On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:19 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
This isn't to say that this new endeavor is focusing on an easy problem or
a problem that doesn't need additional attention. Global communication is
a very tough nut to crack, without a doubt. But it feels like some of
these efforts aren't working with each other to achieve the same goals,
and that's a bit frustrating and annoying. Putting $3.89 million into
improving an existing tool (or tools) seems like a better use of money
than creating yet another tool, in my opinion.
I agree with you, there are too many projects, considering that there is
also Hypothes.is, which has been in development for 3 years now and which
recently received a $750k grant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothes.is
Hopefully all of them will use the Open Annotation standard, which at least
should make comments and annotations more compatible between platforms.
Ideally there should be some initiative from the Wikimedia world to figure
out how our comment system would integrate into this ecosystem. It would be
a good issue to put in the strategic plan (given that the unmoderated
ArticleFeedbackTool failed so miserably), next to what actions to take to
deal with open data.
Cheers,
Micru