Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20

Intro section

Below is the navbox for this group of articles. this is designed to enable you to read and to navigate these pages more easily. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

interesting

this is interesting. thanks for this page!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

Its so vague and full of trendy buzzwords that I can't make head or tails what this is all about. Renata (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3:, you have a good point. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

^ agreed. I would appreciate a summary of the suggestions and how they would affect the English Wikipedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Office hours

If you want to learn more about movement strategy or ask the core team your questions regarding the process, join our office hours tomorrow, on Thursday, January 30 at 8:00 UTC (one hour) and at 18:00 UTC (one hour). Find links and see more: here. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I attend the second one, and here are a few recollections for anyone who's interested. The group was not large. Most of us found the recommendations too vague. The intended role of the global governance body was a particular source of confusion, although largely of theoretical interest to most of us.

We wanted to know what practical effects are intended. For example, if there's supposed to be a code of conduct, then we need to know whether it's going to say "Please adopt a local civility policy, and if you don't, then the following rules apply..." or if it says "People expressing anger or frustration will get blocked by outsiders" or if it says "Communities are not permitted to block editors on the basis of their race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation". This vagueness, in all of the recommendations, seems to result in people guessing what the missing information is, and generally guessing pessimistically. (The editor's version of Murphy's law might be "When there are multiple ways to interpret any idea, then the interpretation with the most capacity for destroying Wikipedia is the real one".)

There was also a sense that most of these recommendations are primarily about affiliates and other grant-recipients. The request for a default code of conduct makes sense for local event organizers, who probably don't want to spend time re-inventing the Friendly Spaces Policy anyway. I don't think that anyone left the meeting thinking that any recommendation was inherently unworkable, but I think that some people felt like most of it was irrelevant to them. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Not for the whole -pedia

These could potentially be implemented in a functional way, but not for all articles. Some articles are simply too controversial and some people want to fight too badly to observe the rules. What if there was an algorithm that decided which articles belong to a safe wiki with Marquess of Queensberry style rules and which articles belong to a no-holds barred wiki? That way both camps could get what they want. People who want to fight can, and people who don't can do other things that are more productive.

The content of these proposals demonstrates Hegelian epistemology. We need to be careful not to write rules that will turn away editors not accustomed to using Hegelian epistemology.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

To shed some light on specifically what I am writing about, I took a close look at the first paragraph of one of these recommendations here: Wikipedia_talk:Wikimedia_Strategy_2018–20/Plan_Infrastructure_Scalability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Any interested person can create a "no-holds-barred wiki" by copying content to a fork wiki. Not everything has to be hosted on a WMF-supported wiki server. There are many wiki hosting services available. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If you know anyone who wants to do that, maybe you could convince them to get all of that crowd to follow them off of Wikipedia? I speculate it is the controversial topics that lure the fighting crowd to Wikipedia. How to get them to leave? Get rid of the controversial topics? Now you can see it isn't so easy to solve the problem.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Glossary suggestion

'Knowledge ecosystem' would be good to add to the glossary. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)