Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/Sister projects


 * How is the survey being advertised? I've only seen it here. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has also been announced on Foundation-l . Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If a broad range of comments are truly desired, then much wider advertisement is necessary -- this seems to target those who've already participated. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * About "repository for statistics gathered for the process": If the wiki has a page where these statistics are gathered, a link would be very nice, or at least a few examples (a question left open in the Newsroom discussion ). Did this refer to things like Former Contributors Survey Results (PDF there)? Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry Haeb, I must have overlooked your tag in the article. Its called the Wikimedia-pedia(I didnt pick the name) its accessible from the left-side menu on the strategy wiki. I added the link in the article as well. Thanks.--Theo10011 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I had seen the "Wikimedia-pedia" in the side bar and clicked through a few entries, and since they happened to be mostly about qualitative aspects, I thought it might refer to something else. But looking at more entries, there is obviously a lot of statistical data there too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I took part in the Strategy process. For a couple of months or so I was extremely active and then I had to bow out for health reasons. I just wanted to share an observation.


 * Many of the proposals submitted were very specific; they wanted a particular feature to be available in the interface or they wanted a particular direct action to be taken by the WMF or, perhaps, just by someone, anyone.


 * The next phase saw task forces formed around more general categories of proposed activities; a valid task of such forces was to try to distil the thoughts behind a number of specific proposals and think about what the general sentiment was behind them. The specific became more general.


 * Then, finally, the task force findings were put before the WMF. I had dropped out of proceedings by this point so I have no knowledge of the process there, but what appears to have resulted is something even more, and much more, general in nature.


 * When I first saw the strategy outcomes I was rather disappointed. Where an individual proposal that someone had submitted long ago could be very exciting (focused, actionable), the broad statements of intent seemed to me rather harder to think of in terms of direct results. The individual proposals were pleasingly binary; either this proposal for a feature would come about or it would be rejected - it was binary. What came out finally is more like a spectrum; the WMF would move in such and such a direction and success will presumably be measured in somewhat lengthy reports.


 * So I feel rather mournful about all those specific proposals that kind of just got left behind.


 * This sounds like a criticism of strategy. It's not meant to be. Now that time has passed I see what happened as rather inevitable. The WMF could scarcely be expected to evaluate 900 small scale actions and has, of necessity, taken a broader view.


 * I hope that people who submitted feature requests or had ideas for small projects carry on pushing their ideas whether that be submitting a feature request through Bugzilla or talking to their local chapter.


 * I had a feature request I wanted to see and the thought is still with me. I intend to put it to the community in the next week or so. If it had not been for the strategy process I may not have thought about it for so long. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Although I think the article does quite a good job in informing the reader about the strategy project, the question on what did/will happen to the proposals was one that I would have liked to answer in more detail if there had been more time. Your comment is illuminating in that respect. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was also involved in the early stages, but didn't sign up for any of the 2010 task groups as I had some real life commitments in the first half of this year. I've got a concern that the hosting of this on a separate wiki rather than as a project on meta has reduced community involvement, and left it more vulnerable to trolls. Some proposals were simply trying to reverse decisions on individual projects rather than strategic thinking for the whole foundation. That said there is some great work there and a lot of things I agree with, though I'm concerned that the strategy might fossilise and needs to be kept under review. The problems with liquid threads also limits involvement - I've only got a domestic broadband connection so have pretty much given up on the strategy wiki.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"The finalized strategy plan will be presented to the Board for approval in late August." - What was the source for that? I was under the impression that the board would vote to approve the plan in the fall (October or so), and this month only the "priorities" part would be presented for approval. Sue Gardner said on August 16 that "What remains to be done is the finalization of the measures of success, which will happen over the next six or so weeks. At that point, there will be some final wordsmithing, and the result will be brought to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees for approval." Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)