Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/Wikimedia Foundation staff
Information
editWhat group or community is this source coming from?
| name of group | Wikimedia Foundation staff |
| virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) | various |
| Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) | virtual conference |
| # of participants in this discussion (a rough count) | 90 |
Importing status
editAs of 21:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Theme key
- Healthy, inclusive communities
- The augmented age
- A truly global movement
- The most trusted source of knowledge
- Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem
| A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Summary
editFill in the table, using these 2 keys.
- Theme key
- Healthy, inclusive communities
- The augmented age
- A truly global movement
- The most trusted source of knowledge
- Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem
- Questions key
- What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
- How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
- 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?
- What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
- Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?
| Theme (refer to key) | Question (refer to key) | Summary Statement | Keyword | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A | 1 | No separation between identifying between foundation/chapters/volunteers etc. Every individual is equally vital and important and feels as though they can contribute in equal manner. | stakeholders |
| 2 | A | 1 | We don't need to prioritize “fun” or “great”, but hopefully those are things that come out of healthy, safe and inclusive community. | fun and great |
| 3 | A | 1 | Emerge as a model of decentralised politics, as those still contributing do so as one unit. This allows the Wikimedia projects to grow into comprehensive, multilingual banks of knowledge and resources, covering all areas of the globe. Currently, there are many undervalued voices. | global |
| 4 | A | 1 | Transparent practices that show why decisions are made (and by who). | transparency |
| 5 | A | 1 | Every language Wikipedia has deep information about all notable topic areas, closing the current knowledge gaps by including a truly diverse set of contributors. | knowledge-gap |
| 6 | A | 1 | In 2030, Wikimedia communities are larger and more representative of the global population. Leadership within the communities has evolved to support and nurture emerging voices and areas of content while maintaining a high quality bar. | diversity |
| 7 | A | 1 | The education program brings more newbies and they're more productive. They focus less on “fighting the good fight”. “Retention” is typically not a primary focus of an education program. We will see a rise because people have a positive experience. | education |
| 8 | A | 1 | True inclusion only happens when minorities hold some kind of power. With better representation, the interests of new editors are served better, and new editor retention is not a problem anymore. | diversity |
| 9 | A | 1 | More dispersed offices or less main office and more powerful chapters. Giving more diverse power base. More localized meetings. | dispersed |
| 10 | A | 1 | Students everywhere will learn how to research and to cite sources through using Wikipedia. Creating a world population that is accustomed to contributing. Wikipedia as a part of Science, History, PoliSci, etc. courses everywhere. | education |
| 11 | A | 1 | More awareness, involvement and engagement with and from people of Asia, Africa and South America and they will feel welcomed in the community and the movement. | global-south |
| 12 | A | 1 | Someone who comes onto the projects and openly claims their identity gets a majority supportive response. New editors are finding like-minded editors, but also are greeted warmly and asked for their perspective by editors who may not be like-minded as well. | supportive |
| 13 | A | 1 | Offline legislation will have caught up with online activity and will no longer focus on what's legal, but also on what behavior encourages productivity. There will be one worldwide authority, holding transparency and community health as their mission, that will oversee activity and will help online communities effectively and expeditiously handle matters of abuse. | legislation |
| 14 | A | 1 | Contributors will be protected from abuse and hate speech. They will have clear policies around behaviour to reference, and clear processes to rely upon if those policies are being broken. Contributors will feel that they are part of a movement that cares about people, not just content. | policies |
| 15 | A | 1 | Our projects begin to bifurcate based on culture more than language. We have pan-language wikis. It is easy to flip back and forth between these cultural projects, so no reader of a given topic is unaware of the other perspectives. It's easier to “see the world through others’ eyes”. | culture |
| 16 | A | 1 | Lots of people have friends they met while contributing who share an interest in some specific area. Language barriers disappear while working on the projects, although cultural differences are still seen and acknowledged. We don’t have homogeneity in a single monoculture, but instead "agree to disagree" with respect. | cross-language |
| 17 | A | 1 | Wikipedia’s importance decreases on people’s minds, because there is multiple new healthy collaborative projects of knowledge sharing supported by the WMF (leader on this field) and the massive community behind them. | sister projects |
| 18 | A | 1 | Contribute to free knowledge is something you do naturally, because it is a natural part of how you learn things. Share and collaborate is trendy. As so many people are part of our community, parts of our policy/essays like ‘be bold’, NPOV etc will become part of popular lingo, maybe even popular culture. | pop-culture |
| 19 | A | 1 | Technical tools and AI agents increase efficiency and leverage so that the people who maintain content quality no longer have a siege mentality and are able to be more patient and thoughtful in their interactions with these new contributors. | siege |
| 20 | A | 1 | We [will] have finally figured out a way to include peoples who predominantly have an oral tradition. | oral-tradition |
| 21 | A | 1 | In 2030, we'll be a healthy community that crowd sources for effective change and content development. Wikimedia is a leader in global, collaborative environments. People are positive, happy, and helpful to each other. | collaboration |
| 22 | A | 1 | In 2030 we'll be a leader in how we run a lean, robust operation with positive global impact. We are innovators in every space of our work as a Foundation. We are an authentic model that and allows the practice, development and long game in how we lead and allocate resources in the world. | innovation |
| 23 | A | 1 | in 2030, legislation in advanced countries will just be beginning to catch up with IP and copyright in relation to the internet in a realistic manner. A lot of the shields we have in community process will hopefully be rendered moot, lowering the barrier for participation. | legislation |
| 24 | A | 1 | Wikimedia decisions [will be] supported by a higher quantity, quality and diversity of contributors thanks to a) well publicized opportunities to contribute basic pieces of quantitative feedback via microsurveys; b) good translation coverage of basic information and surveys, and c) good outreach and publicity of specific issues to contributors with expertise on that specific matter, inviting them to join in deeper evaluations and discussion. | participation |
| 25 | A | 1 | The writers of Wikipedia are more representative of the readers and the barrier for low-level participation is lower. | representation |
| 26 | A | 1 | Sentiments on the use and distribution of resources worldwide, 'developing' worlds less in control, 'developed' worlds in control will impact on us most. How equity can be achieved, in doing so, the Wikipedia project can serve as a tool to do this by disseminating of information from a diverse range of voices. How to maintain that equitable channel of access is yet another challenge as resources are not consistent throughout the world. | bias |
| 27 | A | 1 | We should be considered the paragon of inclusion, modeling effective inclusion in all aspects of our work - particularly in areas that are historically not inclusive (eg STEM, especially open source software communities). | diversity |
| 28 | A | 1 | New users have a support network when they signup: they are assigned three mentors that can coach them in the beginning and throughout the new user’s wiki journey. They have regular check-ins (once a week with a different mentor each time), to see how the experience is going, and to trouble-shoot through any problems or error messages the new user got. Depending on how often this person contributes, after a year or after two years, they become a mentor for someone else. | mentorship |
| 29 | A | 1 | New, good-faith contributors are recognized as such, and explicitly welcomed and mentored. A 'mentoring' wing of the community rivals the vandal-fighting and deletionist wings for size and enthusiasm. | mentorship |
| 30 | A | 1 | People in Wikipedias in big languages don’t reject edits from people for whom that language is not native, especially when they write about things that are unique to their culture. These edits are improved and published. Discussions about sources in foreign languages, about newbies’ contributions, and notability being limited only to certain countries, and about translation move from rejection to tolerance. | welcoming |
| 31 | A | 1 | In smaller languages, people understand that they are working for the sake of their language. Those that are coming from larger languages to smaller languages are not trying to bring with them rules about notability. | small wikis |
| 32 | A | 1 | By 2030, we will have technical methods to connect patient/friendly/experienced editors, with newcomers and with editors seeking help. By 2030, we will have excellent technical communication systems, that allow everyone to get as much push/pull communication information as they desire, and allow many people to interact on a single topic, giving anything from long prose contributions to micro-endorsements (in order to not overwhelm signal-to-noise ratios). | communication |
