Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/Summary of Movement Conversations 2020/Spanish

The numbers

Our community conversations included several languages (Spanish, Catalan, Basque, Galician and indigenous languages) and channels.

For online communities we discussed in Village Pumps. For organized communities and chapters, we had a Telegram channel. Seven calls were made with affiliates such as Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Spain, as well as with a group of women editors. A Salon was held in Valencia, and parallel discussions also enriched the feedback received. Overall, about 100 people participated in conversations in one way or another.

General feelings

Overall, the perception about the documents and recommendations was different depending on the user profile. The most engaged users, who have been following the process to some kind of degree and are usually members of an affiliate, received most of the recommendations warmly, and also gave the most deep feedback and suggestions for improvement.

When it comes to online communities, the reception was colder, and not so positive, perceived as something private made by WMF and affiliates. Despite the negative preconception, the users who engaged were interested in the debates and gave valuable feedback.

There is a broad understanding that working in the areas identified by the Strategy Process is necessary, but when it comes to the possible outcomes there is a bigger debate and diversity of points of view, as well as worries and fears.

Areas of support

The areas of undisputed support amongst those engaged were regarding improving the platform, especially the third recommendation, Improve User Experience, but also the 11th, Innovate in Free Knowledge.

Strong voices and support for areas regarding improving the conditions of affiliates, especially with Ensure Safety and Security and Equity in Decision Making, among others. Generally, people engaged in affiliates find those very important, while most online users ignore or don’t find them so important.

Areas of opposition or concern

The biggest concern, when it comes to both Spanish and Catalan editing communities, is the fear that one outcome of the Strategy Process would be the mercantilization of the movement.

Also, the lack of coordination between stakeholders (especially WMF departments) gave some people the impression that some strategy points were already being implemented while the consultation was still going on, creating frustrations.

The third opposition theme would be the fear that WMF or affiliates, but not online communities would “control” the projects.

Suggestions for improvement

People suggested that transparency and accountability as concepts needed to be more present in the text.

The needs of young editors (and, in a lesser way, elder ones) should be taken into account. Also, the term “developing countries” should be deleted in the text.

There was also important feedback on online privacy, the need to solve the disconnection between affiliates and online communities, with the added challenges of coordination and collaboration in a global community like Spanish-speaking, where editors are found all around the world. Also, important thoughts were done around the Impact recommendation, especially when it comes to its adaptation to the different contexts and projects and the need to be specific about what kind of impact we want (on readers? On search engines? both?)

Points to clarify

The biggest point to clarify is the perceived mercantilization of the Wikimedia Movement.

It should be made clearer how some controversial points would be implemented, such as a Charter/Code of Conduct.

Some concepts also need clarification, in particular the relationship between impact, diversity and project independence, as well as the meaning and implications of knowledge as a service and people-centeredness.

It should also be specified that no reccomendation’s outcome will result in collecting data from users.