Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2022-2023/draft/Archives/2022-04

What is the difference between the various meetings?

What is the difference between "Annual Planning Conversations with Maryana" and "Executive Director’s call"? Isn't that the same thing? What are the "Commons" meetings about (probably not Wikimedia Commons, right)? Could you add some explanatory text to clear this up? Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Gnom. I've made number of clarifying copyedits to the page to make this more clear. Let me know if anything is still confusing. Thanks! --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you!

This section was archived on a request by: Gnom (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Where can I provide written input?

Can you please expand the page to answer this question? --Gnom (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Same as above. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Gnom (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agenda Link

Hello, Can you facilitate our assistance to meet by agenda link? cordially Nehaoua (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Nehaoua, all the Zoom links are hyperlinked on the title of each session on the Your Input page, so you can join directly. The only exceptions are the Conversation with the Trustees (for which I believe you already have the link) and the call for affiliate Executive Directors, which is not an open call. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Commitment to knowledge

Commitment to knowledge needs to be the WMF's first, last and only goal. Of course, equity in all its forms is important, and the WMF must maintain its strong record of removing and avoiding discrimination within the WMF itself. However, there are many more focused organisations fighting for equality in the wider world, and anyone who values equality above knowledge can show their support via them rather than the WMF. Repurposing the WMF into yet another equality charity would be a missed opportunity and an abuse of donations. Certes (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Call timeslots

New Zealanders have an interest in the Wikimedia Commons calls as there are a number of plans developing / forming with local GLAM institutions this year. However the current call timeslots make it difficult for community members to attend. The timeslots are set for 10pm and 4am New Zealand time. I wanted to give WMF this feedback as it is part of the Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand's activities for the year to advocate for suitable timeslots for our community. 09:00 to 10:30 UTC would be better and 08:00 to 9:30 UTC would be best. Einebillion (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Einebillion, I'm sorry neither time slot is suitable for Wikimedians in New Zealand. I am so excited about the plans you're developing for this year, and all of the contributions you have already made to open access and Wikimedia. Thanks for suggesting alternative time slots, which I commit to using next time I schedule a conversation like this. In the meantime, I believe you will be able to attend one of the calls next week and thank you for your flexibility. (~~~~) FRomeo (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll definitely be there but I can't promise I won't be nodding and falling asleep by about 11ish. I'll do my best! :-) Einebillion (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That's legendary commitment, V! I'd definitely be fast asleep long before 11pm :-) Schwede66 (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Amazing. I'll call on you early in the conversation. Foeromeo (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Support for search for images in any language and make it usable for eight year old kids.

With Commons a priority, it is very easy to support the search for media on Commons because we had that functionality already. It would be based on the labels available for Wikidata items that are used with the "depicts" statement. Children need quality illustrations for their projects. Commons is freely licensed and it Wikimedia is about education.

As our mediafiles become available for a language, only one teacher needs to check if pictures are available for a curriculum and everybody benefits.It is probably the cheapest way of inviting teachers to add pictures that are applicable for their country: ie a Nigerian or Chinese, an Estonian or a Brazilian nurse/fireman/policeman/etc. T

This type of outreach is cheap, has a huge global impact and is the best way of gaining volunteers for our projects. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Where are the numbers?

The 'beef' in a plan like this one is where it allocates staff and money. Why is the draft silent on this? How can we provide meaningful input without this crucial aspect? --Gnom (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gnom, the approach to the budget this year is stabilization--we don't anticipate much budget growth. You can see in the "Our Approach" section of the Plan that leadership anticipates the budget to increase by 17%, and that is to cover inflation and year over year costs. The budget for funding individuals and affiliates will grow by at least the same amount. Through this process of talking to communities to align our work, we plan to determine how to allocate the Foundation's biggest resource, which is the time of our teams. You can expect more details about this allocation as we move along in the planning process. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @ELappen (WMF) – what if a community member wants to, say, take a certain amount of funds that is currently spent in a specific area, and argue in favour of spending it on something else? You would need to have at least some figures to start building such an argument from there. Gnom (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If you’d like to advocate for more resources/human power being put behind certain projects or priorities, you can definitely do that here or in one of the annual planning conversations with Maryana. That’s what they’re for, and knowing figures isn't required in order to be able to do that effectively. Additionally, any decisions to reduce funding in particular areas are made in light of other priorities moving up, so advocating for what you would like to see more of is more effective than making a suggestion for moving funds away from something else, anyhow. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Reduce Employee Compensation