| 33 | A | 1 | The growth of the communities to reach near-parity between the top 50 languages has been staggering. Chapters now exist in major cities in every country. There's an article from a journalist describing their experience as a new Wikipedia contributor. Friendly editor stepped in to provide feedback made them feel comfortable in continuing to edit. Instant-translate tools allow to work across barriers. | growth |
| 34 | A | 1 | A large and diverse group of users is able to contribute without fear of attack from other community members. They will also feel confident that when fights emerge on articles that other community members will come to defend them and work with them. | occasional users |
| 35 | A | 1 | We're well known in the student developer communities & open source world for our projects. Currently, there is ambiguity around how some of our open source software projects are related to Wikipedia. More awareness of our movement, of the values we share and of the fact that contributing to these projects will impact a large ecosystem, will draw newcomers and get them involved. | reputation |
| 36 | A | 2 | There are strong connections to the theme C. Capacity to contribute and use Wikimedia projects is holistically different in emerging and underdeveloped communities compared to more active regions. It is not possible to build a healthy and inclusive community without adapting to the circumstances of these regions. | underdeveloped |
| 37 | A | 2 | We will need to get people involved at an earlier age. Making Wikipedia a part of schools across the globe will help to tie all of the themes together. | education |
| 38 | A | 2 | Theme B -- increased capability to remove language barriers. Theme D -- the idea of a “single truth” will be under increased pressure if we are successful in integrating diverse viewpoints. Theme E -- more diverse forms of organization/learning ecosystems will make it harder to engage and/or harder to ensure that engagement is not biased. | language |
| 39 | A | 2 | If this goal isn’t achieved, it will be difficult (impossible?) to achieve other goals. Community health is the gatekeeper (and/or enabler) to every other achievement of the community. The other 4 statements can only happen inasmuch as this first statement has become true. | priority |
| 40 | A | 2 | Technology will allow us to scale up reception, mentoring, and recommendations to new people, helping them to find places where their particular background and experience make them effective and able to do good work. Having a healthy, diverse community is the necessary background to being a successful [theme C and E]. It’s difficult to get involved those who don't feel that they themselves are represented in doing the work. | scale-up |
| 41 | A | 2 | All the themes are not reflecting the needs for the future but the needs for the daily implication into the Wikimedia projects. We are failing technology which is not perceived as innovative, inclusivity with 13% of women, globalization and internationalization... Maybe the Theme B, as a way to remove the language gap, is the more promising and so the more independent - the connection to the current theme may not be that obvious. | daily needs |
| 42 | A | 2 | Link with Theme B -- more ways to engage with people can help to build a more diverse and inclusive group of volunteers. Difficult crossover with theme D -- we have to balance input from experts & input from a diverse set of contributors (ie, non-experts). In fact, we need both experts and non-experts working together, but we’ll need to shift our thinking away from “including more people lowers the quality” to “including more people raises the quality”. | engagement |
| 43 | A | 2 | We can be [theme C and D] if we successfully foster healthy communities, who will then go on to create more partnerships with other key groups and create more knowledge, utilizing the tools at their disposal. | community |
| 44 | A | 2 | The biggest interconnected theme is theme C. We're missing out on so many perspectives that could help shape our communities to be more healthy and inclusive. | global |
| 45 | A | 2 | People from many different backgrounds need to feel welcome to fully participate in all aspects of the Wikimedia movement. (for example, people from the “global south” are not a problem to be resolved but people with valuable resources to share with the Wikimedia movement.) | welcoming |
| 46 | A | 2 | Inclusion both depends on and facilitates everything else. We need to be global to be inclusive to everyone, and we need to be inclusive if we want to have competent answers to the challenges of going global. We need to be inclusive to be free of systematic bias and so become [theme D]; we need to have respectable content to not drive people away in the first place. | interlinked |
| 47 | A | 2 | Theme B could play a role in increasing inclusivity, etc - improving tools for curation, cultivation, access, etc. | inclusive |
| 48 | A | 2 | Theme B can support this as well. | theme B |
| 49 | A | 2 | [Theme B] can go either way: be better for inclusiveness or work against it. | inclusion |
| 50 | A | 2 | The themes are good for now, but maybe not for 15 years from now. Everyone wants these solved now. They may no longer be relevant in 15 years time. | timeline |
| 51 | A | 2 | When we contemplate something disruptive, we sometimes have positive response from smaller wikis. The issue is with English Wikipedia, which is more unhealthy now (much more than other projects). We aren’t completely doomed if we can’t solve this. | small wikis |
| 52 | A | 3 | Theme B is a dangerous barrier to inclusiveness. Increasingly both contributors and readers will come to us via external channels or through ever more technological moderation. That reduces our power to influence culture and community among both contributors and readers. | culture |
| 53 | A | 3 | There will always be tension between quality and inclusiveness. Resolving that is one of the biggest and most interesting challenges. | tension |
| 54 | A | 3 | Immediate response to problematic edits or vandalism is to remove them on the spot. Would be great to see shift towards trying to figure out what the editors goal is (for example, trying to do something productive like adding a source to an article) and see if we can see past the bad result of their effort and instead help them get to a good result. Assume more good faith, perhaps? | filters |
| 55 | A | 3 | This theme works against the other themes. To the degree that we are successful at creating a diverse community other things are harder (it's harder to be a trusted source if we have to engage with a larger variety of of cultures and styles etc.) | against |
| 56 | A | 3 | It's going to get harder because when you bring more voices into the movement, people will disagree etc. It's balancing, self-fulfilling. If you're not healthy and inclusive and you want to become a trusted source, you need this diversity, you won't be able to be global. They feed off each other. | balance |
| 57 | A | 4 | More breathing room for vandal-fighters and other quality-maintenance people. | wikignomes |
| 58 | A | 4 | Access to the network? Ways to contribute without access? | access |
| 59 | A | 4 | Contributors, not consumers. More diversity of consumers, as well as channels for consumption. | diversity |
| 60 | A | 4 | Include something about the makeup of the Foundation itself, potential to affect makeup of broader community. | diversity |
| 61 | A | 4 | In 2030, no one will make the “I tried that once and it was AWFUL” face when they hear the name of Wikipedia. | reputation |
| 62 | A | 4 | Distinctions between groups (WMF, chapter, project) should dissolve and not be a source of hostility. | unity |
| 63 | A | 4 | We’ll be more conscious about recognizing what internal forces set us back and set up governance functions to prevent it. | internal |
| 64 | A | 4 | Wikimedia Foundation struggles with a lack of minorities in position of leadership. In order to achieve better outcomes with inclusiveness, we need to elevate minorities into positions of leadership at the organization. | leadership |
| 65 | A | 4 | Technology will bring people together to collaborate. | collaboration |
| 66 | A | 4 | AOL summer; old timers insisted that the newcomers use the internet they way the old timers were used to; we don’t want to reject the influx of newcomers from new countries/cultures as internet access spreads. | newbies |
| 67 | A | 4 | “Fun” doesn’t need to be there; “rewarding” captures this; perhaps “Safety” should be explicit instead; safety in balance with transparency (vandalism, etc). | rewarding |
| 68 | A | 4 | Moving to other geographies, languages, emerging communities; middle class contributor base may be harder to find. | diversity |
| 69 | A | 4 | Open source contribution (or gift economy) is to some degree a luxury of the rich. | open-source |
| 70 | A | 4 | Groups taking responsibility for members’ edits may be one way to allow new types of contributions. Eg, Tor edits. Also possibly a way to mitigate harassment by having a larger group stand between the specific contributor and the “identity” revealed to the potential harasser. | groups |
| 71 | A | 4 | Everyone edits all the time, as though it were Facebook. We can't do this unless it's a welcoming environment. It's not something *you* do, but *we* do. | welcoming |
| 72 | A | 4 | Group of diverse people who spend a lot of time - more diverse, more time on content. Helping to support a larger and more diverse group who feel comfortable contributing sporadically and randomly. | diversity |
| 73 | A | 4 | One thing that's interesting is that a lot of these are about processes. What we will have at the end? On all language Wikipedias, there aren't these content gaps that appear because there are a truly diverse set of contributors. How will we get there? | process |
| 74 | A | 4 | Outcome and process. In 2030 Wikimedia communities are larger and more global. Maintaining the high-quality bar but more global. More flexible policies as the communities grow. | global |
| 75 | A | 4 | More pragmatic. How do we get to Wikimedia itself. There are diverse avenues of getting to it. Thinking about people who don't have / might have mobile phones, less electricity, barriers to access, challenges to consider. We're doing well with Wikipedia Zero. | access |
