User talk:Ellif/S2030

May I put a google translation here? I'll do. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

International Dialogue to Develop 2030 Strategic Recommendations and Positions on the Recommendation

Ellif d.a

The so-called'international dialogue' held by the Wikimedia Foundation was held three times on November 21-22, 2020, December 8-9, and January 23-24, 2021. I think this event had a positive factor in that it opened up participation, which had been limited to some Wikimedia activists, to more Wikimedia participants. However, I express my doubts as to whether the events so far and the consensus formed through these events correspond to the sum of all knowledge that is the goal of the Foundation and our Wikimedia Movement. I believe these strategic proposals and initiatives have retreated from the standards that were presented at the time of the 2017 Strategic Recommendation. At the same time, through all of the events at the time, I consistently felt an atmosphere where I would not have a voice if I didn't speak English, in other words, in this event where more linguistic participants had to be promoted, all Wikimedia people couldn't fully participate in this process.

Including these points, in this article, I would like to state my opinion on the recommendations and specific initiatives drawn through this international dialogue.

Away from decision-making based on English

For me, it is still easier to read and write in English than speaking in English. In that sense, the situation that I could clearly feel through every event is that I couldn't say what I wanted to say at every event I participated in. All conversations are provided for people who can speak English (of course, we're grateful for providing real-time subtitles in the main room), and as time goes on, you get to understand what's going on every time you're in the Breakout room. It became difficult. In particular, at the January event, speaking through chat was banned, this action became a powerful tool to prevent people who were not provided with simultaneous interpretation from actually participating in the event. I believe this was an obvious discrimination.

We understand that due to the nature of events that require many users to participate, there was a limit to controlling users from more languages ​​due to zoom and various problems. However, I don't think the current event method is appropriate. I strongly urge the Foundation to plan a more appropriate event by trimming it into 3-4 for each region, rather than picking all the participants in 2 events from next time. We also urge the Foundation to realize that the inclusion of non-English-speaking speakers is critical to expanding the Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia movement should no longer be a space where only English-speaking people can participate in decision-making.

Obstacle

Wikimedia people with disabilities have participated in a relatively large number of Wikimedia movements, but people with disabilities have not received any help. Among people with disabilities with sensory disabilities, American Sign Language Wikipedia is in the incubator, but it is difficult for sign language users who are not familiar with sign language to understand because it only edits the sign instead of showing sign language. In addition, I am desperate that no research has been conducted on what the difficulties are for the visually impaired, and that there has been no discussion about people with audio-visual impairments. In particular, Wikimedia editors with mental disabilities are at risk of confrontation with the existing community due to editorial, policy, or thoughts on documents, and as a result, mentally disabled people leave the Wikimedia project faster than other new users, especially easily blocked It will be. However, starting with the 2017 Recommendation, the Foundation has not paid any attention to Wikimedia people with disabilities. In addition, the initiatives related to the current Goal 3, especially the 16th Initiative, the Universal Code of Conduct are not believed to be able to prevent discrimination and exclusion that people with disabilities may experience in Wikimedia projects at this time.

In this regard, I protest that the discussion of Wikimedia contributors with audiovisual and mental characteristics at this event was only spoken by the parties, and the Foundation responded very reserved. As suggested at the Cluster E event, I strongly urge the Foundation to initiate an objective investigation through subsidies for the user experience of Wikimedia people with disabilities, and to implement a separate initiative event.

What is an alienated community?

Initiatives #2 (funding underrepresented communities) and #38 (content initiatives for underrepresented communities) deal with initiating initiatives for underprivileged communities. However, despite many discussions, we still haven't even defined what an underrepresented community is. Regarding this, I propose to organize the Wikimedia movement by dividing the underprivileged class as follows, as it was organized at the Cluster E event.

• Unrepresented Community: Refers to a group that contributed to Wikimedia, but did not have any efforts at the level of Wikimedia policies or initiatives. The group that best fits this meaning is probably the group of people with disabilities.
• Underrepresented Communities: This classification falls into three categories.

• First, there is less control over the Wikimedia movement, and editors also fail to reduce the need for participation in the Wikimedia movement. As we have discussed many times, this would be the Korean or Japanese Wikimedia community.

• Second, it includes multiple countries, languages ​​and cultures. For example, refugees who have left the Middle East or Africa and settled in the European and American regions live in different countries, so differences in language and culture will develop over time. There are also examples of different countries and cultures, such as the Esperanto speaker.

• Third, it refers to cases where the number of people is small, such as a minority language community. This will include examples like Jeju and Scottish.

The approach of all four groups will have to be different. In the case of unrepresented communities, research must first be conducted prior to the start of the initiative. In particular, in accordance with the recently approved Universal Code of Conduct, the UX experienced by Wikimedia editors who are considered to be in the community, in particular, the degree of mental invasion received by the general Wikimedia community should be clearly investigated. In the case of underrepresented communities, in the case of Group 1, there are many cases where they think that they are completely separated from the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, the frequency of contact between the Foundation and the local community should increase. In the case of Group 2, an event to organize the communities through online should be held. In the case of Group 3, different approaches will be needed depending on how dedicated the language users are to the Wikimedia project.

Initiative 40

Finally, I express strong support for Initiative 40. Before that, we want to run into a question that we should have put together. The Wikimedia community currently does not have an understanding of what the sum of all the knowledge to be built is. So, we have to start thinking about how the sum of all knowledge, in other words, can harmoniously manage the knowledge each one has. Wasn't this a fundamental reason the 2017 Recommendation didn't pay off in the end?

As a person who was tired of the unproductive culture inside Korean Wikipedia and had to start a separate collective intelligence wiki to contribute my knowledge to the sum of all knowledge, it made people's minds miserable like Wikipedia, or tired of endless discussions. You'll want to contribute easily if there is an alternative that can increase the sum of all your knowledge, rather than projects that are apt to leave the Wikimedia project out of hatred or tired of hate.

However, despite these principles, many of our positions, especially the protection of free copyright, must be kept. However, as for the direction of the new initiative, it seems that the following directions can be suggested. First, it is necessary to support multiple titles in the title. Wikipedia's policy of allowing only one name per document has resulted in a lot of conflict and wasted effort. Second, beyond the fair description of various positions, a plan must be included to ensure that all of the various positions can be recorded objectively and sufficiently.

Going out

There are not many projects like the Wikimedia project that have no choice but to devote themselves while harboring anger and hurt. I had to go through long fights and endless discussions to adapt to the Korean Wikipedia community. And I will probably spend such time in the future. If I leave Korean Wikipedia and there comes a situation where I have to go to another community, I will give up adapting to that community and probably leave the Wikimedia project itself. No, maybe because I'm with KWA, I'm still in the Wikimedia community.

I hope that the Wikimedia project is not because it is a must, but because it is fun to do it and do it at the same time. That will be the only way to build the sum of all the knowledge we desire.

p.s You forgot to talk about Initiative 10! ㅠㅠㅠ Just stop because the story will be too long.