User:Ziko/Strategy Synthesis

On the language of the Strategy Recommendations (Synthesis document) (A reply originally written for this page)

It must be difficult to write a synthesis of the earlier "recommendations" and try to be faithful to the earlier, more exhaustive versions. The results become more and more abstract: the document often does not say that the grass is green, but that the surface bio mass displays a certain wave length of the color sprectre. There is saying that "committees don't write well", and we see a similar tendency in some Wikipedia articles.

A major problem is, in my regard, the (understandable) choice for a text structure based on abstract principles. This makes it difficult to understand to which real world objects the words refer. An alternative would be starting with more concrete topics or even the presented entities such as the Governance Body. Like, what are the proposed new institutions and what are they supposed to do.

I also understand that the committee writers wanted to create options to the Board, and avoided to be more specific. For example, I read about "regional hubs", but what are they supposed to be? Mere instruments/committees of the WMF? Independently created legal entities similar to chapters? Loose regional networks of volunteers around a WMF staff member? Also: The writers believe that the Wikimedia movement is the problem owner of a "knowledge equity" problem. They present two possible solutions: create a new wiki (or several), or somehow change or re-interpret the rules of current wikis. But this is explained in a very complicated and unclear way, as if it was the intention to hide one possible, logical conclusion: that the Governance Body is going to force the Wikipedia communities to change their content rules (logical, because the GB is supposed to set rules for the whole movement etc.). Not what the writers intended? Okay, but it is a obvious possible conclusion if you read the text.

In general, the terminology in the Wikimedia movement is a mess. Additionally, I think that the document shows some very poor choices when it comes to using and defining some terms. (I don't know who exactly made which choice, and I don't want to accuse a particular person.) Some examples:

• I know that "project" is a common term in our Wikimedia jargon for "wiki". But I'd prefer if the document had used always "wiki". Now I see "Wikimedia platform" (p. 19, or does the term includes non wiki websites?) as a synonym for those "projects" (wikis). On the other hand, the word "project" is used sometimes with a different meaning (e.g. p. 14, "open-source software projects").
• Certainly the most problematic choice was the redifinition of "community". In the traditional Wikimedia jargon, we use it for those people who are regular editors/contributors (I call them "modificients") of a wiki. There are as many communities as there are Wikimedia wikis (/language versions). The redefinition that appeared early in the Strategy process is: "In this document, Community refers not only to editor communities but rather to all members of the Movement." (p. 63). (I guess it means: all natural persons, not legal persons such as chapters.)
• The same is true for "contributor". The new definition: "In this document a contributor is anyone who contributes to the mission of the Movement. It can be an editor, an organizer, staff, partner, or anyone else who invests time in Movement activities." (p. 64)
• The word "community" has so many different meanings in the English language (and in other languages). Think of "community college", "community center", "community-owned" etc., always with a slightly different kind of group in mind. In the document, the word "community" is used 208 times. Sometimes in plural, sometimes as a singular noun ("community input", p. 31). According to the definition in the glossary, there are only communities in the plural (? my interpretation). The document knows "language communities" (p. 56), and also "under and unrepresented communities" (p. 56) which are, again in my desperate try of interpretation, ethnic groups such as the Sorabians in Germany and the Sami in Norway?

My terminological choice would be to avoid the term "community" where ever possible, and use it only in the traditional way (online creation community). See, there is nothing bad with beeing a staff member or a volunteer "organizer" or "evangelist" of the Wikimedia movement. It is not necessary for you (generic you) to be called "community (member)" or "contributor" in order to be regarded as a valuable part of the movement. The redefinition is simply extremely confusing.

Allow me to mention a terminology problem I often encounter at Wikimedia Deutschland and partially the German speaking Wikipedia community. Because of the history of national socialism, many volunteers and staff members (especially the younger ones) try to avoid certain words that are "spoiled", as they feel it. A very short list of these words (non of them invented by Hitler, but often used by him): Gemeinschaft (community), Bewegung (movement), Volk (people), Nation, Heimat. This is why they struggle (no pun intended) with Wikimedia terms such as "Wikimedia-Bewegung" or "Wikipedia-Gemeinschaft"; they use "Wikiverse" instead. Well, it is relatively easy for ordinary Germans (again, no pun intended) to understand "Wikimedia-Bewegung", but what is a "Wikiverse"? I believe that the intention is honest, but the idea is not thought through. Consistently, you would have to avoid Hitler's most favorite term - Deutschland.

Well. This became a long, too long post. I just tried to explain what is on my mind, thank you for reading. Ziko (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)