| 76 | A | 4 | People can play different roles. They are interested in different things in different places. In 2030 there will be so many new roles for people to fill. Participation in the movement will be different than it is now. We need to be more supportive to new definitions of contribution which will make communities look very different - public policy, etc. These changes foster the diversity of participation. | roles |
| 77 | A | 4 | There is a middle ground between "fun" and "rewarding" and we should fit there. | rewarding |
| 78 | A | 4 | Gamification has its place, but we shouldn't have everything designed for shininess etc. The black-and-white, newspaper style feels more newsworthy and rewarding. It's also important to be fun. As a volunteer your hobby is to edit Wikipedia. It's an odd thing. But it's "fun", not always - it may be a little more than "rewarding". | gamification |
| 79 | A | 4 | You're not just here because you're altruistic, there's a factor here keeping people contributing even when it's difficult. | reasoning |
| 80 | A | 4 | Editing Wikipedia can be a political act in the frame of Turkey - sometimes it's serious. | political |
| 81 | A | 4 | There's an emphasis on new people. People coming are the first step. Is this something that should remain as a main focus? | newbies |
| 82 | A | 4 | Keeping people around begins at the start - if you can make them feel welcome immediately they'll stick around. | retention |
| 83 | A | 4 | We need a real willingness from real people to engage with people on reverts of good faith edits. | engagement |
| 84 | A | 4 | If we stay static, we’re probably going to stay stable. If we don’t adapt, we’ll become redundant or obsolete. | adapt |
| 85 | A | 4 | One of the things we need is to stop framing it as an issue or a problem that needs to be solved "by us" and instead framing it as something that we need to do with the partners and community members around the world. | movement |
| 86 | A | 4 | We decided to welcome newbies. This decision will be backed up by tech choices that support and enable it. We tend to reproduce the behaviors we participate in society online. It is up to the Community to decide which behaviors are acceptable, and which are intolerable. To go beyond the current results, we need actual training and capabilities development for all participants. | culture |
| 87 | A | 5 | Glam professionals also have big impact and can help move towards a healthier direction in a stable and professional way. | GLAM |
| 88 | B | 2 | Technology is getting more and more important. It's also getting resource-intensive. We need to "outsource" our technology needs by building a partnership of organizations needing a collaborative knowledge production platform, and evolving our current technology to be that platform. | partnership |
| 89 | B | 5 | The augmented age refers to digital assistants that will “be there” for you, and how they will help us navigate the world. The question then is: Will Wikipedia be a content provider for these assistants, or will it have its own (encyclopedic) assistant? What does it mean to edit/improve contents in these scenarios? Sharing pictures and videos will be much easier, while voice recognition will be greatly improved, facilitating dictation. But getting sources together will still take work. | digital assistant |
| 90 | C, D | 1 | Readers must remain critical, despite our great reputation. A more sleek polished interface would convey a different message; some advocate the current "stuck in the 90s" design, because it hints at the amateur-participation, and perhaps reminds people to distrust. - But, how could we balance both extremes? | design |
| 91 | C, D | 1 | There will be a greater availability of research materials in free or open ways, both cultural heritage organizations and publishers are getting increased pressure to be more publicly available (Open Access, Institutional digital archives, etc). | open access |
| 92 | C, D | 1 | There will be broad need for ways to verify quality of information outside of our more traditional ways of deferring to expertise and institutions (more formats for publishing, less peer review, and greater desire for attribution of information across platforms). | verification |
| 93 | C, D | 1 | Wikipedia awareness will be high across all countries and it will include sections full of rich oral history for all to consume. | awareness |
| 94 | C, D | 1 | Education will happen largely online. Wikipedia will be source of truth behind it. | education |
| 95 | C, D | 1 | Transparency and verifiability continue to be core parts of our identity in our platforms and infrastructure and culture. There would be several healthy parts/places/actors that support each other. We want to make sure we have people who remain critical consumers of content. Need external influence (in and out) to keep the ecosystem of input healthy. | transparency |
| 96 | C, D | 1 | Wikipedia has become the entry point to knowledge, not simply a destination. We shouldn't replace or supplant other sources of knowledge. We should be the place everyone considers to start that journey as they explore. | entry point |
| 97 | C, D | 1 | Since the medical textbook companies closed access journals, medical professionals have turned their focus to improving freely-available medical information via Wikimedia projects. | medicine |
| 98 | C, D | 1 | The Wikimedia projects will be widely praised as one of the few places on the internet that balances news coverage and outlets. It becomes a place where journalists and publishers are proud to be cited, and photographers are proud to have their images hosted. Creative Commons licensing becomes a new norm for information publication, allowing for Wikimedia projects to cover more topics and areas. | prestige |
| 99 | C, D | 1 | When looking for information or knowledge the public both looks to Wikimedia projects directly and looks for the sign that our information is used elsewhere as well. Reusers not only want to advertise that information comes from us in order to show it can be trusted but compete with each other to update their content faster when changes are made directly to Wikimedia projects. | awareness |
| 100 | C, D | 1 | In 2030 the Wikimedia projects will be a core pillar of bibliographic instruction for librarians, teachers and students. Researchers, students and media consumers will expect and demand verifiable and neutral sources and citations. | neutrality |
| 101 | C, D | 1 | The processes for creating content will be more easily understood (via better documentation and communication), and will inform and draw from similar processes elsewhere. | communication |
| 102 | C, D | 1 | The world is a more stable and peaceful place, because young people everywhere have access to a respected and credible resource that helps them to evolve as job opportunities evolve, and to research and understand any topic they need to. This undermines the trend of youth unemployment leading to political instability. Integrating the projects with education will help give info literacy. | education |
| 103 | C, D | 1 | Wikipedia knowledge is presented in virtually all contexts of the internet. It is presented in a way which conveys not only its authority, but also its dynamic and editable nature. Almost in the same way as this google doc… but with the ability to see its improvement and refinement over time. It will be easy to see the most reliable content as well as see the only the newer and less reliable content. This will encourage users to update and verify those less reliable areas. | impact |
| 104 | C, D | 1 | Wikimedia projects are the gold standard for truth and neutral knowledge in the world. All content distributed by others – including content generated through AI sources – is based in high-quality, reliable resources that are cited. | neutrality |
| 105 | C, D | 1 | Teachers and students alike recognize the value of a decentralized, collaborative knowledge resource with global scope. Vandalism and misinformation become less frequent and more easily corrected. | education |
| 106 | C | 2 | Efforts regarding "giving contributors better tools to contribute" will not really expand our content in places where no contributors exists because the community is not aware of the existence of Wikipedia. [Theme D] assumes there is a variety of sources and in many categories/areas/languages that is just not the case. | ties together with themes A, B, D |
| 107 | C | 2 | If we focus on being the [theme D] it is likely we lose focus on being broadly available is a wide range of topics in languages/regions and collectives in which Wikipedia is not known. | conflicts with theme D |
| 108 | C | 2 | A truly global movement is mostly interconnected with how we are [theme E], how we're adapting [theme B] to use new technologies to bring in those outside our movement (digitally illiterate, visually impaired, non-English speakers, minorities (race, gender, others), etc.). | Theme A, B, E |
| 109 | C | 2 | Becoming a global community is the ultimate goal. We will need [theme B] to help us scale the editing work globally. We will need [theme A] to scale the human network globally. We will need [theme D], so that we can be taken seriously at the global level. And we can't operate in a vacuum as many have said, we will need [theme E] to enable us to reach everyone and include them in our movement. | ultimate goal |
| 110 | C | 2 | We are one of the main player in [theme E]. We are not engaging with it, we are leading it. We need to boldly go to places where there's no school or library, partner with organizations that are experienced with going to exotic places. We need to create cultures of knowledge in places where no such culture exist and not just wait for it to get created. If we don’t do this, these cultures might just disappear before we get the chance to document them. | Theme E |
| 111 | C | 2 | [Theme B], to provide state of the art and accessible technologies is paired with [theme A] (to welcome any kind of knowledge, no matter who supports it in which language or in which communication channel) will allow is to achieve our goal of creating a truly global movement. Those three will push [theme D] we have forward. | Theme A, B |
