Jump to content

Estratégia/Wikimedia Movimento/2018-20/Relatórios/Resumo das conversas de movimento 2020

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/Summary of Movement Conversations 2020 and the translation is 50% complete.
Other languages:

Como nos conectamos…

As recomendações foram disponibilizadas em vários formatos: um documento central de 20 páginas, o texto estendido de 56 páginas e uma nota de capa de 4 páginas. Um resumo de 1 página foi desenvolvido por um membro da comunidade e tornou-se um iniciante de conversas populares e acessíveis. Foi fornecida uma leitura de áudio do DOC principal, bem como um vídeo de uma apresentação sobre as recomendações. Em suma, as traduções foram fornecidas em 12 idiomas, embora houvesse desafios com sua qualidade e comprimentos.

Por 5 semanas, as Core e a estratégia e os contatos de estratégia conversavam com comunidades globais e vozes diferentes que compõem nosso movimento. As conversas aconteceram no Wiki, por e -mail, em inúmeras chamadas, mídias sociais e aplicativos de mensagens. A divulgação foi adaptada para diferentes contextos de acordo. Muito obrigado às afiliadas e entusiastas da estratégia que realizaram eventos locais e regionais; 40 plus e contagem.

que participou…

Salão de estratégia em Marrocos
Admincon em Dortmund
Salão de estratégia em Haiti

O engajamento com as comunidades on -line foi uma grande prioridade, desde a Wikipedias em espanhol e árabe, até meta em inglês, Wikcionário da língua francesa e hindi Wikisource. Isso foi apoiado com divulgação dedicada pela estratégia Liaisons e pela equipe principal escritores, membros do grupo de trabalho e funcionários e conselho de afiliados e a Wikimedia Foundation. Dê uma olhada em alguns eventos de estratégia de movimento que ocorreram e a global compilou tabela da entrada fornecida.

Muitas comunidades em ambientes emergentes da Wikimedia, como na África e na Ásia, também ficaram empolgados em entrar, compartilhar suas experiências e fazer parte de discussões em todo o movimento. A estratégia conectou colaboradores nessas regiões entre si e com as partes interessadas do movimento, incluindo afiliados maiores e mais estabelecidos [2]. A Wikimedia France, por exemplo, apoiou 13 eventos pessoais liderados por localmente em outros países da cooperação Wikifranca [3]

alguns números…

A página de destino das principais recomendações na Meta foi vista quase 8.000 vezes entre 20 de janeiro e 23 de fevereiro de 2020; e mais de 15.500 vezes quando combinados com a página de conversação [4]. Postagens e portais na Wikipedia, Commons e Wikidata, vinculados à Meta também. As visualizações de página mais altas em outros idiomas após o inglês eram alemãs, com mais de 1.100, francês (904), espanhol (403) e árabe (186) [5]. Dos envolvidos na meta, seu número médio de edições foi superior a 20.000 e a idade média da conta foi de 6,7 anos. As visualizações de página ocorreram com mais frequência para as primeiras recomendações na lista de 13 e diminuíram para as recomendações subsequentes [6].

Para uma discriminação do número de pessoas envolvidas, por favor veja abaixo.

O que foi dito…

Um pedido importante foi tornar o idioma mais simples e claro, para facilitar e traduzir, reduzir redundâncias e tornar o conteúdo menos vago, incluindo os "resultados esperados" e seu objetivo. A clareza também foi solicitada para terminologia, o que significa de maneira diferente entre idiomas e culturas, como liderança, equidade, advocacia e diversidade.

Movement strategy recommendations were designed not to be prescriptive to leave room for local adaptation and contextualization. This was also to find alignment amongst 89 varying recommendations from 9 different thematic areas. That said, there have been many requests for the text to become more specific, less "jargony", and more direct, like in differentiating between stakeholders when addressing online or “offline” communities, the Wikimedia Foundation, or affiliates.

There have been requests for certain content to be made explicit: decentralization; the movement’s integral values of volunteering and free knowledge; gender inequalities pertaining to the movement and the world; women, LGBTQ+, Indigenous peoples, and other underrepresented communities; advocacy; environmental sustainability, climate change, and the movement’s footprint; technology and developer communities; user experience; internal platforms; the centrality of open source; and better inclusion of knowledge consumers.

Smaller and newer communities or affiliates often struggle with day-to-day complexities and have highlighted the need for improved participation in decision-making, resource allocation and relevant skills, better representation, technical assistance, financial support, movement knowledge that is accessible, and coordination with stakeholders in the movement and partners. At a higher level, the recommendations begin to address these barriers. At a more detailed level, there have been many questions from all communities relating to implementation and the necessary conversations on how ideas and “expected outcomes” would be carried forward; by whom, at what cost, and how will coordination be ensured.

