I think we agree on the important points. There's a huge potential in Wikidata, and it looks like it's in good hands. Commons could be so much better than it is.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Nice that you prove my point. My point was that when proper attention would be given to Commons, it would stand proud. Important achievements have been made, because of Commons and its community we have GLAM (just as an example).
When it was possible to find images in Commons, it would no longer be dysfunctional. It is a travesty that while we discuss search in the light of the recent huha, we have important functionality from Wikidata that increases the results substantially for any and all languages and the notion that finding material in Commons (aka search) is so bad that I do not even consider Commons for illustrations for my blog..
Even on this Wikimedia-l demonstrate how limited their understanding is of what it is what we do and where we can easily even cheaply improve,
If you want 100,000 more editors for Wikipedia (any language) there is such a glaring opportunity that people do not even see it before them. It would not cost much and it will improve their well being in a meaningful way. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 February 2016 at 07:37, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I guess Commons is kind of useful - as an adjunct to Wikipedia. Leaving aside its usefulness to Wikipedia, though, would anyone else
notice
if it disappeared tomorrow? If they did, Flickr and Google would fill any gap overnight.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data
on
the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the
books
end up (for want of new books and for the cost of publishing).
Really. If projects like Wikidata and Commons received proper attention
to
give them the credit they are due, they would improve exponentially
while
more attention to Wikipedia only improves things marginally.
People who are one track ponies about Wikipedia are in fact clueless.
They
forget about what we stand for; sharing the sum of all knowledge. That
sum
of all knowledge is better represented in both Commons and Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 February 2016 at 07:17, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only
successful
Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a
success
one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world
loves,
it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia
that
is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the
other
entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.
The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this
host
- chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact
that
all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant
measurable
impact on the distribution of knowledge.
So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is
only
one
way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on
that
part
of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an
educational
institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car
on
the
road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
absurdity.
The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
builders
of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a membership organisation, and then into something that represents
the
aims
of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting
a
membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
- I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we
can
swap
to
new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the
service
being
provided by the WMF.
- Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank
accounts.
Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly
ordinary
tech
contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to
take
most
of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors.
Hopefully
we
could publicly shame them into handing it over.
George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as
best
as
I
can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to
privilege
its
view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect.
Visual
editor.
When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits
the
WMF,
that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has
historically
just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in
the
encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and
silicon
valley
entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really
should
be
the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really
care.
But
this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role completely > separate from the community. As an organised community, if we
become
> dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we
could
just
sack > them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new
infrastructure
> contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the
people
who
> actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could
set
the
course > for its development. > > Anthony Cole > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its
own,
>> functional representative body that had the community's trust
and
respect, >> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry
between
us
and
>> the WMF. >> >> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave.
While
we
are
>> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking
becomes
a
>> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that.
But
without >> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to
take
whatever
>> from the WMF - good and bad. >> >> Anthony Cole >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV <
sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com>
wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic < >>> dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear -
things
that
>>> will >>> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it: >>> > >>> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the
Foundation
>>> - not >>> > to the movement. >>> > >>> > Hi Denny, >>> >>> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat
different
view. >>> They have published a board-member "contract" to give
non-profit
>>> directors >>> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes: >>> >>> >>> >>> "... >>> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the >>> organization, >>> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization >>> accountable. >>> " [1] >>> >>> Sarah >>> >>> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe