Project:Wikimedia Strategy 2017/Cycle 2/The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
This page is obsolete. It is being retained for archival purposes. It may document extensions or features that are obsolete and/or no longer supported. Do not rely on the information here being up-to-date. See meta:Movement Strategy instead for recent information. See meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017 for final information about this 2017 initiative. |
Theme: The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
By 2030, Wikimedia projects will be regarded as the most trusted, high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of free knowledge in the world. We will uphold the accuracy and verifiability of our content by integrating high-quality secondary sources and supporting the existence of reliable sources in society. We will improve public understanding of the processes that make Wikimedia reliable, and we will invite experts to join us and share their knowledge. We will surface the most relevant information to people when and where they need it. We will expand the depth of knowledge available, while upholding our standards for verifiable, neutral and comprehensive knowledge.
Sub-themes
[edit]
This theme was formed from the content generated by individual contributors and organized groups during cycle 1 discussions. Here are the sub-themes that support this theme. See the Cycle 1 Report. The source document of the 1800+ thematic statements will be released soon.
|
Insights from movement strategy conversations and research
[edit]Insights from the Wikimedia community (from first discussion)
[edit]- Coming soon
Insights from partners and experts
[edit]- Coming soon
Other Research
[edit]Open citations
[edit]- I4OC, Initiative for Open Citations: https://i4oc.org/
- Mozilla Internet Health Report, see section on open innovation and access to cited work: https://d20x8vt12bnfa2.cloudfront.net/InternetHealthReport_v01.pdf
- "The Enclosure of Scholarly Infrastructure," Geoffrey Bilder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWPZkZ180Ho&feature=youtu.be
Scholarly articles
[edit]- "Distinguishing Scholarly from Non-Scholarly Periodicals: A checklist of criteria, introductions and definitions," Cornell University Library: http://guides.library.cornell.edu/scholarlyjournals
Questions
[edit]
These are the main questions we want you to consider and debate during this discussion. Please support your arguments with research when possible.
|
If you have specific ideas for improving the software, please consider submitting them in Phabricator or the product's specific talkpage.