Angela wrote:
How is it beneficial to have personal essays that do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation on the official Foundation website rather than on Meta?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/It_is_forbidden_to_take_pictures%21
Hmmmm, a tendency I observe in most global issues is that * a person indicates her desire to change something (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004418.html) or to create a new policy
And no one comment (or so few ...)
* then, a second step happens when outlines of changes are done, the one promoting the changes invite other editors to comment on the proposal http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004456.html or announce a last week comment on a new policy (do I really need to say which policy I am talking about ?)
And no one comment (or so few ...)
* then, the last step is to proudly announce the stuff going live, a new site, or a new policy, whatever.
And suddenly, the comments (understand the criticisms) are pouring like rain in France in november.
If I were inspired by certain psychologists, I'd say that overall, all wikipedia projects are castrating.
I feel castrated.
This is not only for this issue, it is a more general feeling.
If this is what the site is turning into, I'd rather go with earlier suggestion (I think by Elian) of merging the foundation wiki with Meta. Since the Quarto experiment has, as far as I can tell, been abandoned, and press releases are scattered over the projects and meta rather than being in any one "official" place, I'm less and less seeing any point to this site. It doesn't reflect anything official, and locks down editing for no benefit.
I no longer think an uneditable wiki is the best way to present the Foundation to the world.
Angela.
I'll let other people make that decision.