From my point of view it is important that the average compensation per employee at the Wikimedia Foundation will be lower in the future as it is now. I dont see a good reason to pay for a non-key employee more than 100,000 Dollar in a year. In Germany if a person costs a company 100,000 Dollar a year it is very well paid. To reach that I think the Wikimedia Foundation should stop hiring people working in regions with a very high income like it is in the San Francisco Bay Area after my understanding the case. From my point of view compensations in Non-Profit-Organisations whose funding is based on donations of people should be after my understanding more or less the same as the median income of a country where the employee works with the possibility to pay more in areas with a low median income. One goal in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 23 is the right to work. So from my point of view I think it is better if the Wikimedia Foundation pays more people instead of smaller group of people a lot of money. For that a reducing of the working hours per week to not more than 35 can also help, to make this goal of the Universal declaration of human rights more realistic to be reached. Key employees should after my understanding also earn not much more than usual employees. I think here that more than 200,000 Dollars within a year is not good and responsible. I say that with a view as I have from Germany and so it is maybe another culture in the United States of America and I dont want that the Wikimedia Foundation pays very low salaries. With my suggestion I want to reduce from my point of view the very high compensations to a high to median level in the future. I dont want that the Wikimedia Foundation fires high paid people or pays high paid people a severance that they leave the Wikimedia Foundation. I suggest as a goal to hire no non key employee that costs the Wikimedia Foundation more than 100,000 Dollar in the fiscal year 2022-2023 and to hire no key employees that cost the Wikimedia Foundation more than 200,000 Dollars.--Hogü-456 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

i totally agree with this. wmf can definitely hire more capable and skillful people from countries like ukraine (especially in light of the ongoing war and exodus) and india and outsource to these places. i'm saying this seriously and not mocking. you can pay them higher-than-average salary in their region and it's probably still cheaper than workers in california. this will also contribute to economic growth in these less developed parts of the world. then you would also have another bonus point to boast about in your appeal for donation next year, "your donation to us helps third world countries blah blah blah..." RZuo (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a small note that true employee cost and employee income can be far apart. An employee making 100 000 dollar in Germany might cost a German company something like 160 000 dollar. This is oft overlooked when looking at WMF employee cost. Also there is plain competition at play here. The question is not what an average German employee makes, but what a German google employee makes. This is important because we don't want to spend 2 years training someone only for them to take a job paying twice as much somewhere else. Lastly some 60% of WMFs employees are already outside of SF-area and this number is rapidly increasing YoY. Almost all tech staff has left the Bay Area as its too expensive to live there esp. on a WMF salary. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

To TheDJ’s point, the vast majority of the Foundation’s employees are already based outside of San Francisco; in fact, almost half (47 percent) of Foundation staff are based outside the United States. Global hiring has many advantages beyond the financial–we believe that we can only support a global movement through a global workforce, and have built our hiring strategy to reflect that.

From a financial perspective, we are committed to both being responsible with donor funds and to being a fair employer–Wikimedia Foundation staff deserve fair wages for their contributions, no matter where in the world they are located. Even with that, we are a nonprofit that supports a leading internet project with a small fraction of the resources of other technology platforms that host comparable visitors. NGunasena (WMF) (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

wow

I looked at some of that thing, and then I thought, what does that actually mean? Does that actually mean anything? And then I thought, how do you define what it means? And how do you maintain it?

And in terms of making sure that it wasn’t a technological imposition, and in that, I really sort of lost my focus. I don’t think it had anything to do with the technology; I think it had to do with the fact that I lost focus on what I was doing.

And then I went out and spoke to lots of people and asked them. And I think I came to the realization that I was pursuing the wrong part of this mission.

And then, you know, when the project came to a halt, it was because the focus of the mission became so much different than it needed to be in order to be the right kind of mission. And I think it was my mistake in thinking that there was something technological I could add.

I’ve learned a lot from it. There’s nothing that I could have done differently. But when you’re a product manager and you have a plan to move a company from where it is to where it wants to be, you have to be willing to make decisions based on the understanding that you don’t have all the answers.

And sometimes, as we talked about before, that doesn’t mean that you’re wrong, it just means that you have to change the product. And, sometimes, those changes are painful. And, sometimes, they can hurt people. But they’re necessary for the company to grow and change and become a great company. And, more importantly, for people to realize their full potential and to enjoy a great experience.

Don’t expect customers to have the same experience at all times, either. They’re going to have things that you can’t control, and you need to acknowledge that.