Areas of support…

There are concepts that at the current level of the recommendations would be generally non-controversial: such as improving user experience (rec 3), particularly for multimedia, and for lowering the threshold for editing, including on mobile; internal knowledge management (rec 8); and evaluation (rec 12). Some of these concepts are addressing longstanding gaps in the movement, although there are questions around related tools and processes.

There has been strong support for distributed structures and systems (recs 5 and 6) that bring more diverse representation, local staff, regional connectivity, clear roles and responsibilities, equitable and accountable distribution of resources, and greater local autonomy. Although, there are concerns around existing power imbalances in the movement and different applications for online communities. There is also strong support for enabling more welcoming environments and addressing harassment (recs 2 and 4), although IP masking as a sub-topic continues to be complex and controversial.

There is support for systematically developing skills in the movement (rec 7), including opportunities to tap into existing expertise, such as through mentorships, and by building individual and organizational capacity. This would be based on locally-identified needs, aiming for language adaptability and relevant tools. Some would prefer fully online and self-directed options, while others would benefit more from in-person knowledge transfer and networking. Relatedly, distributed capacity and leadership (rec 6) are generally supported, particularly with a focus on improved inclusion and empowerment of individuals and organizations. Although, the concept of leadership is not universal and even the word “leader” itself has generated debate.

Working more closely, meaningfully, and systematically with third party developers and volunteers has been supported in many related discussions. This same concept can be expanded to improve engagement with communities in all matters of the movement, on- and offline. Although there have been concerns around the specifics of some concepts, the "tech council" (rec 9) for example, and the feedback received has been divided.

Areas of debate…

In general, there are concerns that implementation will be top-down, imposing, taking away autonomy and sovereignty, and interfering with project/community self-management. Questions about implementation and sovereignty have been discussed widely around concepts such as decentralization, the global council, regional and thematic hubs, with regards to legal implications, composition and representation, risk of increasing bureaucracy, around existing movement structures and stakeholders, and where financial and human resources for the new structures would come from.

Concerns around autonomy, sovereignty, and freedom extend to any content guidelines being proposed, policies and protocols enforced, around the meaning and implications of impact, analysis, and related decision-making. Similar concerns apply to notability, original research, and sourcing policies, where oral knowledge and “non-Western” sources of information have been discussed. It must be noted that many of these contentious topics predate movement strategy.

Requests for systematic conflict resolution and related training, harassment prevention, and a universal code of conduct have been prevalent and emerged early on amongst working group discussions to support healthy interactions and communities. The spectrum of feedback has been wide, ranging from full support and asking for more to address harassment, to outright rejection citing previous processes, ongoing processes, and concerns around transparency and accountability in banning users.

There are fears around the commercialization of Wikimedia, such as offering ‘premium’ application programming interface (API) for large commercial users - with concurrent support and opposition. Even though there is recognition that large commercial users place a toll on limited volunteer and Foundation resources, and there is recognition of increased revenues needed for the future of the movement, fears of commercialization persist given our history and role in the ecosystem of free knowledge. Similar concerns exist around compensating individuals for non-editing activities. While there is recognition that volunteering is not sustainable in the future for activities such as organizing, events, and skill building, especially in parts of the world where we have the largest room to grow, there are fears of facilitating paid editing.

What’s next…

Many questions exist around implementing the structures and concepts proposed in the strategy, and suggestions have been provided to prepare for the next phase and ensure a smooth transition. Even with strong support or just cautious optimism, there are requests for changes to the content, further clarity, simplification of language, better translations, and continued conversations with communities as we go forward.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach and reaching collective decisions has never been easy in our movement. The feedback provided by communities along with guidance from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, will help a small group of writers convening March 10-12 to refine the recommendations and bring them to a final state. We will continue to update and communicate decisions. We are grateful for the feedback received and wish to thank everyone who participated.

Learn more

You will find short information about the feedback shared per community:

Referências

  1. ↑ The Strategic Direction: até 2030, Wikimedia se tornará a infraestrutura essencial do ecossistema de conhecimento livre, e qualquer pessoa que compartilhar nossa visão puder se juntar a nós.
  2. ↑ uma prévia do 2019 Community Insights Survey números mostrou maior conscientização e maior apoio ao movimento Estratégia entre colaboradores asiáticos e africanos.
  3. ↑ WMFR apoiou eventos de estratégia na Argélia, Benin, Camarões, Côte D'Voire, RDC, Guiné, Haiti, Mali, Morocco , Senegal, Tchad, Togo e Tunísia, reunindo mais de 180 pessoas.
  4. ↑ Page Views
  5. ↑ Page Views
  6. ↑ os números aumentam para as recomendações 5 e 6 - tomada de decisão e liderança distribuída - e para recomendações 10 e 11 - priorizando tópicos para impacto e inovar em conhecimento gratuito - que têm uma quantidade bastante saudável de debate e discussão.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Summary_of_Movement_Conversations_2020/pt-br&oldid=24650266"