| 112 | C | 2 | New communities need more support than just an incubator wiki. They need process and programs to encourage leadership and to support others to join them. If we are not culturally and emotionally aware and sensitive that other cultures around the world are different, then we will create friction and disappointment as we try to become more global in our participation. | Theme A |
| 113 | C | 2 | Augmented translation and automated seamless language tools will also accelerate any progress in this particular theme. | Theme B |
| 114 | C | 2 | A "truly global movement" relies on [themes A, B, E] to support the growth and accessibility as a [theme D]. Keeping our vision grounded in the *why* of reaching people in the rest of the world will allow us to choose which tactics (whether that's product, partnerships, policies, etc.) will best serve us getting there. Our 15 year strategic direction should be focused on the impact - not the means to get there. | Theme A, B, D, E |
| 115 | C | 2 | Theme D - we need to better understand how different cultures and regions treat the core concept of open knowledge - is there censorship, or just disdain, around the concept? Theme B will become more relevant as translation tools become better, which we may be able to tap into as a movement to allow for much easier communication across borders. | Theme B, D |
| 116 | C | 2 | [Themes B and E] are systems that support [theme A] to create,curate,contribute and consume [theme D] in support of a truly global movement. Ability to integrate and include many language and cross cultural respect and awareness are crucial, so AI will be a tool for humans, not a replacement. | Theme A, B |
| 117 | C | 2 | All the themes are interdependent, and [theme B] and "fun" are two of the more important things that may help attract more readers in countries who have been less present on Wikipedia. For years, Wikipedians debated about the introduction of a visual editor, and wikitext. Wikitext was seen as a kind of badge of honor. As more people get involved from around the world, technology innovation is even more important. | Theme B |
| 118 | C | 2 | If we want everyone, everywhere, to be welcome, it circles back to our theme A. Theme A is still the top priority, but this theme may inform how we prioritize that work. Similarly, theme B can break down barriers to being “truly global” through machine translation, better telepresence options, etc. We can prioritize our [theme B] investments by thinking if this makes us more [theme A] and more “global”. | Theme A. B |
| 119 | C | 2 | We will not be able to bring in new knowledge without bringing in new people. People will not want to join our movement if they see it as an unhealthy place. Some of the knowledge gaps we have on WM exist in other forms and on other platforms. The most respected source of knowledge will be extensive, vast, and vibrant. We will need to address these knowledge gaps to fulfil this goal. | Theme A, E |
| 120 | C | 2 | This intersects with themes B and D as bringing on all this content and contributors will require adequate tech tools for scaling with assurance of quality. | Theme B, D |
| 121 | C | 2 | [Theme A] is the prerequisite to a truly global movement. This theme is the one that will require a great deal of time, energy, and resources to achieve, and must be purposefully pursued. It’s far too easy to maintain the status quo than to make sure that marginalized communities have the opportunity to contribute to and learn from Wikimedia projects. | Theme A |
| 122 | C | 2 | This is very related to [theme E]. Wikipedia’s quest for knowledge does not exist in a vacuum, we do not (and should not) have to lone wolf this. Finding our place in the “family of knowledge” will help us do more, with more people. | Theme E |
| 123 | C | 2 | 2 and 5 are means to an end. They would be tactic that we could be employed within the theme of creating a global movement. 1 is kind of a universal good – not sure it is a 15 year theme though. 4 could be at odds with a global movement at times. | Theme A, B, D, E |
| 124 | C | 3 | Focusing on features that are only useable by a small segment of our user base. | tech |
| 125 | C | 4 | This describes a characteristic of how our community should act, its not framed in a direction at the moment: the question of how we do this, and what kinds of core tooling we use to maintain that focus. Any of the other themes should include a component of going in this direction: several of them are missing explicit calls on this diversity of engagement. | direction |
| 126 | C | 4 | Our mission is best served by providing sufficient coverage of medical topics in all languages than by focusing in extremely in-depth coverage of medical conditions. | core topics |
| 127 | C | 4 | We need 1) Availability Across languages Via automatic translation and editor outreach) and 2) Accessibility in emerging communities (via providing an experience that works for readers with poor connections and/or poor devices). | translation |
| 128 | C | 4 | The phrase “sum of all knowledge” is often interpreted in the enlightenment mindset. There’s an assumption that any small group of individuals could produce that if they worked hard enough. That’s not true. The sum of all knowledge can only be created by the sum of all people. | diversity |
| 129 | C | 4 | More a congress of knowledge than an archive of knowledge. Living, breathing. There is a bias towards printed material. Let’s be radical about the formats of knowledge. Maybe oral history. | knowledge formats |
| 130 | C | 4 | Audio talk pages. Connect viscerally with people wherever they are. Terms like global north/south will disappear. People will want to be connected to the point that they want to hear what each other sounds like. | Diversity |
| 131 | C | 4 | Connects to the idea of us vs. them. Personal connection to Wikipedia; it’s where people go to learn and we want to contribute to that. Even more apparent in 2030 | Diversity |
| 132 | C | 4 | We have mapped people back into their internet speed rather than helping them overcome that. FB/IG are giving them the full experience; they’re full members regardless of their device/internet speed. It’s something really powerful because people relate to one instagram community around the world rather than one part of it. We’ve let ourselves down on by having this highly stratified set of membership. | Equality |
| 133 | C | 4 | People can create their own space / language wiki / group. But that causes some wikis or communities to seem more important / noble / complete. | Individuality |
| 134 | C | 4 | Because English is so ubiquitous, people are sometimes told to participate in their local language even though it may not be what they want to contribute in. | Language/Translation |
| 135 | C | 4 | Hoping for a more permeable movement. If machines translate everything we lose the cultural nuances. Imagine a world where being a community member may be annotating knowledge, celebrating cultural differences while still having a common base | Language/Translation |
| 136 | C | 4 | When Wikimedians start becoming community organizers, they start getting a better sense of the global movement. Each reader, contributor etc. should have a sense of the global movement. | Community leadership |
| 137 | C | 4 | There’s less soloing; you have a sense of your space and place relative to something much larger. And we’re facilitating people knowing where they are and the larger thing. Sense of belonging to a global movement. Sense of something greater and you can contribute to it. Also like how we went from diversity to unity, greater collective. It’s not just for the sense of diversity, but building something bigger | Collaboration |
| 138 | C | 4 | The more people we are, the more unity we should have. Paradox. | Collaboration |
| 139 | C | 4 | Readership challenges in emerging markets. You’ve got to pick the right place to do it. Strategy that’s been employed a lot; reaching people when they’re young and making them lifelong users. People teaching 14-18yo don’t have textbooks. It gets us the readership we’re looking for, and it gives them resources | Global knowledge |
| 140 | C | 4 | By actively going through institutional channels, you might be forming behavior of creation of knowledge; not just getting but also contributing information. | Partnerships |
| 141 | C | 4 | First step is being seen as a source of knowledge used for research, then getting people to contribute. | Awareness |
| 142 | C | 4 | The “we” feels exclusionary, e.g. “we will turn our attention to…”. Move to inclusive we. | Inclusivity |
| 143 | C | 4 | “Regions/cultures” are interesting. People who have been excluded aren’t really regions; e.g. diaspora of Nigerians in the US. Cultural flows rather than regional flows. Also true for socio-economic strata, regardless of the region. | Globalisation etc. |
| 144 | C | 4 | “Who is marginalized today” isn’t just a discrete geographical thing. | Inclusivity |
| 145 | C | 4 | The first draft of this was very PC and people in Africa had no idea what it was about. The people we’re talking about should be the ones writing about this. We can only write from that perspective so well. | Diversity |
| 146 | C | 4 | In cycle 1, a keyword was “information justice”. It was about removing all barriers in participating. Not just region and class, but also age, disability. | Inclusivity |
| 147 | C | 4 | There are groups that we have underserved and have been marginalized for various reasons today. Those groups don’t exactly map into just regions; we might be thinking in terms of regions because that’s how we organize today offline. But there are many ways to intersect, slice and dice these various groups. To be a truly global movement, there is a balance we need to strike between what we can do (i.e. where we want to focus our attention and resources) and how inclusive we can be. | Inclusivity |
| 148 | C | 4 | “We’ll make space for new contributions that reflect these regions (references, citations, and more)” - particularly the parenthetical - is very Wikipedia-centric. In order to be welcoming, it may be the case that Wikipedia isn’t necessarily the place where there are new joiners - it may be new products or sites. | Diversity |
| 149 | C | 4 | The movement is strong beyond Wikipedia and leverages other, complementary projects to support the world’s learning and documenting histories that are kept in other types of sources, such as oral histories, paintings, and other expression. | Inclusivity |