Also, don’t spend too much time worrying about whether it’s going to get noticed or not. Because, as I learned when I was in product management, even if you see a change, and you’re waiting for the praise and the positive feedback that you think you’re going to get, it’s just never going to happen.

So, the less time you spend thinking about the praise, the more time you spend worrying about the core problem, and focusing on fixing the core problem, then you’re going to be much happier.

Commit to changing your mindset.

I’ve said this a million times, but it’s worth repeating: change your mindset.

A mindset is an essential element to making change happen.

Your brain works in a certain way, and it’s going to think in a certain way, unless you challenge it.

The phrase I have loved over the years is, “There’s no such thing as change without pain.”

When you change a mindset, you’re going to experience the pain associated with that. And as long as you know what you’re changing, and you’re willing to endure the pain, then you can make change happen.

And, of course, the feeling of change is a reward for changing your mindset.

How do you change your mindset?

A habit is a way of changing a mindset.

Any time you do anything repeatedly, you build a habit. When you develop a habit, you become more effective, more successful. You do something again and again, and the process becomes automatic.

So, it’s a good thing to build a new habit. A bad thing to build a bad habit.

I’m always amazed by people who think that you can create a habit in a day. Because, I know that it takes longer than a day to build a habit.

But it’s something that is definitely worth working on.

And one of the best things that I’ve learned is that habits and routines are not something that you can invent; they’re things that you are created.

So, create a habit or a routine in your life that will allow you to succeed.

One of the reasons that we are as productive as we are is because of routine.

But, as Jimmy Wales said, “Routine is the enemy of progress.” Because, once you have a routine, the results are automatic. You have an answer to a problem you didn’t even know was a problem.

And that’s great. But, again, in order for that routine to work, it’s going to require something from you. It’s going to require you to be a little bit of an automaton. And if you’re not into that, then, chances are, you’re not going to succeed.

So, build a routine. Be ready to make the little sacrifices necessary to make it work.

And be ready to learn from the results. You’ll be amazed by the rewards.

A quick note: I talked to Jimmy Wales a while ago, and he asked me to look into this tendency that we have to think that a person can achieve great things only if he knows exactly what to do. I’ve learned a lot about failure. And I’ve been less afraid of it now.

Sometimes you have to do what’s right and let go of what you want, because you need to do what’s right for the business and the world and what’s going to help the business move forward. And, sometimes, that means you need to let go of what you want to get to what you need.

I’ve also learned a lot from my mistakes. I had a hard time with that one. But then, you know, in terms of how to encourage people to not be satisfied with the status quo, I don’t have that answer yet, either. Because we’re all so quick to say, “Oh, our technology works great. It’s just a matter of time before we get to full equality.” I don’t know what we should be telling people.

For me, I just have to keep making improvements and keep showing people that we’re making improvements and show them how they can get more access and how the technology can be better and things like that. But I don’t really know what more to say than that, and I don’t know how to get people to listen.

I’m thankful that I didn’t sit around and say, “What have I done wrong?”

I got to spend the last week of my career telling people that I was leaving. I get to make some of the people I care about really happy in a way that I never imagined was possible. And, on top of all that, I got to make some great products for people. And I got to be a part of the web’s most inclusive community.

So, to answer your question, “What have I learned?” I would say that the biggest thing I’ve learned is that I’m not a good manager. But, I also know I’m not a bad manager. I’m just not very good at it.

And, I’m always going to be a better manager, I think, than I’ll ever be an employee. So, I think I’ve learned a lot about learning how to manage and being a better manager.

I’m thankful that I had this experience.

-- 2001:16B8:1E31:7200:3959:C704:264E:EDDE 03:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fix video2commons!!

is this annual plan thingy a wish tree? anyway, can you please fix v2c or provide a built-in alternative for video upload? specifically, c:Commons_talk:Video2commons#Is_this_software_still_maintained? is the most urgent problem, affecting all user-generated videos. RZuo (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi RZuo, I wish we could solve Video2Commons on the technical side. Unfortunately, it's something that Google / YouTube has decided to block, and we were unable to convince them otherwise after a series of dozens of meetings between our Product teams and ultimately our lawyers. I gave more details about this a few years ago in the Phab: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T236446 . If you want to discuss further, you can email me directly at yweissburg@wikimedia.org or reach us at partnerships@Wikimedia.org

Yael, VP of Partnerships RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not bold enough

Finally some consolidation after years of breakneck growth and considerable wasteful spending. In future Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plans I hope to see not just no real growth but real and visible cuts to overall spending. In the medium to longer term I propose moving the headquarters out of San Francisco into a more affordable region. Sustainability should also guide this decision, the Great Lakes region probably being a better choice than, say, Texas. Relying too much on hand-me-downs from Silicon Valley neighbours has not always been very helpful in the past. Creating physical and mental distance to those neighbours could turn out to be an added benefit to moving into a cheaper and smaller place. In future headcounts at the San Francisco offices should not exceed those at e. g. Bengaluru or São Paulo (no, I did not pick those place names at random) either as contractors or at software developing affiliates.

Along those changes to overall spending I would like to see the following changes to WMF fundraising: Adopting best practices, if it has not been done already, or preferably something even more restrictive. Alongside this the setting of less ambitious targets. Future growth should mostly come from other entities in the Wikiverse. HHill (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned in the Aspirations and Approach section, the rate of growth seen in past years will not continue in the 2022−2023 fiscal year as we stabilize our growth and also ensure that new resources are delivering maximum impact for our mission.

Also, as noted above, not only is the vast majority of the Foundation’s employees already based outside of San Francisco, almost half (47 percent) of the workforce is based outside the United States. LMccabe (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The fundraising team regularly provides updates on our practices. You can learn more in the last annual fundraising report, this Building a secure financial future for Wikipedia medium post, and ongoing updates on the meta page. MeganHernandez (WMF) (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Zoom

It is very disappointing that Wikimedia uses Zoom instead of Jitsi. Zoom has blocked many countries including where I live in, so there is no chance for me to participate in such discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

i share the concern, but in a different context: zoom is part of the chinese surveillance system. RZuo (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So as a proposal for the annual plan I would write: "The Wikimedia Foundation will run an own hosted stable running infrustructure to host virtual meetings, also for big groups and conferences that is based on free or open source Software with a minimum of tracking needed for technical functionality and that replaces the currently used commercial closed source video conferencing tools like Zoom. This protects better the privacy of the users and will make it more propably that people are able to participate in such calls through reducing the risk that the domain is being blocked in a country or a region within a country. All community members and affiliates are allowd to use the infrastructure. ".

How many does the Wikimedia Foundation and the chapters currently pay every year for video conferencing. If currently some people can not join because Zoom is used I think this is a important reason to think about using a own hosted solution for calls as soon as possible. There the propability that is is blocked is lower then when using a commercial product.--Hogü-456 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that attending through Zoom isn't possible for either of you. Unfortunately no platform is perfect and that there is a set of countries for which Zoom has restricted access. For context, we settled on Zoom because we wanted to offer the best possible experience for simultaneous interpretation (all calls are multilingual), make it easy for people to join on mobile, and ensure secure and stable calls for a very high number of attendees at once. That said, I know leadership would still like to hear from you even if you can't participate in a call. All calls are being recorded and will be posted on the Your input page, along with notes from each call. Comments or questions left on this talk page are part of the feedback process, so feel free to leave your thoughts here. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• I do note that Jitsi is hardly the panacea to wikimedia calls - it doesn't scale well, doesn't handle interpretation well, and really doesn't handle cases where members are on wildly different internet connection capabilities at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, running a videoconferencing solution at scale is not a hobby project (like it is now). It would require serious long term investment and dedicated engineers to work on it. While I'm all for using jitsi, I'm not sure if that is a priority that WMF should focus on right now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Google Meet is another option which is accessible to me. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Google isn't well-known for respecting people's privacy either. We need a solution that works technically without having this kind of concerns. I assume WMF has done their research about existing platforms, which means we should have a medium-term goal to find or create an alternative. WMF is hardly alone with this problem, so it should be possible to find partners for the project. –LPfi (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the same is true about Zoom.

  Zoom has two problems: 1) inaccessibility; 2) bad reputation about privacy.

  Google Meet has one problem: bad reputation about privacy.

  Jitsi has one problem: bad quality.

  Wikimedia has chosen the worst option which is Zoom. If Wikimedia chooses Google Meet, more people will be happy, including me.

  Seriously, I say I have no access to Zoom (zero access), and you guys complain about quality (you guys still have 90% access).

