Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Premises

Another bullet point

• We are results-driven (proposed by Frank Schulenburg)

Meaning
We're striving to affect positive change. That's why we're focused on achieving results and having impact. We hold each other accountable for a results-driven approach and encourage each other to continuously measure the effectiveness of our processes and programs, so we can course-correct along the way as needed.

I feel like it's important to emphasize the aspect of being "results-driven" which is funnily-enough often missing when we're talking about our values and presumptions. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Sorry for posting this here – I didn't succeed in adding it on the other page due to the complicated markup

Frank Schulenburg: Thank you for proposing this. I've added it and rephrased it a bit to make it more understandable for translators and non-native English speakers. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks a lot, Guillaume! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"We understand that we need to come to conclusions during discussion cycles"

This is an important premise which ought to be generally-acceptable to the community even though there will always be one or two editors who would like to 're-litigate' in another forum decisions they don't like. I wonder if the wording could be improved, though, as "during discussion cycles" isn't really idiomatic English (or at least is unclear to me). Perhaps something like this:

• We understand that our discussions need a definite conclusion.
  • Everyone within and outside the movement is encouraged to participate in this strategy process, but discussions can't be entirely open-ended in time and place. If someone decides to opt out of or accidentally misses a particular cycle of discussion, they are welcome to provide feedback afterwards. However, they may have to accept the outcome of a discussion that they did not participate in.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs: Thank you for improving the copy. I've updated the text. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Another proposed bullet point

• We are devising a joint strategy for the Wikimedia movement as a whole (proposed by MichaelMaggs)

Meaning
The Wikimedia movement is made up of a large and diverse set of organisations, groups, communities and individuals (including the WMF, chapters, affiliates, groups, editors, off-line volunteers, readers and so on), and we all have differing perspectives. Our focus here is to devise a joint strategy for movement as a whole, and not for any specific part of it.

If appropriate, maybe someone could do the markup for me, and add this to the page for discussion? MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs: Thank you! I've added it and added the translation markup. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's be less platitudinous and more realistic

While it is great for vision statements to be full of platitudes, and maybe values statements, I don't think it is helpful or appropriate for our premises to be so. I don't want arguments based on platitudes to be inherently considered helpful or right. For example, someone could argue that since "We engage in civil discourse", we should eliminate some on-wiki anti-bullying effort, as it is unneeded.

• I get that the use of "We" is meant to show inclusivity and unity, but it comes across to me as pretending that our community is of a single mind, and as implying that minority viewpoints are not valued.
• Statements like "We are inspired" and "We strive for excellence" are frankly not always true. I want editors who may not be feeling "inspired" to feel comfortable contributing. I know I have done many of my edits when I was feeling far from inspired, and my motivation was not striving for excellence. If i always strove for excellence in my wiki edits, I probably wouldn't edit at all.
• Inquisitiveness does not inherently arise when one is having fun.
• "We don’t need to take ourselves too seriously" could be taken to mean that we shouldn't stand up to on-wiki bullying, etc. I think we should take ourselves and this work very seriously, which for me does not at all preclude having fun.
• I disagree that inherently "When we are inspired, we do excellent work"--I am sure that some on-wiki bullies feel quite inspired.
• Clearly our differences do not make some editors more humble. They do not always open minds. Some editors seem to not welcome difference "with curiosity, delight, and hope."
• "We do our best work when we understand a problem from all its perspectives." This may possibly be true for our work as a whole, but I do not believe it holds at the level of individual edits or editors. I may add details on one perspective on the topic of an article, but may not "understand" enough about other perspectives to contribute about them; I may leave that for other editors. I believe this is a good thing, better than an editor trying for balance in a single edit, when s/he doesn't know what s/he is talking about.
• "Working together is hard, but it’s worth it." No, not always. I commend editors who step away from an edit war for self-care, rather than continue pushing. If they don't prioritize self-care, they may leave the community for good.
• Problems are not always bet solved together. Sometimes it takes the energy and time and analysis of one editor to investigate options to solving a problem that ends up moving the community forward faster and more amicably than having everyone throw in their random 2 cents.
• "We must create space where people feel safe to express themselves"--I do not want us to create space where people feel safe to express malicious hatred, death threats, doxxing, etc.
• "However, they may have to accept the outcome of a discussion that they did not participate in." This clearly privileges people with more free time, and in so doing, maintains the kyriarchy, and, to me, violates our vision and values. That sentence discriminates against single mothers, people who have to work many hours just to survive, etc. I do not inherently "accept" discussion outcomes that I didn't know about or have time to contribute to. I would just delete that sentence and the previous one. (And what does "may" mean in that sentence? Who decides the circumstances under which this happens?)

Rather than saying "We engage in civil discourse", for example, we could say "Our community takes steps to promote civil discourse" or even something like "Our community actively enforces the civility of on-wiki discourse, via community-developed approaches." The draft premise I added could be reworded to something like: "Our community enhances the interactions and experiences with our wikis for both editors and readers."

And, no, it is never "too late to discuss the basic premises". That is condescending and impossible to enforce. Perhaps what you mean is "we do not plan to alter these premises once the process starts". I believe it is fine to have that as a general principle, but we should be open to altering if it becomes clear we missed something important. And the process has already started, as evidenced by this wiki page. Do you mean once formal discussions in the tracks have begun?

I do very much appreciate all the energy, time, and other resources that have already been dedicated to, and will continue to be dedicated to, the strategy process, by WMF staff, contractors, and volunteers. I definitely agree that "We are in this together"!

Libcub (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)