Jump to content

Process/Basic questions

From Strategic Planning
(Redirected from Basic questions)

Some basic questions: please, no discussion on this page. If you'd like to discuss an answer someone else gave, use the talk page.

What are your hopes and concerns about the Wikimedia movement?


  • I hope that Wiki inspires other platforms of free open-source communities that can work together to make the world a better place for everyone
  • My hope is that we discover & articulate consensus in some areas about what the movement is and develop a way to talk about what it is to others who would join and/or support us.Jennifer Riggs 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope that Wikipedia continues to gain credibility as a Free Encyclopedia and as Wikimedia's flagship project. I also hope that the other projects, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikinews, etc... develop better inter-project communications and stronger identities. CQ 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia evolving into world heritage, and recognized as such. Dedalus 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It survives the next five years.Pknkly 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My hope is that in five years, Wikimedia can still make a difference. Fruggo 17:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My hope is that more and more users will subscribe to the ideals and central policies of Wikipedia and Wikimedia, so as to counter the many who are there only to push a particular product, interest, PoV, myth, etc or to kill time by playing at bureaucracy. In short I hope Wikimedia starts living up to its potential. - Brya 15:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope that Wikipedia will continue to thrive as a free resource of the collected knowledge of the past and present civilizations, documenting and archiving that knowledge for all future generations. In some ways, becoming like, and as indispensable as, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was in the series of books by the same name. While I would hate to see traditional encyclopedias, news sources, and other resources die off (there is still a place for them), I want to see the the WMF projects become the de facto standard in each category of reference material they exist in. The quality and accuracy of the information will need to improve to do that, but lack of it shouldn't derail this goal. —Willscrlt “w:en” • “m” • “c” ) 10:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Continued stagnation, continued uncertainty about in which growth phase the WMF is, i.e. which organizational crisis the WMF currently is experiencing, failing to recognize which kind of organizational crises the WMF has already grown over. Dedalus 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good editors driven away for a variety of reasons (e.g., processes and techniques are poorly documented, unclear and unenforced editing policies, contributions seem insignificant compared to the ever number of articles needing attention). Pknkly 07:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Diminishment of the sense of community. Volunteers are essential for the Wikimedia projects. In order to achieve Wikimedia's goals, these volunteers must form a community. Volunteers tend to be more and more individualistic; the sense of community seems to diminish. Fruggo 17:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • An increase of the sense of community. Wikimedia aims at improving access to knowledge; this can only be achieved by allowing those who know something the required scope to work. Whenever a sense of community crops up, a new agenda inevitably develops (with a shift away from the goals of the total project) and bureaucracy springs into life: stagnation (or worse) is the result. - Brya 15:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Policy creep, in-fighting, scaring off new editors, driving away established editors, becoming the 800-lb gorilla in the marketplace and becoming the target of various attacks, greed or expenses turning the projects into commercial ventures, censorship, copyright or other intellectual constraints interfering with the open and free exchange of information, and complacency leading to stagnation or a blasé attitude about the various projects. —Willscrlt “w:en” • “m” • “c” ) 10:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is becoming a battleground. Something about our processes have led people to realize that they can get away with factionalism, and that it is better to stonewall opponents than talk to them. It's preventing us from turning long-standing problems into new solutions, and the repetitive disputes are causing experienced editors to leave. 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What would be your number one priority for Wikimedia over the next five years?

