On 13 July 2010 09:05, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:
James Alexander wrote:
On a related note: someone brought this Times article to the meetup in Boston Monday
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/business/media/12link.html.
There is some truth to it I think and the staffing changes reflect that
some
with a larger focus on development outside en.
Having discussed certain things with Liam Wyatt face-to-face after the British Museum workshop, I'm prepared to say that I disagree somewhat with him as a pundit (as distinct from an activist). It is so not true that enWP is "full" in any sense. We still don't get careful analysis of our "brand" in the media, though they make fewer complete blunders about WP in the past.
<snip> Charles
Just a quick reply - I also do not think WP (and especially en-wp) is
"full" in any sense. The quote from the article is: “By definition, as it gets bigger, people don’t have as many places to start. It is a good problem to have, but it is a problem.” And that's just one quote pulled from a much wider conversation and therefore has a necessary lack of contextualisation. As Noam's article put it, the community in general and the WMF are starting to push (in a variety of ways) into engaging different kinds of people - people in developing countries and also subject-area experts especially. I think everyone agrees that it's no longer as easy to "just jump right in" to en-wp as it used to be which is because we have much better content than we used to - this is the "good problem". But I also think that we all agree that there's definitely a long way to go before en-wp could be considered "full". IMO we're only just scratching the surface of what we can eventually achieve :-)
-Liam