Talk:Strategy/Archive/Strategic goals

G1 Develop Open Content

Focus on digital media acquisition?

G1 as currently phrased seems primarily focused on digital media acquisition – the points that stand out to me are "uploading of new content", "relationships with content-holding organisations that might be persuaded to release educational material", "organisations who need support or advice for the release of Open Content".

But the people and organisations that outreach efforts are aimed at hold human knowledge as well as copiable digital content. Part of what WMUK does is to build relationships with the people who possess that knowledge, so that some of that knowledge can be reflected in Wikimedia projects – witness the points listed here, which speak of outreach to universities and educational institutions, outreach to underrepresented social groups, as well as outreach to scientists, scholars, learned societies and funders to help experts improve targeted content areas of Wikipedia and its sister projects.

I would like to see these latter points fleshed out and emphasised a little more: it's not just about getting data from outreach partners, it's about actively involving them. Andreas JN 20:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andreas this is a good point. Perhaps if G1.3 "G1.3 We are perceived as the go-to organisation by UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations who need support or advice for the release of Open Content." was changed to read development rather than release that would indicate more of an active process and engagement? I think the combination of G1 & G5 is also important here, although again perhaps some clarification re: Wikimedia communities and not just looking to work with existing communities, but to actually develop communities too. To some extent the Measures and targets and Activity Plan probably operationalise this to clarify, but of course we want our goals to properly reflect the true range of activities we do (and should) engage in so that may not be enough. Something to think about in any case and if you have any further thoughts on it they'd be much appreciated. Cheers Sjgknight (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Perception by GLAM, educational and other orgs?

"We are perceived as the go-to organisation" - I don't think it should be a goal that WMUK should be perceived as being anything (particularly since perception isn't necessarily the same as reality). Shouldn't this goal be something more along the lines of 'UK GLAM, educational, and other organisations have an increasing knowledge of what open content means, and are increasing the amount of material that they make available under free content licenses'? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Knowledge of open content and increasing release of open content are (separately) both dealt with elsewhere. The perception issue is something that we can have some direct measurable impact on, and relates to organisations we actually work with (rather than trying to track our impact in organisations we may have no direct relationship with). I think we are rather keen that we are seen as a 'go to' organisation, i.e. that institutions turn to us for advice and support around the release of open content. Sjgknight (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

G2.1 Develop, involve and engage WMUK volunteers

WMUK or Wikimedia?

It's interesting that this is the only section that talks exclusively about 'WMUK' rather than 'Wikimedia' as a whole. Shouldn't this section be merged with G5 (which basically repeats the same points anyway)? Irrespective of the definition at WMUK activities and volunteers, does it actually matter whether people are volunteers for WMUK as opposed to the overall Wikimedia movement, and shouldn't WMUK be fostering volunteers for the global movement rather than just for WMUK? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We take it that we have a particular relationship with (and responsibility to) volunteers we work directly with (including our members). This also relates to our ability to engage with those volunteers and ensure impact in programme delivery (measurement of programmes we're involved in makes sense, we cannot reasonably expect to a) claim or b) measure impact in our wider movement activities). G5 recognises our role in the wider community though, and as you note this is certainly important to us. Sjgknight (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

G2.2 Use best practice governance and resource management processes

Best practice

I'm not a fan of the 'best practice' phrase nowadays, as it tends to imply blind adoption of what has been deemed as being 'best practice' in other organisations without regard for local circumstances or new zeitgeists. It might be worth adding 'established' before 'best practice' here (meaning that WMUK has established it rather than blind adoption from elsewhere), or otherwise avoiding this phrase. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I know some education colleagues feel the same way, and opt for simply "good practice" which I'd be fine with. I think "established best practice" reads the same as "best practice" (although I understand you mean WMUK has established it for itself). Sjgknight (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, changing the phrasing to 'good practice' doesn't really help with the fundamental issue here - and thinking about it, I agree with you that the phrase 'established best practice' also doesn't help. Perhaps something along the lines of 'We have developed and implemented leading governance...' could work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Openness and transparency

Perhaps this could also be followed with "and are recognised for such within the Wikimedia movement and the UK charity sector."? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

G3 Reduce barriers to accessing Open Content

Access

"Access to Wikimedia projects is increasingly available to all" - I'd read this as referring solely to access to the websites operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, although I'm not entirely sure that's what meant. How about "access to the content produced through the Wikimedia projects", i.e. including third party dissemination of the content that is produced by the Wikimedia community? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

G4 Encourage and support technological innovation

'supporting Technical Communities' and 'increased awareness of the benefits of Open Content'

Some of the external communities we work with aren't strictly technical (e.g. Open Rights Group) and it's still an important area of our open knowledge work. I suppose a clarification is needed where in G4.1 we are focusing on technology development, and there is another area where we link with other groups to further open knowledge aims. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)