On 5/2/05, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:
Currently, the exchange among the wikis and between
wikis and the
foundation happens in an informal way. When there's need, announcements
are sent to the mailing list and one hopes that someone feels
responsible to take care of forwarding it to his
wikipedia/wikibooks/wikiquote.... Sometimes it happens, sometimes not.
Things like the privacy policy may be translated, may be transfered to a
wiki, but there's no guarantee at all.
Agreed: Would you let me introduce current translation status, which I
find importance ...
*Privacy policy
Translations: العربية | česky | cymri | Deutsch | English | Español |
italiano| netherlands | português | 中文
*WMF Home (Latest news)
Currently updated or preparing to update: De, En, Es, Fr, It, Zh
*WQ3
On-going: En, Es, Fr, It, Pt, Sr, Zh
We can easily find only a few languages appear in every line: En, Es,
It, Zh. Except En, they seem not to be very involved on meta things
currently, but I think the current situation will change thanks to
such a high interest. On the other hand, it is a hard thing to know
why, biggest wikis seem not to have a full interest in those matters,
specailly an issue directly related to users, Privacy policy issue.
I'd like to suggest a concept of wiki
representatives: each community
elects two persons (or maybe one for very small wikis and three for the
really large) who act as the official contact persons and take care of
communication, approach the foundation if there are problems etc pp.
Generally agreed and in the future there would be election
projectwide, but for a soon coming big election, I prefer to start
with self-nominated representatives with a short term - a half year or
less until each wiki will elect their representative(s). Of course, I
have no opposition to local election if they would elect their reps
before the election would have ended (yes, I would like to see the
list of new embassy members who will help the Board election).
As for number of reps, based on my impression on ranslation issues I
suggest as the below:
Wiki with over 250 active editors (like enwp, de, ....es or zhwp) 3 reps
Wiki with over 100 active editors (like svwp, ruwp, hewp ... or nowp) 2 reps
Others: 1reps
It is generally good even for small wikis to have their reps who pay
attention on projectwide issue, but perhaps we haven't to say they
must have a rep; or they could have a rep if want.
Currently Wikimedia Embassy seems not to be vividly work. Some wiks
have no active members, some have no Embassy. It is good to revive it
and keep the group of Wikipedians who willingly coordinate between
projects vivid and active.
Cheers,
--
Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com