User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)

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

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

WikiAfrica[edit]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Africa_and_the_strategy_process

I think we should not make this more complicated than it currently is...

WikiAfrica is a mouvement at the Africa continent scale. We are in the process of registrering an association for it. But it is not recognised as a user group. It is quite informal.

Now... in Africa, I know people will have the opportunity to contribute as individuals, with the support of the strategy coordinators (in French, Arabic and English). Many editors will have the opportunity to contribute at the level of their user groups/chapters (in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Cameroon, IC, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa etc.). So my suggestion was to do a tiny discussion with the couple of people who regularly participate to WikiAfrica so that we can provide the perspective that animates this core group. I intend it to be a core group discussion, not a community wide discussion. I was not sure which extent I would give it when I registered. So it is track A and B. After more thorough thinking, I will keep it only "organized group". I'll update the table accordingly Anthere (talk)

got it Do you have a particular template text that we can use to notify people and post in various places to raise their interest ? Anthere (talk)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Re:Strategy Talk[edit]

Hi

I see the situation on the HUWIKI is realy stuporous. I will wonder, if You have any opinion. I don't want encroach in activity our new Wikimedia board. --Texaner (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have thought Your (The WMF) are really interested in the Wikipedians &/or Wikimedians opinion. I see this was a mistake. --Texaner (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all excuse me! I don't want blame not you not the WMF. There really was some misunderstanding on my part. I see some uncertainty in the organizing the strategic talk. On the other side you had understand me 100% well: I don't want to interfere with our chapter's board scope!. But, I also don't want coordinate the track B. I wanted only explain my opinion, in hop it will be taken into consideration. Thank for your time and attention. --Texaner (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

"Retired academics are more achievable" entry[edit]

Hello again, Szymon. About entry #97 of English Wikipedia, you marked it as part of question 5 (who will make the theme work and how to partner them) to Theme D ("The most trusted source of knowledge"). However, the entry came from question 4 (adding something to make the theme stronger) of Theme E ("Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem"). May you or I please correct it? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. --George Ho (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Entry #85 of Meta sources on Cycle 2[edit]

Hi again. Entry #85 came from question 3 of Theme C. May you or I please amend/correct the entry? Also, NFCC="en:WP:Non-free content criteria", which I either forgot or assumed everybody knows what NFCC is, so I noted. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Need update on Cycle 3 in local wikis[edit]

Right now there is Challenge #2, yet almost most of local wikis don't know about it, especially English and German Wikipedia communities. Should the movement team be informed about this? --George Ho (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Informing all communities onwiki about the draft of the Direction[edit]

Hi again. Should all communities be informed about Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction, currently a draft? --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Strategy pages and protecting by other means[edit]

Hi. I am wondering that rather than using traditional protection on those pages that we look to manage them by specific abuse filters. We could set a filter that allows "(WMF)"-like accounts and sysops to edit the pages, and no one else. We have done similar sorts of things for archive pages, and the like. Let me know if you think that would be useful, and we can look to set things up. I would just need to know the page hierarchy you would be looking to have restricted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The Affiliate-selected Board seats process welcomes your support[edit]

Globe of letters.png

Hello. You are receiving this message because you are active in the field of translations <3 The movement needs you! The Nominations phase has started for the ongoing selection process of two Board members, and the timeline is quite tight.

A Translation Central is available to help translators figure out what's been covered and what's left to do. Over the course of the next few weeks, your attention on candidates' profiles is particularly welcome.

While there are four languages that are especially relevant for multiple affiliates (namely Arabic, French, Russian and Spanish), you can also add others. If you can't help: please see if you know anyone in your circle who could, and spread the word :) Thank you! Elitre (WMF) and Facilitators of ASBS 2019, 13:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Conversation Starter Drivers[edit]

Hi Szymon, I have found the file:Conversation_Starter_Drivers.pdf you added on May 3 with a link to Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Learn. It wasn't on Commons, it happened to be hosted here on meta. I updated the page. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy your weekend[edit]

Hi Szymon, enjoy your weekend. Allow volunteers to edit in their spare time :) Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal feedback issues[edit]

I think your move of what I said illustrates the issue—I had no clue where that ought to go, so I put it where there already seemed to be discussions taking place. I think scattering feedback over fifty different proposals, not to mention the other talk pages for the various subpages, is inefficient at the least, and also creates a conundrum for editors who want to discuss various proposals together like what I was doing. Do you think it would be better to set up a central page for proposal feedback, or at least for general feedback? Seraphimblade (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Trying to recieve feedback from ~40 pages is totally inefficient. Please bunch up the pages under each cat and/or launch a centralized venue for feedback. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Link update[edit]

Hello! A link on Diversity/Recommendations/1 is broken. It has been archived from: Can we handle harassment? to: Can we handle harassment? — Aron Manning (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the former. I hope you don't mind I added another relevant link: diff. — Aron M (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review this modification, whether you agree, thank you! — Aron M (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Aron Manning, hi. I just published the documents with no changes to the versions provided by the Working Groups. My opinion doesn't really matter here. I'd rather point at the WG members :) SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a draft, so I hope it's all right to make small refinements. Can I assume they will revert, what they don't agree with? — Aron M (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, I prefer not to speak for them. Wikimania preconference is happening now, maybe a part of the group is busy there, a part might be packing or flying. If you'd like to know what changes they approve or not, maybe the simplest way would be to ask someone active from the group? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
I found 4 members of the Diversity WG onwiki, all inactive in last month. Do you have a live contact to them, maybe you could sometime (actually not urgent for us) drop them [the diff] or give them a hint that an improvement was suggested, and it's up to them to accept it. The atmosphere here is not "progressive", to say the least. — Aron M (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please[edit]

ask the WG members to pro-actively interact with the received feedback on the t/p. Regards, Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)