On 10 May 2017 at 19:33, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Good.. I actually created this:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Strategia_Wikimedia_2017
adding some tango icons to the page and you can copy paste the structure
without meta related templates - if you want to your own wikis.
I am just thinking if to split discussion pages into each theme - or
rather keep all thematic discussion in one place? This is the issue how we
are about to report cycle 2 discussions? How the local discussions are
about to be included in overal process?
Re: How we are to report the discussions, good question!
There is a new table format for the Sources pages, which should make it
easier for us to summarize and analyze the responses, no matter what
discussion format/location is used. The page uses a single table that has 2
new columns for the Themes and the Questions. (instead of multiple tables)
Please:
* *Translate the new string* at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources
* *Create new Sources pages for your community's Cycle 2 discussions*, by
using the box there. It will contain the new table structure.
* *Update those Sources pages at least once a week during Cycle 2*, or more
often if needed, so that it isn't a rush for you at the end, and so that
mid-cycle analysis can occur.
* Ask us if you have any questions, but hopefully the new default page and
table design is self-explanatory.
** I am due to receive "example statements" soon, and I will update any
created pages with those examples, as soon as possible.
Here are some additional ideas, regarding how to structure the discussion
pages on your local wikis, or for offwiki discussions:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jan Eissfeldt <jeissfeldt(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:18 AM
Moin,
I did toy with the question over the weekend as well and while I didn't
build a template, four ways with potentially useful points have emerged
that could be informative if one thinks about the local wikis discussion
approaches individually:
1) Big wikis with a lot of feedback: If one expects a lot of local
traffic, it is probably wise to clone the six-page-structure Nick and Karen
have established on Meta. Be mindful that Tracks C and D are scheduled
(sort of) to provide further insights during the cycle, as noted on the
actual theme pages, so there might be more content coming your community
might be interested in later on (which could be a good tool to use to
re-start debates that have slowed down, depending on what that C/D stuff
looks like). Feedback-heavy communities like the German Wikipedia might be
served well by this approach.
2) Wikis with one strategy page: If one has a local page called
"/Wikimedia 2030", "/Strategy", or something else not tied to
specific
cycles but worked well for you during cycle 1, it could make a lot of sense
to re-use that page by simply
- moving the cycle 1 content into an expandable box on the bottom,
- putting the cycle 2 themes and questions onto the page and
- link the research (or link to Meta where the research can be found)
Like the C/D insights, the research can also be brought up as useful in
dialogues, of course, but that seems me to depend quite a bit on local
discussion culture. Re-using the page also preserves links, watchlist
placements volunteers might have set previously, etc. It is also the reason
why Nick did not remove the generic landing pages listed on Participate
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participate>
while updating the page for cycle 2.
3) General discussion page-section approach: If one has used a section on
the local village pump during cycle 1 and that worked well, there probably
is no reason not to do so again during cycle 2 - although I would recommend
to put the translated themes at least onto a local landing page (and
potentially transclude that page onto the village pump section) while
posting the questions directly into the village pump.
4) Offwiki communities: If the local community mainly or entirely
discusses its stuff off-wiki and has done so with strategy during cycle 1
fairly well, there seems to be a sound case to respect those habits and
surface the cycle 2 content online. Based on cycle 1 experiences, language
communities like Chinese, Hindi, and Japanese certainly fall into that
category. There is value in updating those Wikipedia language versions
brief local landing pages for cycle 2 but for the off-wiki main discussions
can probably be informed in most cases by links to the respective
translated versions on Meta too (which saves some updating time on Track
C/D content).
Best,
Jan
Thanks. :-)
Nick / Quiddity