| 150 | C | 4 | Lack of Wikipedia in many languages is due to lack of internet presence in that language. More content in the language in other sites would aid Wikipedia growth. There’s a question: do we wait? Do we push for more internet culture in other languages? We may also partner with organizations that help the growth of internet usage in different languages: encourages people to blog, news websites to start in different languages, localize social networks, etc. (And if there are no such organizations, we can start them!) | inclusivity |
| 151 | C | 4 | We can’t be thinking only about us, we have to rethink some of our commitments, and pay attention to the fights others are fighting for getting people access. We need to ask whether Wikipedia is the right vehicle for things like oral citations, low connectivity, and so on? | Awareness, impact |
| 152 | C | 4 | Is Wikipedia even the right format to be getting information? Long form is valuable in many contexts, and it’s the wrong in other contexts. | Information formats |
| 153 | C | 4 | Translation tools have evolved to the point that they support humans to more easily share knowledge across languages. Small and medium sized wikis, are able to more rapidly grow because these barriers have been reduced. Machine translation is a more effective assistant. Oral history referencing is officially acceptable on Wikipedias across languages. | Language/Translation |
| 154 | C | 4 | The matter of “oral citations” can be resolved nicely if we help universities to have programs that document the oral history of different cultures for which there are no such programs now and encourage the professors and the students in these programs to upload their work to Wikimedia projects. | oral history |
| 155 | C | 4 | There does seem to be agreement that oral citations can become acceptable within an academic context. But there are some It would make sense to focus upon cultures where academic programs that accept oral citations are non-existent. | Inclusivity, oral history |
| 156 | C | 4 | We need to rethink our relationship with academic institutions - pivot to instructors. Awareness is not only about brand recognition. We need to and grounding in the values and nonprofit aspect of Wikipedia is important; awareness is shallow today, and need to go beyond current state. | partnerships |
| 157 | C | 4 | Users should be able to keep in touch with people everywhere around the world. They should be able to talk to them in real time and understand their nuances and demystify their otherness. | Diversity |
| 158 | C | 4 | The project(s) makes people able to connect instantly. The long form encyclopedia may be appropriate, using the analogy of it being something that people circle and discuss. | Information formats |
| 159 | C | 4 | Wikipedia literacy about who creates it, what’s behind it, what’s a good article, the human connection and humanity is all pretty crucial. | Quality |
| 160 | C | 4 | A little bit more “how” we accomplish this particular theme would be welcome. Not clear how we get from here to there. | Path |
| 161 | C | 4 | Not just about consuming, but how people contribute. Particularly non-written languages, or where access to the internet is challenging, figuring out novel ways to get folks from all over to contribute. Particularly in ways that don’t rely on internet access. | Language/Translation |
| 162 | C | 4 | Internet is textual. How do we manage access to people who don’t have access to text or non-written languages? | Inclusivity |
| 163 | C | 4 | Solve social issues with communities to open them to the idea of having different ways to share knowledge. | Social |
| 164 | C | 4 | Involve local people, not foreign people to describe things, or define what is important. Have other cultures to perceive a culture as equal. | Inclusivity |
| 165 | C | 4 | Support leadership in these areas to collaboratively bring forth participation. | leadership |
| 166 | C | 4 | Folks should get the information in their language without the laborious nature of translation from English. | Language |
| 167 | C | 4 | We will want to welcome all people, love the focus on VIBRANCY and INCLUSIVITY. | Inclusivity |
| 168 | C | 4 | Focus on high-priority communications - we will need to make high-priority decisions. Someone will need to make a call on how to prioritise languages. | translation |
| 169 | C | 4 | Is Wikimedia a place for language preservation? We can help with cultural identity. | language |
| 170 | C | 4 | We've seen in so many communities strong support from e.g. the governments of these countries. In reality we need to make decisions about where to prioritise, and these decisions might be painful. | Path/Direction |
| 171 | C | 4 | We need some kind of shared North Star. | Mission |
| 172 | C | 4 | It doesn't talk about affiliates, only "partners". It doesn't explicitly name the infrastructures. | Partnerships |
| 173 | C | 4 | We need to find ways to make sure this statement is something all will identify with. | Partnerships |
| 174 | C | 4 | the use of "we" is problematic here because people may assume that the WMF is the "we". People are identifying with the "we", the community doesn't assume the "we" is "the WMF". | Meta |
| 175 | C | 4 | partnering with regions "we have not yet served well enough" - some of them we haven't served at all. We need to be honest with our progress and recognise that we've missed some people out. | Inclusivity |
| 176 | C | 4 | Previous WMF-led programs in India and Brazil didn’t work and created large problems for our existing ocmmunities. How do we actually build these communities? | Global impact |
| 177 | C | 4 | Once the word is out and we identify what we want to focus on, we can work on partnerships and provide as much help as we can. | Partnerships |
| 178 | C | 4 | We should emphasise capacity development more. It can be viewed in terms of taking initiative. People can follow initiative and grow that. With penetration increasing, more people are coming online and don’t know how to use the smart phones. Need more respected orgs and movements away from private sector and government to lead this, and people will follow. | Community leadership |
| 179 | C | 4 | We will build awareness of the power of free knowledge and overcome barriers to access - I wouldn't phrase it like this, but we do need to think beyond Wikimedia. We're not going to be focusing on the identity of our movement as a series of websites, but beyond that. This statement doesn't really speak to that right now. | Awareness |
| 180 | C | 4 | In general increasing awareness is a *must*. Having the guts to say that we're going to increase awareness. adding more about the shared value of contributing. | Awareness |
| 181 | C | 4 | The "identity" is Wikimedia but free knowledge as a concept. We need to inherently value free knowledge, not necessary Wikimedia. IF that’s true, does our work continue to focus on Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects? Do we move onto hosting free knowledge in other ways? | Awareness |
| 182 | C | 4 | Make Space? Make space is very jargony and western centric: Enable, Invite, Welcome | Rewording |
| 183 | C | 4 | Breaking down the barriers of isolationism - Reforming policies of the more prominent communities, facilitate access for all people, to all sources of knowledge | Inclusivity |
| 184 | C | 4 | thinking about prioritization and resources… put money behind this. Paid translations, pay for the infrastructure that enables global conversations. | Language/Translation |
| 185 | C | 4 | Where English isn’t the filter by default. Professional translation is something we do by default. Simultaneous translation. Also see the movement taking less traditional sources of knowledge. | Language/Translation |
| 186 | C | 4 | We need ‘smarter/more’ meetups - not defaulting to English. Maybe much less content if there’s a restriction that it has to be in 20 languages. In person meetups are so critical for shared understanding. | Language/Translation |
| 187 | C | 4 | Most covered - we will see that resources are there - their language, their environments. One single source of truth that is translated out. One meta article that is fed into many language speakers. People in their languages can contribute much easier. Goes far beyond language. When we consider interfaces, there is a huge gap we have to overcome. | Language/Translation |
| 188 | C | 4 | Technology will be the solution for fixing this. Not only translations but accessibility. Better integration of tools for those impaired or for those with lower access or literacy skills. Technology will be a way to bring these people in - beyond just language. Looking at other barriers as well. | tech |
| 189 | C | 4 | This goes beyond language. People bring up the point about socio-economic - you need leisure time to participate in our projects now. This is a barrier - others have knowledge to share as well. | Inclusivity |
| 190 | C | 4 | Regional aspect could change - don’t limit to these geographies. | Inclusivity |
| 191 | C | 4 | This discussion seems very broad. You can forget illiterates in US (south for example). We don’t want to expand into new countries but we have to be careful about gender and class. We don’t want to perpetuate the same issues. | Language/Translation |
| 192 | C | 4 | Maybe it should talk to segments not served - to broaden and capture those without privilege (less socio-economic, impairments, illiteracy, etc.). | Inclusivity |
| 193 | C | 4 | Our core is aging. As people get older and live longer, it has to go beyond accessibility too. | aging |
| 194 | C | 4 | talking about inter-dependencies - this goes into Communities too. Frame of truly global is not just global. If we mean everyone everywhere, then it goes beyond this. | Community |
| 195 | C | 4 | We shouldn’t limit ourselves with just geographies. Also literacy rates, genders, races being oppressed, etc. Such a wide array of things. | Inclusivity |
| 196 | C | 4 | Language matters a lot. Hard to encapsulate anything in a single paragraph. It’s a perpetuation of the status quo. True disruption comes down to facing the challenge - there are people for whom our projects aren’t accessible and we need to make it accessible to them. | Language/Translation |
| 197 | C | 5 | To go beyond the "knowledge anyone can edit", we need to change mindsets around "Who has the right to write knowledge down". This means offering training, and making sure educational systems modify their approaches to knowledge to enable every individual to see themselves a knowledge generators. | education |
| 198 | C | 1 | We need to avoid that if we want to healthily contribute to the larger information ecosystem, especially in parts of the world that don't have thriving publishing ecosystems. | partners |
| 199 | D | 2 | This theme is dependent on the diversity engendered by [theme B] of true inclusivity. The augmentation elements will be a natural result of providing relevant, high quality knowledge in accessible formats. Placing augmentation as the priority over these other sources of movement direction, would displace (and at times), hurt our potential for impact, where augmentation is not yet an opportunity or reality. | dependent on theme B |
| 200 | D | 2 | We aren’t curators, we aren’t librarians, we aren’t researchers. We are not the expects in every field. Without those people we cannot achieve what this theme sets out. | experts |
| 201 | D | 2 | [Theme B] could be an aid to this topic by using better technology to find the areas that need work and the expertise that people have and match them up. This topic is a prerequisite to being [theme C]. We can expand without being seen as accurate and reliable, but it’s much harder to explain our value in new places without that reputation. By working to ensure that the projects are a trusted source of knowledge and are seen as such, we make the case for becoming a truly global movement much stronger and easier to share. | Theme B |
| 202 | D | 2 | Wikimedia projects will probably never be totally "respected" by everyone if only because different countries and cultures treat the concept in different ways ([theme C]). It allows for a neutral source which to many means not focusing on the "correct" side (e.g. Turkey situation).Theme B applies here as well, since this goal speaks about finding the information that's relevant to certain people at certain times which would require more work on machine learning and content discovery. | Theme C, B |
| 203 | D | 2 | The one that stands out the most is Theme E. There’s a bias toward Wikipedia from old guard academics. How do we approach and work with more traditional organizations? How do we help them adapt for the future on the way to 2030? | Theme E |
| 204 | D | 2 | This theme is more of a byproduct of the other themes. The goals of the other themes need to be achieved in order for this theme to be true. | byproduct |
| 205 | D | 2 | The demystification part of this (external communication/explanation, highlighted transparency), will help all the other themes to succeed. It will: make the actual editing work easier (clearer documentation, and identifying problems with workflows); make onboarding newcomers easier; reduce editor confusion; make external outreach smoother; make interacting with sister communities (who differ in subtle ways) easier. | |
| 206 | D | 2 | This theme is a goal to work towards on its own but in many ways is also something that is naturally worked towards through many of our other themes. This is especially true for the theme A and E. | Theme A, E |
| 207 | D | 2 | Further engagement with the existing knowledge ecosystem will push us towards greater respect as a knowledge source. "Serious" publications give us more clout by association, while we in turn can help those organizations to find new ways to gather and share knowledge. Fostering healthy and inclusive communities is also critical, since people will avoid contributing if they do not feel welcome or if there is too high of a barrier for entry to begin improving the projects. | Theme E |
| 208 | D | 2 | All themes are prerequisites to being the most respected source of knowledge. In order to be up top (#1), all remaining 4 must be true and existing. | Theme A, B, C, E |
| 209 | D | 2 | People do not trust a source because it is accurate; they trust it because they see that they have a chance to fix errors (and so they know it’s not a POV that’s outside of their control and being forced on them by some external power). | Theme A |
| 210 | D | 2 | This theme is dependent on healthy community and global community, but doesn’t account for those. It depends on those. | Theme A, C |
| 211 | D | 2 | This theme has two components: (1) gotta use reliable sources, and (2) gotta convince readers it’s reliable and so are the sources. (1) requires theme E (2) requires inclusivity. | Theme A, E |
| 212 | D | 2 | Endorses the knowledge ecosystem, but when we say “we want to be the most respected source of knowledge”, it seems to supplant knowledge creation in other spaces. But if you think about the projects as a platform for accessing relevant and high quality information, you don’t have to supplant the knowledge ecosystem and you risk alienating people in the other knowledge creation zones (experts, indigenous knowledge, etc). | Theme E |
| 213 | D | 2 | Accessibility and understandability across all languages came up a lot. | access |
| 214 | D | 2 | Be the middlemen of knowledge. | middleman |
| 215 | D | 2 | The most important part was helping people understand how it is reliable… highlighting transparency will help the others succeed. That will make interacting with sister communities easier, as well as external outreach. Need to demystify what makes us us. This is the first place we start the conversation, so a good starting place. | demystify |
| 216 | D | 2 | This theme links into the final destination of sum of all knowledge. This is connected to all, lynchpin. Whether that’s ensuring knowledge ecosystem or healthy diverse community - all these result in our being able to provide the most neutral. | final destination |
| 217 | D | 2 | Global movement might come after this. We have to be able to explain what it is, and that it is trusted, accurate knowledge. If we can get to this place, then we can complete the global movement goal. This is more of a circular loop - process gets us to the sum of human knowledge. | global |
| 218 | D | 2 | It is a process loop, we are already at a place. Out of western context, where people don’t know us, we can’t reach this goal until we move up. This is one that others feed into. Healthy and diverse community will push to more trusted, better content and people feeling more safe. Without that, having trusted reliable content would be harder to reach. Need breadth of knowledge and partnerships (ecosystem). If we are at the center of the ecosystem, then we would be trusted. | Theme A, E |
| 219 | D | 2 | There's a filter bubble. Democrats see their content, republicans see theirs. | filter bubble |
| 220 | D | 2 | AI could help with of this. Moving things forward. Better translations, better analysis for healthy communities. Connecting to other knowledge bases. So much knowledge available, not to downplay the potential power of this. | AI |
| 221 | D | 2 | One of our other goals is [theme E]. Degree more institutional respect. Points to trust by education issue. Help us be more nimble. Knowledge ecosystem is a means to this end. | Theme E |
| 222 | D | 3 | Processing the project content into something usable, probably through ML/AI, is probably involved in becoming more respected. | processing |
| 223 | D | 4 | "Most" respected is problematic. We can have our conventions and structure of knowledge, and we can be respected, but we shouldn’t tell people we’re the “most” respected. | wording |
| 224 | D | 4 | We should not be the source, but rather a platform for understanding the experts and communities that create this knowledge. There’s an opportunity to clarify our movement is about verifiability. Rather the headline be focused on the idea that we are the “Most effective platform for providing access to high quality knowledge” -- this is where we can get experts engaged in our project. | platform |
| 225 | D | 4 | The most understandable source of high-quality knowledge. | understandable |
| 226 | D | 4 | We’re the gateway to any knowledge. We’re the first place anyone goes to start learning about anything. “Most high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of knowledge” seems more critical than “respected”. | gateway |
| 227 | D | 4 | Language - across all languages - should be added as implicit. | language |
| 228 | D | 4 | Reads this as a major part of trust, and component. | trust |
| 229 | D | 4 | Might be an opportunity to facilitate more element here of the anti-expertise sentiment here | anti-expertise |
| 230 | D | 4 | The headline has unclear/unintended implications. We recommend headline revisions, that could look like:
-Provide access to high quality and relevant knowledge to all people who need it. -The place for high-quality, neutral, and relevant knowledge in any language -Accessible, high-quality, neutral, and relevant knowledge in any language |
all-people |
| 231 | D | 4 | Needs to include a commitment to diversity of contribution and environment for access. | diversity |
| 232 | D | 4 | There is a tension between including experts, and the superlatives that supercede the experts (“most reliable”). | tension |
| 233 | D | 4 | There are going to be new channels (e.g. spoken) that we need to be present in. if it doesn’t exist in a way people want/expect, they won’t use it. | new-channels |
| 234 | D | 4 | Neutrality within single-language societies have a major divide between what is seen as reality. | neutrality |
| 235 | D | 4 | Multiple POVs represented and discussed to show how the most accepted content was derived. Not only just experts, but everyone’s POV. | discussion |
| 236 | D | 4 | Removing all barriers to entry to join Wikipedia | barriers |
| 237 | D | 4 | Incorporate primary sources directly into articles to show how the facts were arrived at - provide the scientific community a way to communicate to the public | primary-sources |
| 238 | D | 4 | Add awareness first | awareness |
| 239 | D | 4 | More accurate and verifiable content. By 2030, Wikimedia projects will be seen as the most high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of knowledge. We will increase the depth of knowledge available and maintain our standards for content. We will invite experts to join us. We will help people understand how our processes make us reliable. | stronger |
| 240 | D | 4 | It’s not just passive - part of what we need to do is make the projects better AND promote that as such. | promotion |
| 241 | D | 4 | Make privacy policy easy to understand. | privacy-policy |