  I see that some conferences are available in Farsi. But for whom exactly? The vast majority of Farsi speakers have no access to the conferences at all. I don't know how they do the translations, if any, but that seems a waste of money to me. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have experience with BigBlueButton. As far as I read there is a possibilty to offer live interpretation. I think it is an important thing to look to an alternative. I also suggest to talk to the Chaos Computer Club and to ask them how they do their live streams with live interpretation. Propably there is an alternative that is acceptable if you search for it long enough and with enough resources. Please look at it and try to answer the question about the sum of expenses for videoconferencing per year at the Wikimedia Foundation and at the Chapters, User Groups or other Affiliates.--Hogü-456 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is the environmental impact statement?

Some readers may be rolling their eyes now, but don't we have a standing board resolution saying that the annual plan must include an environmental impact statement? Where is it? Or has the board resolution been revoked? Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gnom Thank you for the question! The board's resolution is still valid, and the Wikimedia Foundation is committed to long-term sustainability and it is an essential component of our work towards the Wikimedia mission and vision. But having an environmental impact statement in our annual plan does not seem to support impact in this kind of work, and out of step with the rest of the annual plan. We think that publishing periodic carbon footprint and sustainability reports (like we did in the past) is more useful to track changes and our progress. We are still iterating on how to do it better and the next report will be out soon. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MPaul (WMF), thank you for your response. You definitely have a point, but we are talking about a resolution by the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. The language of the resolution is unambiguous. These decisions are binding, and WMF staff should not ignore them. Otherwise why should I, and any community member, bother voting in the upcoming board elections? Gnom (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

9th “region” missing

Hi, I do appreciate a better focus on smaller entities. However, I'm active in two user groups which do not fit in any of these 8 regions. They are thematic-focussed and not region-focussed (i.e., Wikimedia Stewards User Group and WikiClassics User Group). How do you want to reach them? Do you want to encourage them to form at some place to get better support? Or do you plan to build another solution for that? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi DerHexer - Thanks for your question, and apologies for not getting to it sooner. We're experimenting with the Regional Lens to see what's the best way to discuss work in the movement. This is probably just one of the angles, considering that work like yours (and many others in the Movement or within the Foundation) is not necessarily specific to one (or several) countries, regions, or languages. This will be part of the learning, to see what's the best way to do this. Thanks for your feedback!--JVargas (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Accountability

Yes. We need to improve the Foundation’s performance and effectiveness. But this is not about connecting the dots, is about knowing what is done by whom and who is the responsible for every concept. In the last years we have seen lot of things not being done, even breaking previously working tools, and no one is accountable for that. We have a relatively big communicatios team that is acting as the non-existing United States Wikimedia Chapter. The product and design teams are working on what they prefer, and not on our strategic goals. We have a wishlist to ask users what they want the WMF to work on, and it doesn't matter what we the users decide: WMF will do whatever they want. Who is accountable? How do we know who must lead the project towards our strategic goals if no one is driving? And, most importantly: what was the fulfilling of previous year annual plan? Was it done? If not... who is responsible for that? Are they going to fix it? -Theklan (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an important question and my expierence from the last years is that I have not heard so much what has been reached from the goals. I like the presenations of the Tuning Sessions Wikimedia_Foundation_tuning_sessions,_FY2021-22 as they offer an overview what is done in which department. There I think a goal should be that these presentation will be published at latest one month ofter the end of the quater and I dont know how many people know from these presentations. So maybe there is a better linking needed, that people find the presentations. I wish a possibilty to talk directly with the employees of the different departments about their goals and that the presentation of the Tuning session will be a public livestream where all interested people can attend. After that there should be then a possibility to talk to people of a department at a virtual platform like Work adventure. This helps the people in the Wikimedia Foundation not to forget that they have their jobs because there are volunteers who do something in their spare time and to hear from their thoughts. For the people involved it is a chance to tell their thoughts and to understand better what the Wikimedia Foundation does at the moment. Maybe there is also more discussion about the content of the slides shown in the Tuning session here in Metawiki in the future, when the tuning session is more known.--Hogü-456 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This year’s plan will probably look a lot different in terms of how we set our strategic goals and report on progress. The plans of previous years were under the Medium Term Plan umbrella, and we reported progress through tuning sessions done within the Foundation and then shared out, which you reference. We are aiming for a more dynamic plan this year that is developed and carried out together through two-way information sharing with communities. This is why we have been hosting so many more conversations with teams at the Foundation, trustees etc this year - including seven calls across languages, timezones and projects for the annual plan. We’ll keep improving and the draft for the coming year has a section on regional learning sessions. We are prioritizing hearing directly from the movement, closing the feedback loop, and using the feedback to develop Foundation plans and priorities.

