On 8/11/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
If you were going to ask those questions on a wiki, it would be meta.wikimedia.org, so perhaps the right mailing list for that is also the meta mailing list rather than community-l? There's a not-yet-official list for Meta at http://mail.lists.wikipedia.be/mailman/listinfo/meta-l_lists.wikipedia.be. It hasn't been widely promoted and only has 29 subscribers so far.
There's a request for Wikimedia to host that list at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10098.
Well that's fine. The name is not of great importance to me. I just want some infrastructure to exist.
Hi. I've been mulling over your suggestion, and not only do I find it a capital idea, but actually I would humbly suggest that the name *does* matter.
If the name was community-l, it might attract the kind of "silent knowledge", tradition not policy, discussion.
That is to say not "thou shalt not" type Mosaic law type process/policy wonking discussion, but (and I know people do feel "clue" can not be legislated) the kind of discussion that might impart through gentle instruction the best practises of the community as a whole and accross projects.
It could also serve as a timebinding tool, enmeshing the varying generations of wikimedians together more fully in a more perfect union. I have long been thinking it would be a useful thing if the newer wikipedians had at the very least an understanding of the more seasoned veteran wikipedians mindset, and a better historical perspective. More and more clashes onwiki appear to stem from the disparity of culture between those who have been with us for long, and those who are doing the work enthusiastically with the exuberance of just discovering wikimedia.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]