| 242 | D | 4 | I want to make sure we still allow for low-quality articles as starters. So anyone can begin. Maybe have quality ratings that people can use to see the state articles are in. | beginners |
| 243 | D | 4 | When we focus on quality, some of the smaller wikis don’t have processes for quality standards. Also have different cultural influences. Also - the time in the US right now is a focus on verifiability. This desire to cite things is an added behavior right now. Do we want to call this out explicitly as part of getting to this end point? To be a cultural norm? | quality |
| 244 | D | 4 | We could be better messaging that this is a priority for us and part of our process. | messaging |
| 245 | D | 4 | Needs accurate and verifiable resources that aren’t just known sources now. | accurate |
| 246 | D | 4 | Does the expert part matter? The good current parts are independent of expertise. It may or may not have been written by an expert, but that isn't highlighted anywhere. Would changing that be harmful? Would expertise be linked to blind-trust? | expert |
| 247 | D | 4 | Completely change it to "We will show related information to people everywhere, to place it within larger contexts". | context |
| 248 | D | 4 | Challenges around: soliciting new types of knowledge. Types of sources, formats of content. New processes and policies will be needed. | new |
| 249 | D | 4 | Demystification is a core part of what we do, and needs expansion. | demystification |
| 250 | D | 4 | This is a key topic, and the biggest barrier (besides technical skills) in the conversations with educators. The bet on open has had a great return. We are already a key component of the knowledge ecosystem, but there is no question that eternal vigilance to deliver the best quality of knowledge is required. | education |
| 251 | E | 1 | Nations of the world will measure, in addition to their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), their GDK: Gross Domestic Knowledge. This is the knowledge that they have contributed to Open Knowledge. | global participation |
| 252 | E | 1 | Every browser, phone, and tablet plays content from Wikimedia projects using free formats. The movement actively works with other parts of the knowledge ecosystem to make this possible. | free formats |
| 253 | E | 1 | The debate in academia about “Is Wikipedia reliable?” is over, because people have developed a more realistic understanding of reliability and verifiability. | awareness |
| 254 | E | 1 | The development of the technology framework Wikimedia uses for knowledge curation is funded by a wide coalition of partners, and Wikimedia can direct most of its technology funds to features specific to the movement. Use of our technology (and the associated legal and social plumbing, such as free licenses) has become commonplace. | software |
| 255 | E | 1 | It will be common knowledge among researchers and scholars as well as their professional organizations that documenting themselves in Wikimedia projects is critical to their own success in disseminating knowledge. | recognition |
| 256 | E | 1 | Wikimedia hosts a set of wiki-like technologies that make it easier to produce and share knowledge broadly (Original Research). This disrupted the current closed/paywalled system/culture through broad adoption by educators. | sister projects |
| 257 | E | 1 | The majority of Wikimedia community members [will] have some experience or understanding of how to talk with other communities beyond the Wikimedia community. Now, many Wikimedian's don't understand how their work interacts with and affects the work of others. | internal awareness |
| 258 | E | 1 | Most knowledge professionals understand how to participate in and access. Professionals don't fully realize what some of our organizing principles, such as "open content" and open contribution environments, mean for advancement of their own efforts. | external awareness |
| 259 | E | 1 | Community members, subject matter experts, and professors have come together to pool resources in creating curriculums that integrate Wikimedia content. Content is contributed, edited, and curated in such a way that students regardless of geographic location, can consume this knowledge, progress their learning, and be awarded recognition for their efforts. | curriculum |
| 260 | E | 1 | When we reach out to partners, we can offer them a healthy and safe space where they can make meaningful contributions. We have emphasized places of mutual benefit, where people gain skills by participating in our spaces, and we gain with more diverse and global contributors/contributions. | awareness |
| 261 | E | 1 | Wikimedia, GLAM, schools and governments have banded together to make a freely accessible library of texts and digital media representative of what school aged children need to learn and succeed. Wikimedia and its partners provide tools for individuals and institutions to digitize, store and describe their materials. The library is available in all languages and can be accessed freely. | global collaboration |
| 262 | E | 1 | In 2030, when people talk about the public domain, they will think immediately of the Wikimedia projects as the central source. | license |
| 263 | E | 1 | In 2030, we help collate, define, and demonstrate, many best-practices to like-minded partner organisations. Less insular, and more bi-directional. | bidirectional work |
| 264 | E | 1 | The structure of formal education looks different because educational institutions and knowledge bodies have been connected. Less people are kept out, more people have a higher education level. | global collaboration |
| 265 | E | 1 | In 2030, free knowledge will have grown dramatically in quality, quantity and diversity. It will be accessible across formats and contexts. | growth |
| 266 | E | 1 | In 2030, we will have responded to serious threats to the free and open internet, in concert with a coalition of like-minded organizations. We will have raised awareness for the ideals underpinning free knowledge and increased the sustainability of our ecosystem. | awareness |
| 267 | E | 1 | There is a clear series of paths from knowledge archives to knowledge users, and a confident path for hailing knowledge “consumers” into knowledge “makers/participants” | onboarding |
| 268 | E | 1 | Wikipedia and our sister projects have become accepted standard in knowledge. Our content, both of the creation side and the distribution side, will be well integrated with the latest creation and delivery platforms. Other organizations will have a good understanding of how our projects and model works and have well established workflows to provide content for them based on their expertise and speciality. | standard |
| 269 | E | 1 | Every knowledge organization will find a suitable project in the Wikimedia movement which becomes their natural platform for knowledge production, consumption and dispersal. These projects evolve a set of tools and practices that are typical for the needs for each of these players. It will be a galaxy of many wikis. | galaxy of wikis |
| 270 | E | 1 | We can develop partnerships with technology organizations (part of the Theme B) and then serve as a bridge between those partners and others who may not have access to those same sorts of resources. | ties together with theme 2 and 3 |
| 271 | E | 1 | We're increasingly acting as a structured data hub, which allows for different ways in which our knowledge can be baked into other projects, materials and structures. Structured Commons, Wikisource, and Wiktionary are going to be increasingly more valuable as structured data kicks in. | structured data |
| 272 | E | 1 | Allowing for better scaling beyond the current dynamic. A lot of our community is very much dependent on the goodwill of external organizations, whereas if we were more oriented towards the network: its about win-win collaboration. It also better describes the landscape of the work our projects do beyond Wikipedia. | bidirectional work, collaboration |
| 273 | E | 2 | This theme supports the theme B. For example, we should work with other free knowledge organizations on open source machine translation, rather than just relying on what's already out there, or trying to do it ourselves. | supports theme B |
| 274 | E | 2 | This theme is the most flexible and independent. It's required for us to create a truly global movement, but it hasn't hard dependencies on anything else. Because we can partner at so many levels, with so many different types of entities, we are free to do so at any level of our strategic progress. But it's imperative that we do find and maintain good partnerships. | independent theme |
| 275 | E | 2 | Engaging the knowledge system allows us to conscientiously engage in both the diversity focused themes (A and C), bring value to us as theme D, and ultimately create more actors willing to engage with us through automation and tooling to unlock our knowledge. | ties together with theme A, C, and D |
| 276 | E | 2 | Theme D seems to go hand-in-hand with this theme. Part of getting other organizations to work with us is to engage with them in a professional manner. Partners have some clarity and understanding on what the Wikimedia movement is - and why that is valuable. When members of the movement reach out to new orgs that they are empowered to speak with confidence about movement, it's values and value, and how/why that is alluring to them. | ties together with theme D |
| 277 | E | 2 | It will require work that falls into some of the purview of the other themes. | depends on all themes |
| 278 | E | 2 | This theme needs the most momentum behind it, with long-term sustainable work in both directions (inward and outward), hence is not the most urgent near-term priority. However, Short-term, it would be good to organize/improve/refine the details about existing partnerships and existing best-practices, structured in a way that best allows for (expected) growth patterns. | low priority |
| 279 | E | 2 | This theme could be interpreted as a tactic -- how to get where we want to go -- as well as an outcome. As a tactic, it could support our ability to achieve all of the other themes. | tactic |
| 280 | E | 2 | Choose our partnerships wisely - somewhat consistent with the values, but we don’t have to agree on everything. Each has a different worldview and focus. | partnerships |