One of the most important pieces of the planning process will be a prioritization of work, and we will need to find consensus on what we feel is most urgent. It’s part of the reason that we hosted two calls focused on Wikimedia Commons, to hear directly from contributors about the most pressing issues impacting their work. During these conversations, one of the themes as noted in this thread, was that while there are new features and capabilities that people would like to see on a project like Commons, there are also some urgent maintenance issues that need to be addressed, either led by the Foundation or by us supporting volunteer developers. Leaders and product managers from the Product and Technology teams joined these calls to help us finalize the first set of fixes, some of which were shared on the call itself. LMccabe (WMF) (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Goals and Actions

The goals seem reasonable and appropriate as organizational strategic goals. As always, the challenge is in the actions taken to reach these goals. In that regard I want to offer two specific issues that need to be addressed:

1. In order to advance knowledge equity and provide knowledge as a service, we need common templates that work across Wikimedia projects. This has been proposed many times, but never moves forward. If the Foundation is serious about these goals, we need to provide small wikis and non-English-speaking wikis with the tools to make this possible. Just as Commons is used to share File: / image content, Commons could be used to share Template: resources across wikis.
2. In order to strengthen health, we need to address the overwhelming level of abuse aimed at those who try to fight vandalism. A Universal Code of Conduct is great for those who follow codes of conduct. The people generating this abuse have no such limitations. This isn't a problem that is solved with rules and codes. It is a problem that can only be addressed with sufficient resources dedicated to eliminating the abuse and reducing its impact on volunteers and the community.

Thank you for your consideration. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you,Dave Braunschweig, for leaving your feedback about the allocation of resources for mitigating abuse on Wikimedia projects. The work of volunteers to identify and address harassment is critical for the health of the Wikimedia projects. It is understandable that you have concerns about the toll of the heavy work load and stress caused by abusers.

The Wikimedia Foundation is working on improving tools and processes for functionaries and other editors who fight vandalism and abuse on our platforms. You can find more information about these efforts on the page of our Anti Harassment Program on Meta. The Foundation’s Trust and Safety product team and the Anti-Harassment product team build software that helps contributors and administrators to make timely, informed decisions when harassment occurs. In particular, the Anti Harassment Tools team is developing the  IP info tool, to make it easier for admins and anti-vandal fighters users to access information about IP addresses. The feature was deployed in April on test wiki for feedback from volunteer administrators.

We acknowledge that the Universal Code of Conduct does not directly address the harassment of functionaries and other editors who are working to keep our platforms safe spaces where reliable information can be shared. However  the enforcement guidelines ask the Foundation to develop and maintain a new central reporting and processing tool that will hopefully help those who fight abuse to process cases of UCoC violations efficiently by escalating cases to the correct/best team of volunteers or Foundation staff to address the report. Additionally, the Universal Code of Conduct Committee, which is suggested by the enforcement guidelines and which is meant to handle cases that go beyond the capacity of individual communities, will also be provided with resources by the Wikimedia Foundation.We know that some of these things will take time until they are effective.

And we know that no solution is perfect, and even our best efforts may not be able to stop all abuse. For volunteers who come under the threat of legal action due to their good faith contributions, the Wikimedia Foundation has established a Legal Fees Assistance Program. The Trust & Safety Policy team is also piloting a Peer Support program for volunteers that might offer support to volunteers dealing with abusive users.

If you have ideas or suggestions about what other resources are needed and how they could be useful to the whole movement, please feel free to suggest them. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF) One of the challenges we face with long-term abusers is the use of VPNs to bypass blocks. A research team that could identify VPN providers being used for abuse and proactively block these open proxies could go a long way toward addressing this abuse.

I also note that the legal fees assistance program appears to be defensive in nature, helping volunteers defend themselves against legal action. Many jurisdictions also allow for civil actions against harassment. Helping volunteers who are being harassed legally identify abusers and obtain restraining orders is certainly an extreme response, but may be necessary in some extreme situations.

Dave Braunschweig (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Dave Braunschweig for following up with these specific ideas. As you’ve likely seen, the Product team is looking at the complexities of the issue and thinking about options for a path forward, keeping in mind both the bad actors that make use of open proxies and the good faith contributors who get caught in proxy blocks. We acknowledge that dealing with long term abusers (LTA) is extremely difficult, and finding ways to keep users safe while also welcoming good-faith new editors to the movement is a top priority. We encourage volunteers to reach out to Trust & Safety team for support in cases that are difficult for the community to handle alone or if they otherwise need assistance. SPoore (WMF) Senior Strategist, Trust & Safety (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)