The Wikimedia Foundation's vision is of "a world in which every single
human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Knowledge, not
unreliable assertions. Presently we offer unreliable assertions.
I would be grateful for any support you can offer us in fostering
partnerships that improve the reliability of Wikipedia's articles.
Welcome aboard. It's great to have you here.
Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Anders Wennersten
I can agree on the dilemma you present.
But would not a better solution then the close down on Wikipedia Zero, be
to close down the projects that is not run "compatible with the values
underlying the idea of a free and open web"?.
I am (still) of the opinion that is is of utmost importance for the
movement and our brand that we start closing down projects. And not only
the 20-30 which are hijacked by unserious people but also the 50-100
are not properly managed and infested with
vandalism and unserious
This reminds me of a slide shown at Wikimania. It read as follows:
Reality check 3: 284 Wikipedias
12 dead (locked)
53 zombies (open, no editors)
94 struggling (open, < 5 editors)
125 in good or excellent health
And I would disagree with the judgement implied in these figures that a
Wikipedia with 5 or 6 editors is "in good or excellent health". The
Croatian Wikipedia had considerable more contributors than that, and still
turned into a disaster.
I suspect the Foundation will be reluctant to close down projects for which
there is any hope. However, I would very much like to see the Foundation
provide the public with honest, realistic and transparent information and
consumer advice on the quality of these various Wikipedias, both in terms
of political freedom, as mentioned earlier, and in more general terms terms
of content reliability.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: