On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/30 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
I'd like to see Wikimedia as a community take some 300-year stances on knowledge dissemination,
Did you mean 300 years?
Yes. Considering the stakes and our capacity for history, this seems to me appropriate and possible.
- There is also a big question about languages. The work will need to
be done in English,
Can you elaborate a bit? Could a group that all speak better French than English not do their work in French and have it translated for others? I would hope the language issue could be phrased as "All work will need to be translated into English as a shared working language"...
If, by coincidence, there happens to be a group better able to communicate in French than English, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to, but it is pretty unlikely.
<
I would advise against choosing committees along language lines,
If the goal is creative communication, groups must be able to communicate effectively with one another. If we want to benefit from the excellent ideas everywhere in the community, an active translation nexus to ensure refined ideas are shared widely, and groups of great contributors brainstorming however is most effective for them (including, often, using their native language) is not unreasonable.
Live meetings require single languages or simultaneous interpretation; extended deliberation can be more flexible.
a diverse membership of each committee would be far better.
Sue's post covered committees and layered subgroups, some of no more than a few people. Certainly the right sort of diversity of participants in each major area of discussion and at each level of abstraction or scope is valuable, all else being equal -- say, diversity of language, interests and background, and type of contribution. And yet small groups will always cluster some qualities.
SJ