Talk:2016 Strategy Consultation

Thing to consider

"through the democratic creation"

wikipedia is not a democracy

Geni (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2016 (BST)

Perhaps 'shared creation of' would be better here? Will take another look... LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2016 (BST)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY refers to Wikipedia's governance rather than the process of content creation. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2016 (BST)

Uses the term open knowledge a lot without really ever defining it.Geni (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2016 (BST)

Good point LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2016 (BST)

Strategic goal 2 lacks any involvement for those trying to perform a curation function like QOAM or the DOAJ Seal.Geni (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2016 (BST)

I wonder if these functions would fit better under strategic goal 3?

Thanks for the feedback Geni, will consider in more detail when I'm looking at all the feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to comment. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2016 (BST)

Comments from Mike Peel

Hi all. Thanks for running this consultation - it's great to see this happening, and it's clear that a lot of thought has gone into the document. I've got a number of comments to make (as a UK volunteer, not in my role on the FDC), which I hope are helpful:

• The vision of the organisation seems to have changed considerably. At the moment it is "Our vision is open knowledge for all", and the new one is "Our vision is of a more tolerant, informed and democratic society through the shared creation of, and access to, open knowledge.". The addition of "a more tolerant, informed and democratic society" completely changes the vision - while 'informed' is good, 'tolerant' and 'democratic' are quite different concepts that I'm not sure should necessarily be envisaged by WMUK.

In the board away day we spent some time exploring the current vision and what it means to trustees. Whilst it's pretty unarguable as a concept (I would hope!), it was interesting that it actually meant quite different things to different people - perhaps because it is so broad - and there was a general sense that it didn't actually describe why the board felt that open knowledge is a good thing. I take your points on board though and will feed them back in during the redrafting process. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• I'm a bit worried by some of the outcomes given in the document, in particular:
  • 1. The use of open knowledge has significantly increased access to the UK’s cultural heritage
    • Why the specific mention of 'cultural heritage' here, rather than 'the sum of all knowledge'? There is a lot of information out there that doesn't fall under the category of 'cultural heritage' (e.g., most of science. ;-) ).

We're definitely not meaning to exclude science here so I think I need to look at the wording of the outcome. However the reality is that much of what WMUK is able to support in terms of opening up scientific knowledge is that held by (broadly speaking) cultural institutions, rather than privately funded research...so I think the wording came about more in terms of thinking about partners rather than content, and needs redrafting. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• • 4. WMUK is recognised as a leading organisation for open knowledge
    • This isn't an outcome in itself, it's a by-product.
• I'm uneasy by the emphasis given to advocacy here, but that may be because it's not a Wikimedia community norm - the focus tends to be more on 'inform and educate' than 'lobby or pushing a point of view'.
• What are the "Free Knowledge Advocacy Group" and "Advocacy Working Group"? That's the first I've heard of them. If they're internal working groups, that's great; if they're external, then it's probably best not to name them specifically so that you don't rule out other means of contributing to those objectives.

We're using the term advocacy in a pretty broad sense to include inform and educate (as well as pushing a particular point of view!), but I take your point. The Free Knowledge Advocacy Group should have an EU in front of it - it's basically the work co-ordinated for the past few years by 'Wikimedian in Brussels', Dimi Dimitar, to which WMUK contributes. I'll clarify this. The advocacy working group is new, having only had one meeting - I will circulate more details about this via the mailing list. But again, I'm happy to open this out so that we're not ruling out other ways of contributing. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• The third strategic goal is written rather differently than the previous ones; the inclusion of medium and long-term goals here but not in the first two looks a bit odd, as does the mention of 'based on previous successful work' (what was this, why include a mention of 'successful'?) Also, what exactly is an 'educational institute here' - are we talking about primary, secondary, university, or other educational organisations?

I think it's fair to say that the third strategic goal is the least developed of the three and so the medium/long term objectives were around recognising the different starting point. Will take another look at this. Educational institution could mean any of the above! We have an education meeting in Leicester tomorrow (Saturday 21st May) so some stuff might come out of that which would help to refine these objectives. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• Although it's the shortest of the three strategic goals, I think that the first one is the most important. The second and third are useful goals, but they shouldn't distract from the first.

Agreed! LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• "Wikimedia UK will seek to engage with volunteers in the delivery of all of our volunteers" - presumably the last "volunteers" was meant to be "activities"? Although I'm glad to see the word 'volunteers' being used more than it needs to be. ;-) I'd hope that WMUK would do more than "seek to engage", though - volunteers should be a fundamental part of everything that WMUK does, and it's worth remembering the principle that we've mentioned a lot in the past: "staff should only be doing things that volunteers can't, or won't, do." That particularly goes for things like developing partnerships and speaking at events, where volunteering isn't really mentioned specifically.

Thanks, good point LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• I don't follow the link between this document, and the definition of the three programmatic areas - please could that be expanded upon? In particular, the third point of 'Advocacy' should probably be more of a 5-10% level activity, rather than a main programme area.

Hopefully that will be clearer in the full business plan. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• I should note that it would have been easier to provide feedback in this consultation if the text being consulted about was on-wiki rather than in a PDF, both in terms of accessing the text, and being able to copy-paste quotes without format glitches.

Sorry, good point. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

Please let me know if any of my points are unclear. Thanks again for running this consultation! Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2016 (BST)

Thanks very much for all your thought and feedback Mike. I've given my initial responses above but will take all of this into account when reviewing/updated. Cheers, Lucy LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2016 (BST)

• I'm very reassured by your replies, Lucy. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for listening! Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2016 (BST)

Other plans

How does this strategy mesh with Towards a five year plan 2013-18? LoopZilla (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2016 (BST)