Despite repeated assurances at Wikimania, on lists and on strategywiki,
that the strategic plan was going to consider all Wikimedia projects as
important, now at
second target, «Increase the amount of information we offer» considers
only the number of Wikipedia articles.
«We're aware of the challenges around bot-created articles, articles of
low quality, etc., and the limited focus on Wikipedia, so this metric
shouldn't be seen in isolation, but is an important indicator.» Yes, but
a wrong one.
I'm, very, very disappointed: I have to conclude that all the words on
community participation etc. were only empty rhetoric.
Here is a medical use of Wikipedia, from Journal of Pathology Informatics:
The pathology informatics curriculum wiki: Harnessing the power of
This journal article in free online. I really like it. They don't whine
about Wikipedia, they use it, and made their own wiki, using information
And encourage medical professionals to pitch in and improve Wikipedia
"Please get involved
We encourage contributors to (1) use the the wiki format to improve and
extend this curriculum; (2) help edit and maintain the pathology
informatics related pages in Wikipedia that are linked to this
curriculum, and (3) create new pathology informatics pages in Wikipedia
and link them to this website. In each of the lessons of the curriculum,
we highlight areas where we feel that there is need for new or updated
articles in Wikipedia relating to that topic."
In a message dated 10/24/2010 5:15:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you
> tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least
> get some here to think as to how one might produce a body of work that
> can be relied upon. Where the body of work isn't continually under
> attack or being buggered about with. >>
Perhaps it's you were aren't listening. Because we already know how "one
might produce a body of work *upon which* one can rely".
That's not the problem however with your "suggestions".
Rather, you want to *change* Wikipedia into that sort of work. Or rather I
think actually you'd have wished it had been that way from the get-go.
But it wasn't, it's not, and it's not really likely that this sort of
approach is one in which you'll find a result that you would wish.
Doesn't it seem to you like this sort of method, is not likely to work?
I mean, posting your grievances here on Foundation-L ?
Most of you are aware that I'm leading the Foundation's annual
fundraiser this year, in addition to my work as Head of Reader
Relations. It became increasingly obvious to Zack and me that my
attention was being split, which was no good for either tasking.
The result of that is that we're beefing up our capacity in reader
relations, especially with Cary rotating off the job in December.
I'm pleased to announce that Christine Moellenberndt has joined the
Wikimedia Foundation as a Community Associate, reporting to me, on a
temporary appointment through Feb 28. Christine has been a Wikimedia
reader for some time, which positions her nicely as someone who can
speak for the needs of our readers. Her area of expertise is online
communities, which made for a perfect triangulation. She's writing
her masters thesis right now, focusing on LiveJournal.
She's done a tremendous amount of research over the last week or so,
and is hitting the ground running, beginning with internal protocols,
and building out scalable support systems.
You should consider Christine your first point of contact: I've found
that she's one of the few people I've ever met more likely to be
online than I am. With that in mind, please do your best to not abuse
She can be reached on IRC (ChristineM) or by email (cmoellenberndt(a)wikimedia.org
or readers(a)wikimedia.org). Most telephone calls to me will be
redirected to her, as well. If there's something urgent that you need
me to see, feel free to continue to send it directly to me.
Christine will bring questions to me, early on, but I've found her to
be a quick study and think she'll be fully functional almost
Head of Reader Relations
ofc: +1 415 839 6885 (x 6643)
mobile: 918 200 WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
WikiHow is a good place for how-tos, and has an amazing community.
They unfortunately use a license (NC-SA) that isn't compatible with
Wikimedia projects. If you want to do something like WikiHow under a
CC-SA license, you might pursue a new Project for them -- while
incubating the project on Wikibooks. As Robert Horning notes, there
are some examples there already.
There are other models like HowStuffWorks that you could look at for
how to organize this sort of information, if you really want to
organize a new Project.
On 10/21/10, Robert S. Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:
> I've never been a real fan with the "new project" process as it relates
> to Wikimedia, and I find it unfortunate that nothing new has been
> created for quite some time. The last major "community-sponsored" (aka
> the idea originated with ordinary users as opposed to something of a pet
> project by a WMF board member) project to become a major Wikimedia
> project was Wikiversity.
I'm not sure what 'pet projects' you are thinking about. Wikiversity
is the last major Wikimedia project, period. [unless you are counting
the Incubator itself?]
> As I've mentioned on the talk pages at Meta, I wish somebody would
> officially state on Meta and elsewhere that new Wikimedia sister
> projects will never be started,
Whereas I see support of good sister projects -- including avoiding
duplication of effort and directing them to partners when Wikimedia
isn't the right incubator/host -- as essential to realizing our
mission. So I think we should just fix the process.
There are at least two good candidates for new sister projects:
* Wikibibliography / WikiScholar, which has been developed on Meta and
in a couple of threads on this list
* Wikifamily / Rodovid, which has been working well as an independent
project but may be looking for more stable long-term support.
> This mailing list is the correct place to put ideas like this forward,
> I have yet to see any idea get
> proposed here on this list to ever become a sister project unless there
> has been a HUGE effort involving at least hundreds if not many more
Well, launching a new Project is a big deal, so this is not entirely
unexpected. Shouldn't we have as many people weighing in on new
Project launching as weigh in on cross-project policy changes?
> and often an effort to delete a major category of content
> from one of the existing projects as well.
