Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2/Healthy, Inclusive Communities

What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?

My opinion is that this is a necessary foundation for any of the other themes, but seemingly difficult for the WMF to directly influence. The WMF can hopefully implement improvements to attract and retain new editors. Improving interactions between existing/established members may require focus within the community (e.g. WP:ArbCom).

• Improved tutorials and training - well trained newbies remain surprisingly positive despite criticism (73% experienced reversion and 56% experienced correction, yet 95% stated beneficial interactions) Consequently training (possibly multistep) can make a big difference to whether newbies continue on
• Even basic positive feedback and rewards during training make a big difference Ensuring support for people to train, welcome and support new contributors will help.

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 13:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

References

-- As of now, this theme would be apparently more suitable to Wikipedia as the current sister projects are not as impactful as Wikipedia, Commons, and Meta-wiki. Wikipedia can still attract more people, yet the sister projects can attract general audience and should coexist to help balance Wikipedia. Wikiversity... um... I don't know. It still needs more courses. Wikinews has a long journey to attract new editors and potential journalists, especially those who can do original reporting. It struggles to compete successful news outlets. Also, its relic articles struggle to attract new readers, especially when Wikipedia considers news articles from Wikinews unreliable. Other sister projects can still attract new readers, but attracting new editors may vary. Two central projects, Wikimedia Commons and Meta-wiki, can still attract more readers and editors because they are part of the Foundation. Commons is interdependent with its sister projects and can still have many more files, and Meta-wiki can bring in creative people who can propose new projects, like Wikijournal and NonFreeWiki, and researchers and organizers, especially of movements.

In conclusion, attracting new readers is easy, but persuading readers to become editors either is not or may vary, depending on projects.

A couple of future projects, on the other hand, may have potential impact on the world. Wikijournal, now part of Wikiversity, can attract new audience if it becomes a stand-alone website. Same for NonFreeWiki, which still needs more support. --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC); edited. 04:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

-- I realize the actual nature of NonFreeWiki after re-reading the whole proposal. If it exists by 2030, and it does as exactly proposed, all local wikis would not be allowed to upload non-free content locally. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I do think, that online interactions will gain more and more influence in all our lives. Being part of a healthy inclusive community will help people stay healthy and happy. So by taking care of our community, we as Wikipedians can take good care of ourselves - and of others. We will not only be distributing knowledge (which will also be much easier, as the community will be respected better, if it is considered healthy by others), but also well being. In addition I do think, that we have a lot more knowledge to share, if the community is inclusive. Since interacting with Wikipedians on an international level, I have begun to realize, what knowledge is missing on the de.WP (for example about geographical locations in Northern Africa, political leaders from India, artists from Armenia and much, much more). I do think a lot of people with good knowledge and the abilityto contribute do live in Germany, as we have immigrants from many countries living here. Often they are bilingual and could add knowledge from sources that are not accessible by me or most German Wikipedians. But I do know only very few editors with a migration background in our community, so we are missing out on a lot of knowledge by being not inclusive enough at the moment. And this is just one of many examples. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I disagree with T.Shafee that it's "seemingly difficult for the WMF to directly influence".

Financially, they can support activities that promote diversity, instead activities that ignore or undermine diversity.

Organizationally, they can encourage affiliates and partners to promote diversity, and intervene when they undermine diversity.

Publically, they can use their communication channels to promote diversity, and discuss issues that undermine diversity.

Also, I disagree with George Ho that "current sister projects are not as impactful as Wikipedia".

There are many social groups that lack photos, videos and audios about them. Wikimedia Commons can help to promote diversity in that aspect. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

