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.
The "mojo" talk there reminds us, if necessary that WP is still a grassroots organisation. Expansion in the San Francisco office of the WMF is quite distinct from expansion at the Wikipedia grassroots, and it is the latter that makes the difference. If that ever is forgotten (and I really thought it had got mislaid in the discussion over Vector) then some of the Cassandra-like punditry will turn out to have more justification than is now visible.
Charles