geni wrote:
On 3/31/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>geni wrote:
>
>>If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of
>>shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the
>>interproject comunication takes place anyway.
>>
>>
>>--
>>geni
>
>A lot of the interproject communication is taking place on en wikipedia
>rather than meta ?
>
>Can you show me some examples please ?
>
>Ant
Hello
Errrr, I did not see exactly why these links were here.
The whole moldovan langauge thing spilled over onto
en.wikipedia.
Well, it spilled in many places... Well, in this case, what matters is
that the current mo and ro editors find an agreement all of them will be
happy with. It does not really matter where it took place. Whether on
meta, or on wikipedia-l or on en, what matters is that those concerned
by the situation agree with the final decision. If some editors on en
find a solution, so much the better...
We've traced vandles over multiple languages
(although fortunetly most
of them stay en based).
Well... possibly. But this also happens in the other languages. Again,
it does not matter as long as those concerned by the vandalism are happy
with the outcome. This example is again an example of something
impacting only one language or one project. So, it does not matter where
the discussion takes place as long as anyone knows where it take place.
An example of something it would be only mildly nice to discuss only on
en would be the creation of a new project, such as wikiversity. But even
if discussion occurs on en, what is important is that the decision takes
place on a neutral ground. The decision over a new project should not be
done on en. The decision for a new feature should not be done on en.
Those must take place on meta or on a general list. And unless I am
wrong, this is what is happening.
Things that will effect multiple projects tend to have
discusion based
on en.wikipedia (to be expected since en.wikipedia has the largest
consitancy
The one solid debate on wikimedia funding I've seen was on
en.wikipedia (the fincial models presented were amusing)
And *this* is to be highly regretted.
Who takes care of Wikimedia funding ?
English editors ? No.
Board members ? Much more indeed.
I presume the debate on funding certainly was interesting. But did it
have any outcome ? Was any new type of funding implemented after that
debate ? How much was brought in the purse after that discussion ?
Discussion on the matter certainly can take place on en, but it would be
wise either to point out this debate to those practically involved in
financing the project, OR (even better) to make those a report with the
best ideas. A debate which bring nothing in the end is intellectually
fruitful. But it also should bring an outcome.
For example, en has often talked about a paper version. But those
currently *making* a paper version are the germans.
I do not mean to say there are not good discussions on en on many topics
Geni, but 1) these debates must offer practical outcome and 2) outcome
is more likely if people from several projects and several languages are
working on it together.
Ant