--NaBUru38 (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for making a misleading statement, NaBUru38. I amended my statement to declare Commons and Meta-wiki as impactful as Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad impact in the sense of smarm. --Mautpreller (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mautpreller:, could you elaborate please? External links may be helpful, but I'd be grateful if you used your own words, in our context. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The language ("healthy", "grow in size and nature", and so on) seems to show that there is no intention to deal with criticism, conflict, dissens and so on. This sunny scenario has nothing to do with reality. My suspicion is that this goal will simply lead to more language of the same kind, but with an underground of steel: everyone who is not "positive" will be called "toxic" and will be excluded. However, that's just the opposite of what we need. We need a civil way to quarrel (hard), not a way to make everything "inclusive", "rewarding", and "fun". Moreover: this is not a question of the "Wikimedia movement" (whatever this may be). This is a question of the communities. The Foundation should definitely not interfere here, least of all with rigmarole like "healthy communities".--Mautpreller (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You could also look here: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/German Language Kurier discussion. The language of your statements produces massive mistrust and strong counter-reactions.--Mautpreller (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Quoting one edit: "This is telltale language: healthy, advancing, truly global, most trusted, engaging. This is the vocabulary of modern exploitation: you are to burn for your project, you are to toil for it voluntarily (!) until you drop." I think user:Felistoria is right there.--Mautpreller (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Though genuinely abusive behaviour - as opposed to robust dissent - has done a lot to drive off good editors. I'm not sure if the Foundation is the right body to deal with that, or whether there is a way to tackle one without silencing the other, which also drives off people who don't feel they are being heard. The hazards of mixing an organic site with an organisation's strategy... Orderinchaos (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is a problem. I often saw it on German wikipedia. It is not easy to tackle abusive behaviour without silencing robust dissens. The communities are not very good at this task. But WMF is definitely the wrong address here. And in my experience, this "fringe movement style" of health, reward, fun, great experience, and so on is anything but helpful because it prevents to see the serious conflicts that inevitably go along with community projects.--Mautpreller (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Global public discourse is fragile right now. Between online harassment and alternative facts, we find ourselves in a precarious situation: it seems increasingly difficult to judge what to believe and whether you’re safe. When public discourse deteriorates on either front—toward harassment or falsehood—our advancement as a civilization stalls or regresses.

What would be the benefit to human life if we made significant progress over the next 15 years on both fronts—reducing harassment and increasing veracity? Well, let's consider the opposite first... a world where people are increasingly harassed online and alternative facts are used to create an environment of disinformation.

I know of no society that has significantly advanced within an environment of disinformation. If they have advanced, they do not match the pace of advancement in societies coursing with evidence-based information. In societies flooded with disinformation, people grow confused. Then, they grow wary. Slowly, trust in any fact is undermined because people do not know what is true in a bigger sense anymore. And somehow, almost as if by contagion, people begin to lose trust in each other. The end result is that most people withdraw from the commons. That’s an overall loss in greater human potential.

In societies or environments where people are harassed or shut out of the conversation, there are equally costly results. The cost to our civilization when all of us do not realize our potential is substantial. When I think of all of the untapped talent globally—the lost insights in math, science, engineering, literature, comedy, psychology, history—to me, it seems like burning the Library of Alexandria every hour.

Living with harassment places most people in a state of fear and anxiety. Fear and anxiety are most often not the best conditions for learning, especially not for sharing new ideas. That brings us back to lost potential, but let’s not leave it there. For most people, it’s not a good quality of life to be around people that are hammering on them. It puts people on edge. Threats of sexual and physical violence are commonplace for minorities and women online. Those threats are designed to evoke fear. The fear people experience in just reading threats can be substantial. Now imagine a group of people coming after you. People often grow symptomatic—from clinical signs of stress all the way to PTSD—without the threat ever materializing in real life.

Online harassment is bad, for sure, but on the internet these days, it’s tough to know just how far someone is willing to go. Will they take it up in real life? We now have a budding vocabulary to describe when someone online tries to mess up your life offline (e.g., doxxing, swatting). It’s terribly uncool. The end result is similar: most people withdraw from the commons.

What if we went in the other direction? Doubling down on healthy communities and evidence-based information?

Together, we could build healthy, networked communities supported by tools to welcome and mentor new contributors. We could build better tools to support discussions. We could build tools, networks, and cultures—on and offline—to prevent, stop, and deal with harassment, as those kinds of interactions do not promote human development and do not foster a learning environment. But it’s about more than tools and programs. We would likely need to evolve our norms across different cultures, different languages, and different projects. That’s not an easy thing to do, and it's absolutely not a one-size-fits-all. We’re going to need everybody. People inside communities will most always know best. When they aren’t sure, other regional communities are likely the best resource for them.

