I like clear threads.
On 8/12/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
know about Wikipedia, so they ignore the rest. So then the thing to do is change the journalists. :)
As Florence mentionned, this has been done, especially in countries where 1) there is a chapter 2) there is a strong figure in one of the projects but no chapter 3) there is both
In short, it takes people on the ground to change the journalists, it's not something that happens on a top down basis. Most European press has now learned to address either the chapter/the community members responsible for press or the Foundation depending on the nature of the article they want to write. And if not, it should be a very clear things for the chapters as well as for the Foundation to direct them to the right people, "on the ground".
On 12/08/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
What would be real cool would be to try to keep a written state of each project, what is hot, what is working, what is not working, technical wish list, biggest issues, big figures etc.... so that all participants could "follow" what is going on. I know all this is actually available, but only in a very dispersed manner, so not so easy to find out.
[snip]
On 8/12/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
OK here is an idea for Florence. Write a post to foundation-l addressing all projects (e.g. enwikipedia, frwikisource). Ask them to put together a 'state of the wiki' report, with the things you mentioned:
- progress reports on pages, users, admins, policies
- success of any special projects like printed material, wikiprojects
- any special policy or practice that they have developed, that is not
seen on other projects
- technical wishlist
- "perennial debates" - controversies that often come up in the community
Tell them it's optional to submit a report, and they have a month to write it.
If nothing else it would make for seriously interesting reading. :) And the Board can just, you know, publish it on the foundation wiki. They don't have to do anything else with it. But just having this kind of 'official' request may make people think about these kind of things.
This is, unfortunately, not a new idea. Quarto [1] lived and died a beautiful death and was exactly about that. Making sure that all projects had a place to express themselves, raise their issues, tell about the state of their project.
So let me try a different approach. Rather than waiting for Florence to try again something that she and other people have tried before, or for "the Foundation " to issue a dealdine, why don't you, Brianna, come up with a "state of commons" that you broadcast across lists and projects and ask for the same from other projects, just because you're interested?
I am a fervent believer that top down has its limits, and that a call from a "fellow community member" might be better heard altogether. My take being that an "official" request is not always the answer to everything, on the contrary.
Delphine
[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Quarto