Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/15/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I dislike the new vision statement. The older one had the exact same meaning, and was much "catchier"; the current proposal sounds too corporate.
There were two primary reasons for the changes:
- We're not only about access, but also about participation. A
read-only wiki is not very interesting. We saw "share in" as a phrase that could transport many meanings.
A read-only wiki is not a wiki. :-)
- Florence and I saw "That's what we're doing" as potentially
misleading for such an ambitious claim. Given how fucked up the situation still is in much of the developing world, we need to be careful not to come across as pretentious.
I agree. When you begin by asking people to "imagine" precisely telling them what to imagine seems to undermine the whole idea of imagination. You really want people to sit back, close their eyes, and imagine.
Ec