This is more about providing models for the creation and sharing of a
new type of information than about the 'deletion' of something from
one project to move it to another. We don't usually think of
"migrating images to Commons" as "deletion from an existing project"
-- even though moving images to commons means that they disappear from
RC and watchlists -- because we have cross-project transclusion for
General cross-project transclusion is a feature we don't have yet, but
with a more vibrant ecosystem of Projects, this might soon change.
If anyone is "relying" on Wikipedia, then they have a fundamental
disconnect from what we were and still are trying to do.
The entire point of Wikipedia today, is to make people think, not to stop
them from thinking.
That is why we now, for the first time in history, have a method, if it's
not actual practice in every article that's only a time and effort issue...
a Method for citing deep to the actual source from which any particular
piece of wisdom is taken.
No other work, in the history of man, has had this ability. Wikipedia
cannot be compared to any other encyclopedia, because nothing like it, has ever
existed before. All of your arguments about the type of knowledge it does
or does not contain as like so many pieces of tissue paper thrown against
a concrete wall. And yet you cannot see that.
I always tell people that Wikipedia is not the *source* for a piece of
evidence. They should look at the sources cited in the article, and if
anything is questionable, then question it with a fact tag. I regularly remove
fact-tagged phrases and sentences, as should anyone.
Saying it's not an encyclopedia, it's a "project" is mincing words. The
OED was a project, the ODBN was/is a project. That doesn't mean they have
no product. What it means is the project produces a body of work, that body
of work is the encyclopedia called Wikipedia. The project is also called
Wikipedia, because it's a unique, never-ending project to produce an
encyclopedia. A situation that has also never exited before in history.
I'm certainly, for one, quite happy, that those people who refuse to
understand what we're trying to do, have been expelled from the work. Note
carefully, I did not say they don't understand it, I said they refuse to
understand it. There are plenty of (failed) projects that mimic more closely the
mind-set of a person who believes that an approved final-version should be
produced. Perhaps those people would be happier at a project like that.
The majority of the world, has voted with their clicks. We can see the
results for ourselves.
In a message dated 10/24/2010 1:18:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
someone's going to have to engage in the campaign of educating people
on why not to rely on sources like Wikipedia.
Anybody else here find it ironic that we're trying to have a discussion
relative merits and impacts of paid editing, and whether it is detectable or
stoppable, but the list moderators have banned from participation the
of the world's first wiki-focused paid editing service?
So, we lose that point of view in developing our neutral point of view.
As some of you may know, there exists a small bunch of Wikipedians in Kenya. In the last couple of months, we have been discussing ways in which we might increase Wikip\media awareness within Kenya. We then decided to experiment by starting by using offline Wikipedia in primary & secondary schools.
We still are at a very early stage: the framework/proposal is still sketchy. Please check it out at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/Project_for_Kenyan_Schools and give us your feedback. Feel free to edit, redaft or whatever you may call it so that we can come up with a more concrete proposal.
Looking forward to getting your collaboration.
>From my experience the key of success is giving good courses for teachers.
Apart of that by only reading Wikipedia you loss a lot of pedagogical
advantages you get in editing. I think providing an offline wiki sandbox and
later uploading the best contributions to Wikipedia could be a goog idea.
You also could promote English - Swahili translations. These activities are
always a plus by learning simultaneously languages and other topics.
I look forward to meet you soon in Drumbeat Festival in Barcelona and talk
more in detail.
> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:00:29 +0000
> From: Abbas Mahmoud <abbasjnr(a)hotmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Proposed Wikimedia Project in Kenya
> To: Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BLU116-W263245CE61FF1CDCB0DA9CA5F0(a)phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Hi folks,
> As some of you may know, there exists a small bunch of Wikipedians in
> Kenya. In the last couple of months, we have been discussing ways in which
> we might increase Wikip\media awareness within Kenya. We then decided to
> experiment by starting by using offline Wikipedia in primary & secondary
> We still are at a very early stage: the framework/proposal is still
> sketchy. Please check it out at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/Project_for_Kenyan_Schoolsand give us your feedback. Feel free to edit, redaft or whatever you may
> call it so that we can come up with a more concrete proposal.
> Looking forward to getting your collaboration.
Austin Hair, you have very recently publicly stated: "Greg Kohs went beyond
being merely critical (which is welcome, and even encouraged) to the point
of being antisocial and counterproductive."
This is in follow-up to calling him "completely unable" to keep
In the past, David Gerard has insinuated that he is a "dick" on the list you
moderate. Phoebe Ayers has hinted that "harassment" may be a problem of
his. Neither member of the list has been publicly rebuked by any on your
moderating team, though their insinuations are offensive to us.
However, you were asked privately, and Samuel Klein as well, to please point
out what has been uncivil (and now "antisocial") about any of the last five
of Kohs' posts to the Foundation-l mailing list. You have failed to respond
to that question. Samuel has failed to respond to that question.
So, I ask here, what has been uncivil or antisocial about any of the most
recent five of Kohs' posts to Foundation-l?
This should take no more than 3 or 4 minutes of your time. You refuse to
take that time, yet you find the time to label Kohs "antisocial" (which is
really quite comical, considering his expansive list of friends on
How many hours have already been wasted on Foundation-l, thanks to your
recent judgment? How many more hours will be wasted as we move forward with
the next steps? (You don't really think this is "over", do you? Kohs will
likely return with sockpuppets on the mailing list. He is relentless when
prodded.) Or, you could just admit that you've made a mistake, apologize,
and then we all move on. He's already gotten bored with Wikisource,
Wikibooks, and Wikiversity, where he's been unblocked -- and yet given
excellent free content before he faded off.