| 281 | E | 2 | There is more focus on working within and among the ecosystems that could be benefiting from what we are doing. The mix of "formal and informal" education speaks to the bulk of the motivations and reasons for engaging in our projects. | supports theme D |
| 282 | E | 4 | To what extent are educational institutions currently built on an assumption that knowledge and learning are difficult to access, and those institution’s business model is to provide that access? When those barriers to access are lowered, what does that mean for the institutions? | institutions |
| 283 | E | 4 | We need a system to understand how we do best. This is difficult, as things are changing so quickly. For instance Chat - our articles might be too heavy. Voice might lean toward speak. No one besides Google wants to map this - and that’s to put them in orbit. - if we understand this larger ecosystem, we will be able to engage in it much better. | research |
| 284 | E | 4 | Many ways the cost comes into play. How strong is the “free” held? This is the ultimate debate. Economic free versus liberated. What does “free” mean? Some of our references aren’t free. | free |
| 285 | E | 4 | What does partnership mean? Perhaps that is working with allies - the examples we are using need to be more clear and evocative. What we are doing and with whom? | examples |
| 286 | E | 4 | A sense of coalition - work closely together to preserve the free and open internet. | coaliton |
| 287 | E | 4 | Revised theme: We will build bi-directional relationships with a wide variety of organizations and communities dedicated to the ideals of free knowledge. Wikimedia communities will work with allies that they didn’t know they had. Our content and technology will become a central part of formal and informal education around the world. We will partner with leading institutions in education, arts, entertainment, civil society, government, science, and technology. Wikimedia will pull its weight in these partnerships, strengthening the broader free knowledge movement and reaching out so free knowledge can impact the wider world. Together, we will provide platforms for a new generation of people who learn, create, and care for a growing library of free knowledge for all. | bi-directional work |
| 288 | E | 4 | Revised theme: We will build relationships with a wide variety of organizations dedicated to the ideals of free knowledge. Wikimedia communities will work with allies that they didn’t know they had. Our content and technology will become a central part of formal and informal education and knowledge production around the world. We will build strategic partnerships with organizations with shared infrastructure (same/similar software, legal) needs. We will partner with and learn from pioneering and diverse leading institutions in education, arts, entertainment, civil society, government, science, and technology. Together, we will invite a new generation of people who produce, learn, index, create, and care for a growing library of free knowledge for all | organizations |
| 289 | E | 4 | Wikimedia as a place for producers of knowledge would be nice for, for example, researchers to be recognized and findable. | recognition |
| 290 | E | 4 | Many Wikimedians don’t know who’s affected by their work. Would like contributors to become aware of knowledge groups. Would also like knowledge groups to know how the community(ies) works. | awareness |
| 291 | E | 4 | The movement can help to support, for example, universal higher education. More partnership would be needed in curriculum building. | curriculum |
| 292 | E | 4 | We’re more focused on community dynamics for knowledge creation and production, perhaps having provided software that everyone simply uses for getting work done in knowledge generation. Hopefully we’d be spending less money on non-technical things as a result of well established tech. | beyond tech |
| 293 | E | 4 | Would be nice if ecosystem would get more involved in knowledge production. Technology like PAWS makes stuff open and collaborative by default, in opposition to the closed research model. Educators love stuff like PAWS - it’s just easier to have common infrastructure. | infrastructure |
| 294 | E | 4 | We should be thinking about facilitating as many institutions as possible to collaborate. 1-on-1 partnerships may not necessarily scale. But public institutions might be able to enact or pioneer change. | challenges |
| 295 | E | 4 | We should get into the business of knowledge production. Take for example oral citations: it’s knowledge production. In a way, we’re producing something that’s cite-able. Would like us to make open, collaborative knowledge production space. Lots of evidence that people who work on things like Wikipedia might like knowledge production. We might be able to organize events, although not necessarily funding actual knowledge production. | knowledge production |
| 296 | E | 4 | We’re humbly engaged with communities. Trying to figure out how to frame this correctly...Many of our best partnerships can help inform the way in which our ecosystem is actually improved and so is that of partners. Sometimes people interpret GLAM as merely ingesting content; benefit could be more bidirectional. | bi-directional work, |
| 297 | E | 4 | We have been missing a movement-wide commitment to this. That it’s focused on working more as a movement and network to accomplish things together: something that has grown out of existing partnership strategies/programs. | ties together with theme 3 |
| 298 | E | 5 | Any learned society or professional organization with global scope should be allies with WMF, and our local communities should be more deeply embedded in their local communities of practice. | organizations |
| 299 | B | Wikimedia tools understand the world around me and know what my interests are to select the right things for me at the right time. | relevant | |
| 300 | B | Structured data makes it nearly trivial to tie together information, media, and editors | Relevant | |
| 301 | B | I can find the information when I need it in the form I need it. | Relevant | |
| 302 | B | Wikipedia presents me the content I should read. Everything I read/see is customized personally (by personality/localization/friends/etc) | Relevant | |
| 303 | B | I can find detailed information about the interrelation between any topic, on multiple levels, with insightful auto-generated diagrams/maps/charts/fly-throughs. | Relevant | |
| 304 | B | Our biases are now in our code :( | bias | |
| 305 | B | A danger is that the core values the Wikimedia movement (openness and transparency) become meaningless, because civic control over the process of knowledge construction is impossible and whoever writes the AIs determines reality. | values | |
| 306 | B | A danger is paid channels and walled gardens isolating people and limiting their access according to their nationality, income, and biases | values | |
| 307 | B | Wikipedia is under threat by much more powerful, hybrid knowledge bases | competetion | |
| 308 | B | Specialized AIs exist which can perform knowledge aggregation and answer extraction tasks | AI | |
| 309 | B | AI will detect and correct and protect the content, reducing, greatly the work admins, patrollers, and others | automation | |
| 310 | B | People who contribute will more easily know where the gaps are in the content, and be able to add the knowledge they can contribute much more easily | contributions | |
| 311 | B | Citations will be more easy to find across languages | citations | |
| 312 | B | (almost) automatically selecting the best examples of information and media to represent a topic | automatic | |
| 313 | B | They’re using their holographic data pad to make quick updates to Wikipedia 2030 using a series of ‘game-like’ edits (instead of the now archaïc wikitext-for-everything process). These edits are short, quickly accomplished tasks that improve the reliability (say adding a quick citation) and quality (adding metadata to an image) of the content in the projects. The interface, regardless of being holographic, looks nothing like what we think of in 2017 as ‘editing’. | gamification | |
| 314 | B | Intimidating backlogs are a thing of the past. The machines do that work. Copyright violations, vandalism, … Contributors can now spend 99% of their collective time improving and creating articles. | work | |
| 315 | B | An editor [has] unprecedented productivity in creating and reviewing articles | productivity | |
| 316 | B | Natural language search. | search | |
| 317 | B | Search will be picture and voice driven, not text. | search | |
| 318 | B | People will be able to access and contribute to our projects from all online/offline platforms. | platforms | |
| 319 | B | The Matrix style learning, you ask what you need to know, it takes a couple of seconds and now you’ve learnt that skill/knowledge. | learning | |
| 320 | B | The most parts are completely automatic:...evaluating the quality of articles’ content (with instantaneous feedback to an author of edits) | automatic | |
| 321 | B | editing via mobile devices is much more common than with desktop | mobile | |
| 322 | B | holographic pics and 3-D printing (may be some educational model/samples) from wiki will be there | 3-d | |
| 323 | B | The primary role of editors will be to direct the machines and preside over controversial issues. | decision-making | |
| 324 | B | children and teachers learn things by fixing Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wiktionary, and Wikisource, together, from any place, using any imaginable device. | learning | |
| 325 | B | direct connection to sources | sources | |
| 326 | B | algorithms to verify sources and reference alignment | algorithms | |
| 327 | B | easy to explore and add needed content | explore | |
| 328 | B | The barriers between languages wikis will lower | barriers | |
| 329 | B | Most translation tasks do not require much human intervention | translation | |
| 330 | B | For our readers this means access to every article in their language. They can find most information in the language of their choice. | translation | |
| 331 | B | Manual translations may not be a thing anymore because of advanced language translation technologies. | translation | |
| 332 | B | All the projects are connected, so that all contributions are shown in all languages. | language | |
| 333 | B | transparently and with explicit accountability mechanisms built in. | accountability |