding «basic usage statistics, e.g. count of articles with maps, interactions, and map link clicks»: a sensible start. Nemo 05:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: full encyclopedia article writers[edit]

On «the hypothesis is that there is a wide swathe of readers who are more than casual browsers, but not full encyclopedia article writers», it's depressing to see that Wikimedia Foundation seems to forget that Wikimedia projects already include projects where users don't need to be "full encyclopedia article writers", such as Wikisource, Wikiquote and Wiktionary just to mention those focused on words. Before inventing new kinds of contributions, I hope you'll do your best to exploit such opportunities. Wikisource, for instance, has been successfully used within coderdojos and women initiatives, even beyond contests. Nemo 06:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Guiding edits[edit]

The part on «suggest to users things they can do to make better, more constructive edits as they make them» made me think of AbuseFilter, which is often used for such warnings. :-) I suggest to start with research on the effects of AbuseFilter filters' warnings, starting with basics such as how many times the edit/action is abandoned vs. how many times it's revised. Nemo 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Research minisite[edit]

The addition of yet another minisite to the plan is facepalm-worthy and in direct contrast with the feedback received. Very extraordinary reasons should be provided. Nemo 06:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nemo - please reconsider this minisite, and instead think about using Meta for this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Nigeria and India[edit]

Now that Understand new readers to better explain and raise awareness for Wikimedia projects is focused on India and Nigeria, I hope you will focus on how users can be made aware of the projects in their local/native language (note that Wikisource and Wiktionary may be easier than Wikipedia), such as Yoruba and the many languages of India. Nemo 06:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Diversity[edit]

@Kbrown (WMF): Thanks for posting the detailed feedback on the FDC's comments for each program, that's really good to see. :-) I think there's been a misunderstanding on the Talent and Culture point, though - the response says that trustee diversity is out of scope, which is understandable, but this point was about staff diversity rather than trustee diversity, which presumably is in Talent and Culture's scope. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

For staff focused diversity, the year long project was designed to be agile for the year, adapting as we dive into the work and learn more. FQ1 is expected to start with: set alliance committee, set baseline metrics, set foundation of staff understanding & awareness, set plan for manager training. Also to clarify, global diversity is a subset of overall diversity, and the staff project looks into at least 10 different areas of diversity.
Here's a bit more information on the FQ1 goals:
- Gathering a broader set of diversity data from staff,
- Analyze the data to determine where the areas for improvement are,
- Start an alliance group for staff to safely discuss what diversity means to them and hear what they have experienced,
- Start initial training for staff so they really know what diversity means, both as people and legally, plus continue work on unconscious bias awareness,
- Create an action plan to include diversity awareness in manager training, both in recruiting and in leadership.
Also to confirm, WMF already has in place:
- Ongoing sessions with staff and managers on unconscious bias,
- Tracking of limited metrics on candidates and staff, including annual US EEO reporting,
- Collaboration with SF tech neighbors on diversity best practices that are working for them,
- Established policies on: EEO, ADA, ADEA, anti-harassment, non-retaliation, whistleblower protection,
- Established relationship with SafeGuard, as the employer of record for people working on WMF projects while outside the US,
- Generous US immigration policy, including flexible H1Bs and green cards.
Hope this helps. Best, Jlohr (WMF 18:37, 2 June, 2016 (UTC)

Terms clarified[edit]

I don't know if that is the last we will hear of "Global south". It was nice to see FDC recommend clarification of terms including Global south and WMF responding clarified. This document doesn't make a mention of a "Global south", neither have I seen the terminology in recent official communication. If it was truly an effort on part of WMF staff to push out that old terminology - I am thankful. It only took a few years and a lot of effort. Thanks Ijon (I'm guessing). You can't blame me for not being consistent (not forgetting the Global South essay as well). ;)

I smiled at seeing "global north" being relegated to "so-called global north" in the document. I have no objections but that sounds eerily similar to "so-called Islamic state" that seems to dominate most searches and news cycle these days. BBC and quite a few news outlets, insist on adding "so-called" in front of most stories when making reference to Islamic state, almost exclusively so these days. Probably not a good a reference/comparison to make? I imagine something like this would be of relevance to someone with Katherine (WMF)'s background in communication and advocacy. Best to come up with a couple of new terms, agree on them, and send a memo to all staff, so everyone is consistent in their usage. Asaf, you've been suggested plenty of alternatives in the last 4-5 years to draw from. Thanks again. Theo10011 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)