Community Capacity Development/Community Research: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:35, 17 August 2015

Latest revision as of 20:19, 7 September 2016

(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{CCD header3}}

<onlyinclude>

Interviews with sixteen communities or countries<ref name="Interview list" /> (predominantly in the Global South) surfaced seven community capacities for development, based on the strengths, challenges or needs reported by those communities. This report aims to define these seven capacities - to create a common vocabulary for future discussions - as well as to provide a non-exhaustive list of example actions for building these capacities:

# [[#New contributor engagement and growth|New contributor engagement and growth]]

Line 26 ⟶ 28:

# After understanding key areas across and within communities:

## Aggregate common themes across communities, and specific needs within communities

## Identify common/scalable resources and solutions, and then collaborate with specific and interested communities to discuss possible community capacity building through WMF support (incl. funding capacity-building activities or services), mentorship or partnership.

<!--WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE -->{{Back to contents}}

== Structure of the report ==

From community interviews, eleven capacities surfaced as key areas for capacity development, but only seven are included in this phase of the report. The four capacities that were not included were: Planned activities, Volunteer engagement for planned activities, Learning & Sharing (including Evaluation), and Organizational Effectiveness.

Line 53 ⟶ 56:

#* Notions of knowledge and authority vary, affecting whether an individual feels empowered to contribute.

# '''Governmental / political climate''': Governmental points-of-view span a wide range, creating both obstacles and opportunities. Some obstacles identified were outright suspicion (e.g. suspicion of civil society or self-organization outside state or religious groups), inhibiting governmental policy (e.g. on neutral point of view or freedom of expression on the wiki), and active intervention (e.g. promotion of particular points of view on local-language Wikipedias). Conversely, some governments have perceived Wikimedia projects as vehicles for education and language preservation, and have extended support to local volunteers (e.g. by providing language dictionaries or encyclopedias).

</onlyinclude>

<!--WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE -->{{Back to contents}}

== New contributor engagement and growth ==

''New contributor engagement and growth'' encompasses all activities that encourage new contributors to integrate with wiki-culture, persist and grow. However, it does not include outreach activities that encourage potential new contributors to contribute.

Line 69 ⟶ 73:

* Discuss and possibly introduce new practices to interested communities

* Support regular off-wiki low-barrier events, including funding (via WMF grants)

<!--WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE -->{{Back to contents}}

== Community governance ==

''Community governance'' can include:

Line 92 ⟶ 96:

=== Policy creation and revision ===

''Policy creation and revision'' includes all activities involving the definition and revision of new or existing policies.<br/>
* {{tick}} This includes the on-wiki spaces for policy discussion, and rules / norms for discussion and decision-making;
* {{Cross}} it does not include [[#Conflict management|conflict management]], which is a separate capacity.

==== Summary of Research ====

Line 98 ⟶ 104:

The policy-related issues reported include:

*'''“Dead"Dead letter”letter" policies''', which are polices that exist on wiki but are not followed in day-to-day activities.

*'''“Unsuitable”"Unsuitable" policies''', which create continuous problems because they are not appropriate (or ''no longer'' appropriate) for the community’s context or needs, or the interpretation of the policy varies too much.

* Policies that '''exist without clear implementation guidelines''' (e.g. policies with no clear way to request discussion or resolve disputes).

While the causes for these issues were largely community specific, one consistent theme that emerged was the practice of looking to other language Wikipedias (quite often English Wikipedia) for guidance on the definition or implementation of core policies (e.g. Five Pillars, Notability, Quality). While community members reported that this practice came with clear advantages, some communities also reported the downstream difficulties or dysfunction listed above.

The policies most frequently mentioned as being the hardest to implement or sustain were:

* '''Notability''', which was mentioned by almost every community with a number of associated issues, e.g.

** '''Systemic bias''', e.g. in discussing and determining “what"what is notable”notable" based on local contexts

** '''Verifiability of print sources''' that are not available to other community members

* '''Quality''', particularly the question of Featured Articles and whether that practice was suitable for their community. While most communities reported a current Featured Article process, a few adopted processes that were similar but with less stringent guidelines

Policies on deletion, language and neutrality / NPOV were also mentioned as critical policies, though core issues mentioned were largely community specific.

==== Example actions ====

* In-depth conversations with a wider set of interested communities about their current policies, to identify pain points and interest in change.

* Given community interest in changing/improving/covering an identified policy area, do any of the following:

Line 133 ⟶ 139:

* Compile wiki-specific resources on conflict management practices from other communities, and make them available in multiple languages.

* Plan and fund local-language workshops for interested community members on conflict management by local professionals.

<!--WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE -->{{Back to contents}}

== On-wiki technical skills ==

''On-wiki technical skills'' focuses on the resources, on-wiki spaces, and peer-to-peer mentorship/help available on wiki-related technical issues, e.g. creating/updating bots, graphics, templates, Lua programming, wiki markup.

Line 157 ⟶ 163:

* Previous bad press or the need for anonymity motivating community members to actively avoid media relations

* Limited presence of the local language in media overall

* lackLack of know-how

While many communities reported the use of social media (primarily Facebook, Twitter, and chat applications), with most communities these platforms were used more for community interaction, than for communications to the general public.

Line 170 ⟶ 176:

* Messaging resources, e.g. some frequently asked questions and answers for press & outreach

* Plan and fund local-language workshops for interested community members on media relations by local professionals

<!--WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE -->{{Back to contents}}

== Partnerships ==

''Partnerships'' include any relationship with non-Wikimedia organizations and individuals that are used to further the Wikimedia mission. This can include partnerships with:

* Government

* Cultural or academic institutions, e.g. [[GLAM]], [[:outreach:Education|Education programs]], or in conjunction with [[CIS-A2K]] in India

* Individuals who donate their copyrighted content (e.g. authors, photographers), or otherwise contribute to the mission (e.g. providing space for Wikimedian activities; offering professional training to Wikimedia volunteers).

=== Summary of Research ===

For communities that pursued external partnerships, there were four key points reported:

*# Overcoming the general lack of awareness or negative perception of the Wikimedia projects was key in successfully establishing initial contact. As this initial contact could be made either through “warm introduction” (i.e. being introduced by a mutual contact) or through “cold contact” (i.e. reaching out to the partner formally, usually via their Outreach or Public Relations departments), assessing and addressing the existing level of awareness was a key first step.

*# Understanding the priorities and focus areas ''of the potential partner'' was critical in creating specific projects that would become the basis for partnership.

*# Setting expectations appropriately can be difficult, both from a cultural perspective and from a logistical perspective. Partners need to ultimately be comfortable with the way Wikimedia projects work and are governed (e.g. someone from another country could delete the photo you donated due to insufficient copyright information). Moreover, partners might expect more conventional project management terminology (e.g. budgets, “Memoranda of Understanding”) and disciplines (e.g. set timelines, deadlines, and “deliverables”), as distinct from the more natural “eventualism” of the work on the wiki.

*# Overall, these partnerships are a long-term investment on the part of the community. Building the relationship to a point that is mutually beneficial to both parties can take months, if not years.

For communities that have worked with government agencies (at either the local, regional, or national levels), there were a range of different engagements and benefits reported:

Line 191 ⟶ 197:

===Example actions===

*[[outreach:|Outreach Wiki]]'s typical scope.

** Curate resources on good practices in partnership-building, by partner type and region.

** Provide mentorship by experienced Wikimedians on how to pitch projects to partners, "how to get past 'no'", etc.

* Plan and fund local project management training for interested communities by local professionals.

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Community capacity development]]