Simultaneously, we pursue our love of truth out in the open. We would likely need better infrastructure to support it—infrastructure for an open, digital future. It is not the sexiest play, but it appears to be essential. We could partner to build an open, scholarly infrastructure, for example. We could get ever-more serious about open citations. We could work to bring down the wall between private and public knowledge. On that front, it may be important to think beyond technical solutions. It could be equally useful to think of moral solutions designed to influence public opinion. “Knowledge is a foundation” for any learning civilization. Will we share it openly and freely? Or will some of us keep it to ourselves? We are standing on the moral high ground. We should speak from that ground and inspire others to join us.

What would be the benefit to human lives if we built ever-healthier communities who share a love of truth?

• As a species, we need to learn to solve problems digitally at scale and these precious projects are one of the world’s largest running pilots. We could help chart one way. We could learn, and then teach, so much more about how to structure factual, polite discourse online at a global scale. We could learn about how to build healthy communities and network them. The world will find those learnings and example useful over the next 15 years and beyond.
• Healthier communities are usually more attractive to more people. More people would likely be inclined to join us. So more people would likely learn and teach others. That means that many more people, just like us, all around the world can realize their desire to teach themselves, self actualize, and offer the opportunity for others to do the same.
• More people could be interested in documenting more knowledge in more languages. There is so much knowledge to document, in so many languages, we have only just begun.
• Other online communities may be tempted to follow suit. The influence on public discourse online could be substantial.
• With additional investments in open infrastructure and the right partnerships, we could build an open digital commons for the future, ensuring a broader legacy for future generations. AStillwell (WMF) (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I simply cannot understand such statements. Health, truth, happiness. I thought I was part of an encyclopedia project, not a religious cult.--Mautpreller (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedias have a potential of attracting more contributors by a conscious effort to resurrect thematic WikiProjects (those that already have at least a few followers, however inactive those projects might be at the moment). We are convinced that the existence of a group working together on a specific topic can bring new contributors (from the particular subject area). -- On behalf of the Wikipedians of Brno, Blahma (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

We think that many people are unlikely to edit or stop contributing after a short time, because they are not getting what would keep them here – if people do not work for material profit, they want at least to feel appreciation, satisfaction, usefulness – and this is what the rest of the community and/or the readers have to make them feel very clearly, so that they see a meaning in their work and keep contributing. -- On behalf of the Wikipedians of Brno, Blahma (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we havet to share topcs in more languaes rhan previous season. In.adddition I would like to make sure that information of wikipedia are credible and faithul to trueí Vidamzenesz (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

-- Are we certain that this theme will impact the world? There have been allegations of sysop abuse filed at Requests for comment toward local wikis, yet some or more users refused to participate at RFC subpages.. Examples are Croatian Wikipedia (post-2013), Romanian Wikipedia, and Hindi Wikipedia. Those wikis lack their own ArbCom, yet I was told that even an existing ArbCom in a local wiki would be owned by the same admins who would abuse their powers and statuses (tools or no tools) to harm, intimidate, and bully decent or good-hearted contributors. I'm not sure this counts: Requests for comment/Administrators' abuse of authority in Russian WP, closed as inactive last year. The person who filed for RFC changed his/her username and then was blocked at English Wikipedia. One RFC proposal was passed to close any discussion older than two years. If two years pass, and no one else participates in those RFCs, how else can admin abuse in local wikis, including smaller ones, be addressed? Also, who else is in the wrong, the admin or the editor? Without sufficient participation, and without sufficient translators, we may never know. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?

It is foundational to achieving the other objectives, but is only a means to an end for ultimately supporting improved content. In particular it is important to attract newer contributors who may be able to add new ideas and expertise to the community. An expanded and diversified community is also necessary to support more niche interest groups. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 13:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If I want to export something to the world (3, 5) I should decide what. (1) a culture, (2) technology or (4) high quality. The world needs the wiki culture. (1) is the asset = people and how they interact. If we had more of this, the world would be better, a more democratic and framåt = forward-looking place, mlg Susann Schweden (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree, that this is the fundamental issue, that will help all other themes along. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Deffinitelly the most important. Wikimedia stays on active participants, but Wikimedia is still techy and hostile to certain needs of people. We need to easy editing and contributing as much as possible and set a friendly environment for all people needs. So looking on the question again I would say that this theme is highly important, but still we have a lot to do in tech area (e.g. English categories and way of contributing to Wikimedia Commons is still very difficult).--Juandev (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with the importance of the theme, although I don't see what leverage the foundation might have to act on this topic. I can indeed think of some "minor" points, like, we should put far greater priority on ability to contribute whatever the language a person is accustomed to. So for example, not having localization for Phabricator is a real bad point. I say that to my mind it seems minor, as indeed throwing some resources affordable for the foundation should help resolve it. But for bigger problem like "how do we make people act kind with each other so they all contribute in peace and harmony creating always more great works of greater quality", well, I'm not sure that it makes any sense to target such a thing. At least I don't see what are the action the the foundation might intent to achieve it as a specific goal. Even for willingly people, nonviolence isn't an easy goal, and that's not the kind of goal you can "impose". So, in short, to answer the question, this theme is of course the most important of the five but means nothing in itself. --Psychoslave (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?

This may be an unpopular view, but support for community members that we do not yet have is as important as the current users. A classic example would be VisualEditor, which makes a massive difference in training a large number of new users, but could be unpopular amongst some established users. To clarify, I'm not not suggesting throwing existing userbase under the bus if it'll increase numbers overall. I do think that the current community has a (loud) voice, but those who never joined, or rapidly left do not have that representation. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 13:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

the glib answer is that we give up the non-productive behaviors that we do because they are easy, and adopt the productive behaviors that we do not do because they are hard.

i.e. stop vandal fighting and start community welcoming. this means training and culture change. Slowking4 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

+1, T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). AStillwell (WMF) (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I can answer this. Stop treating solo collaboration contribution as the only option, and start brainstorming other options, like teamwork. Stop driving out others, especially experts, and start befriending and collaborating with them. Stop treating online communication as the only method, and start socializing offline more. --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC); corrected, 01:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

-- The above answer I made should not imply that solo contribution is bad. Solo contribution may produce good quality, but collaborative contribution may produce better interaction and teamwork. Another thing I must suggest to others is to stop accusing one editor of endorsing racism or racists or something. Instead, they should ask why saying things rather than jump to conclusions prematurely. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?

Perhaps this could usefully be 'Healthy, Inclusive and Connected'. Many of Wikimedia's sister projects remain very separate. Better connections can help make people feel like part of a greater whole, and to find resources that they didn't know about. Some examples:

• Cross-wiki watchlist would help people be peripheral members of projects that they don't visit regularly enough to normally check their specific watchlist
• Easier, more informative, and auto-translated links between language versions of a page.
  • E.g. the English Wikipedia en:Cédric Villani is smaller than the French fr:Cédric Villani, so it'd be nice to be told, somewhere on the en: page, that the fr: one is X% longer, has Y pictures, has Z extra references.
  • E.g. I have also posted this exact comment on the en.wiki version of this page, to which there is currently no simple link.
• Even just within e.g. English Wikipedia, the recommend pages function only works for mainspace, but could be very helpful in the Help: and WP: namespaces to suggest possible places that the user could benefit from (tutorials/training, wikiprojects, Signpost, teahouse, help pages, policy pages)
• Support for a cross-wiki, cross-language version of The Signpost (independent, community driven newsletter), which is currently going through a bit of a rough patch in terms of manually-intensive over-complex basic tasks in publishing. Could conceivably be run alongside, but separate from, the WMF blog?

Doubtless there are other ways to knit the communities together. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

emphasize that we are a living example of democracy - something you can't say too many times. Everybody is allowed to be part of this. With the same weight, impact, importance. The only demand: stick to the rules. mlg Susann Schweden (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, though "the rules" are not just the written rules but the culture in which they are enforced, which can introduce a considerable degree of power imbalance and inequality. Orderinchaos (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Participation must be easy and straight-forward for newcomers if they should feel included and find their way into the community without getting lost or bored first. In practice, this is currently manifested most concretely in the high threshold required to effectively pursue the first crucial skill that a newcome is often required to master – participation in discussion (on the talk pages). Our experience from teaching Wikipedia editing classes shows that users have difficulty participating because they do not understand how talk pages work – and the problems gets even more aggrevated these days when newcomers are shown and taught to use the VisualEditor, while they still need to talk in wikitext and much unlike they are used in social networks etc. -- On behalf of the Wikipedians of Brno, Blahma (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote hours ago about cases of alleged admin abuse in some non-English local wikis, especially smaller ones. If we want to make the theme stronger, how about one or more terms that relate to such allegations or admin abuses? How about "vibrant" or "tolerant"? If neither would work, then there must be simple words that should describe how to reform or address how the admin system has been used. --George Ho (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Organizers of Wikipedia events for seniors will have knowledge of the obstacles faced by elderly newcomers. -- On behalf of the Wikipedians of Prague, --Petra Pejšová (WMCZ) (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?

Piping in new users seems to have been particularly successful from groups of people that are strongly motivated to contribute on a topic (e.g. editathons) but don't have the confidence, or wouldn't have thought to do so, or need the training. Supporting more Wikimedians in Residence, and actively engaging motivated groups (e.g. students, societies, associations, academics, other volunteer groups and NGOs). More specific groups that can be suggested later in the strategy process. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 14:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

any organization that works with people and interkultural transfers. They do have devoted and expierienced members. How do they interact? Tex how do Amnesty, Greenpeace or those Docs work together and treat missunderstandings, mobbing and all the problems we are facing? mlg Susann Schweden (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

wikihow. Slowking4 (talk)

The main interested people here will be the community, so can we find partners able to address accurately to the community, listen it's feedback and provide actionable and attractive processes to achieve the improvement of friendliness and enjoyment of relevant wikimedia contribution? Maybe the Center for Nonviolent Communication might be an interesting possible partner regarding improvement of communication quality among our community. I found clear and full of practical examples and advises the book on nonviolent communication by its initiator Marshall Rosenberg. It's a shame we don't have, as far as I know, free material of this quality on this topic. --Psychoslave (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Other

Choices

A question arising from the discussion at the mw:Wikimedia Hackathon 2017 on why we're talking about "healthy" and whether this is perceived to be in contrast with having good/reliable content (and sources). Some may also see "healthy" and "inclusive" to be somehow in contrast, since often discussions about "health" are focused on how to exclude/get rid of some people or activities which are perceived as harmful. So I guess it's good to have both adjectives. However in my opinion the community as a whole is functioning correctly (and hence is "healthy") as long as it's inclusive i.e. able to expand the work on free knowledge, so "healthy" is redundant.

We don't necessarily care about specific individuals or groups thriving in our environment and feeling it as "healthy" for themselves, if their objectives are selfish (like promotion of specific points of views, or anything that goes against free knowledge). Yet such people are usually the most vocal ones at asking for the community to be made more "healthy" (for their own interests) and "inclusive" (of themselves at the expense of others). --Nemo 09:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: thanks for your relation. Please note more or encourage others to do so if anything that deserves being taken into account appears. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I was only expressing my own thoughts, although they were somehow triggered by what everybody else said. --Nemo 17:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Dlouho neřešené osobní útoky

Ano, jsem zvědavý, jak se vyřeší dlouho neřešené osobní útoky, kdy někteří uživatelé tvrale útočí na jiné a správci či vyšší funkcionáři to neřeší nebo dokonce podporují.--Juandev (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Orchidrose

Moved from the theme's main page by Kbrown (WMF)

Geographically understood locations and regions are a relevant topic for the discussion of culture and other influences on Wikimedia. Wikimedia is then better able to exist within the different cultural and geographic norms that occur worldwide. Question: What is the betterment for Wikimedia 2030 to be this way? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orchidrose (talk)

Feedback from the Central Eastern European Wikimedia Community

In a Facebook poll, 10 people from the CEE group rated this theme as the *most* important to our movement's future. Shani Evenstein 20:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from the Wikipedia & Medicine Community

In a Facebook poll, 2 people rated this theme as important, making it the second most important theme for the group. Shani Evenstein 20:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from the GLAM-Wiki community

In a Facebook poll, 5 people from the GLAM-Wiki global group rated this theme as most important to our movement's future, making it one of the top 2 most important themes to this group. Shani Evenstein 20:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)