  • Maintain what we have. Progress would be great, but the most important thing is not to go backwards. --Tango 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Spread our content. We've gathered quite a bunch of text and media content, go tell the world! Ask newspapers to re-use it, offer it to TV stations, publishers, advertising companies and make them spread the word of free information. --ChrisiPK 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Two points:
    1. Ensure that we will be around for the next 100 years.
    2. we need to find some way to infuse new life into wikis that are coming to the end of the WikiLifeCycle. Wiki-communities can, do and will blow up, and we need to learn how to prevent it, or have plans on what to do and how to pick up the pieces.
    --Kim Bruning 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Improve the quality of our content. --Frank Schulenburg 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Improve the public opinion of the Wikimedia projects. Take Wikipedia for example: as far as I've seen, most people think it's a really useful place to get information, but otherwise do not grasp the idea that it's a community collaboration to spread knowledge - all they know is that they can mess around with it (meaning vandalism) however they want. This needs remediation. When people understand what's behind that door known as the login page, and realize that Wikipedia is more than a website deranged students mess with on their lunch break, then Wikimedia can continue. Until then, the Wikimedia projects remain this mysterious and untrustworthy object in the public's eye. We need the public to know what we are and what we exist for. Without the public support and understanding, we risk stagnation and equilibrium in the projects. Calvin 1998 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support our dedicated volunteers. To do the work that keeps any of our projects going -- contributing content, handling administrative tasks, keeping the processes flowing -- requires dedication. In some of the projects (okay, the English Wikipedia specifically, but I'm sure this problem will raise its head in other projects sooner or later) lack of recognition, lack of proper support them in difficult circumstances, lack of professional avenues to use the skills they have developed in volunteering, all of that leads to disenchantment, burn out, & the needless loss of people. Based on my years of experience on not only en.wikipedia but similar community-based projects, I am convinced this is the primary risk to any or all of the Wikimedia projects. -- Llywrch 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Improve the quality and the reliability of our content. Misibacsi 07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Let people know there exist a non-profit organization that hosts Wikipedia and other projects that relies on charitable donations, and secondary help people locate the edit button reassuring them they can contribute something valuable as well as we do appreciate their contributions. Dedalus 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Greater automation and improved documentation - To mitigate the editor burn out and disenchantment rate (I agree with Llywrch's statement above), improve the documentation of practices, procedures, and techniques. Automate enforcement of editing rules (e.g., if no reference had been applied within a specific time frame after a citation was requested - do something with it). Pknkly 07:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fight the petty bureaucrats, template pasters and everybody who has devoted him/herself to keep content out of Wikipedia. Make Wikipedia a portal to information rather than a dam keeping the reader away from information. - Brya 15:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Openness/transparency. On several levels. Most important: the Wikimedia projects must be open to new users. New users are deterred by the complexity of the projects, the many written and unwritten rules and the sometimes harsh criticism. Maybe just as important: transparency about decision-making. All decision-making should take place on-wiki, both regarding projects and Foundation issues. Fruggo 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Many good points have already been raised, but I think that encouraging and assisting the broader international, multi-lingual, inter-cultural global community to participate within all the projects (even ones that are outside their usual languages) will help with many of the problems. En.wiki dominates the attention and is somewhat synonymous with "wiki" in general for several people I know. Rather than doing anything to reduce en.wiki's position, we need to focus on bringing the various other projects up to a similar standing, and get more cross-wiki participation going, if possible. That should actually help with several of the other concerns mentioned above (while undoubtedly introducing new ones, but that's part of life). —Willscrlt “w:en” • “m” • “c” ) 11:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Find ways to get content to the next level. Most of the important topics have articles. But so little has been expanded, verified, and balanced. 15:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are your hopes and concerns about the strategic planning process?


  • Two points:
    • a) Engagement and involvement of all stakeholders in the process, leading to acceptance and support for the decision procedure and of all major findings and conclusions.
    • b) Ability of people to see the difference between the Wikimedia Foundation on the one side, and Wikipedia and other projects on the other side, i.e. Wikimedia (or Wikimedia movement) strategy isn't the same as Wikipedia or other project specific strategy.
    Dedalus 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That it will product tangible, actionable plans instead of a lot of nice sounding words that people congratulate themselves about, but in reality does little to help us grow and move forward. —Willscrlt “w:en” • “m” • “c” ) 11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Reactions on the strategy documents at the end of the process by people who didn't engage or involve themselves in the process. Dedalus 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • All kinds of project specific issues - which board or office can't or won't influence - flooding the strategic planning process. Dedalus 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm just worried that forking the project off onto another wiki might discourage/hamper participation from the global community. Anonymous Dissident 06:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That the general sense of disgruntlement overwhelms the project, leading to a lack of focus? - Brya 15:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That too much change or the wrong changes will end up doing more harm than good. We need to remember that things are working well now. We need to adjust and gently tweak, not throw out, overhaul, or renovate things that are already working. It's also important that the results be flexible and realize that what might be good for one language or project might be terrible for another one; so the outcomes need to be adaptable and adoptable (or rejectable) on a case-by-case basis, unless such a change is crucial to the overall survivability and health of the Foundation. —Willscrlt “w:en” • “m” • “c” ) 11:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Conflicting or inconsistent goals. There needs to be a sense of priorities, and we need to understand that we're improving the means to improve the ends. We can't get bogged down in improving the means for the means sake. 15:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What other questions do you have?

Do you have any other questions?