On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:19 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This isn't to say that this new endeavor is focusing on an easy problem or a problem that doesn't need additional attention. Global communication is a very tough nut to crack, without a doubt. But it feels like some of these efforts aren't working with each other to achieve the same goals, and that's a bit frustrating and annoying. Putting $3.89 million into improving an existing tool (or tools) seems like a better use of money than creating yet another tool, in my opinion.
I agree with you, there are too many projects, considering that there is also Hypothes.is, which has been in development for 3 years now and which recently received a $750k grant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothes.is
Hopefully all of them will use the Open Annotation standard, which at least should make comments and annotations more compatible between platforms.
Ideally there should be some initiative from the Wikimedia world to figure out how our comment system would integrate into this ecosystem. It would be a good issue to put in the strategic plan (given that the unmoderated ArticleFeedbackTool failed so miserably), next to what actions to take to deal with open data.
Cheers, Micru