What you prove is that we maintain a static artifact that does improve with
time. What you prove with your reply is that you do not care for the
mission, for the quality of Wikipedia but only care to maintain a status
quo that is no longer good enough.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 23:16, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There certainly is a lot to reflect on, isn't
Maybe you can do some reflecting on the fact that those "long-time
contributors" were, in many cases, working on Wikipedia before most people
had ever even heard of it (when I first started working on it, "What's
Wikipedia?" would be a question I was often asked if I'd mention it;
haven't heard that for a while though), and have been working to build,
maintain, and improve it ever since. So maybe there's a reason we care a
great deal about it.
And maybe there's a good reason to listen to the people who literally built
the thing, made it into what it is, and still day to day keep it going.
Maybe we know what we're doing. I think we rather proved it.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:00 PM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
When I read something like this, it takes me aback. Yes, people may have
opinion, they may even express it and they even
may be wrong. Who cares
really. There is enough to dislike in branding, we are not cattle. From a
marketing perspective there may be a point. The point would be to bring
> that we do together, bring it together so that what it is we are and what
> is we do better understood by an audience, an audience that we want to
> entice to like us enough to become part of our Wikimedia movement.
> The problem is that the "long
time contributors" don't like change. They
> have invested so much in whatever it is they think makes our projects
that they do not see the forest from the trees.
They forget what our
primary aim, is and fail to appreciate that all conventions are there to
support the aim of sharing in the sum of all knowledge. This week
administrators killed off the ListeriaBot because
it defied a
convention that they could not explain to me does
harm to our public. A
convention that exists because it was conceded to English Wikipedia that
they could have non free images exclusive to its project. When challenged
that they do not care about Wikipedia's quality, that manually maintained
lists average out to be not as well maintained as Listeria list there was
silence. They did not care because it did not address their need that
> convention had to prevail.
> "Long time contributors",
administrators are the ones expecting others to
> share their sentiment about everything what is bad. I don't. Katherine
> Maher brought an end to a period of stagnation. My impression is that at
> the Wikimedia Foundation things look up. I love it that the WMF wants to
> expand and I totally agree that English Wikipedia, its best known
> the brand that is known by many is exactly what is not bringing us
> I prefer people like Mackenzie
Lemieux or Jess Wade any time over the
> time contributors".. PS with a blog going back 15 years, with 2,606,298
> edits I qualify as a long time contributor..
> So if your opinions are as good as
the reflections you have on the
> of Wikipedia, I do not care about your opinions. By my calculations there
> is on average error rate of 4% in lists because of false friends. Magnus
> blogged how manually maintained list are anything but well maintained
> lists. The key point of branding in the marketing sense is that it is to
> bring out the best of what is on offer.
> The basis of what we have on offer is
in what we aim to achieve and, for
> our aim is to share in the sum of the knowledge that is available to us.
> Everything that is in its way of achieving this needs reflection and imho
> there is a lot to reflect.
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 18:59,
MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > >So this has been
dictated from above - the "community consultation" is
> > >window dressing for a decision that's long been made.
> > >Hence the
nonsensical claims of massive community support by fiddling
> > >the numbers, employing literal wiki spammers to do the consulting,
> > >etc.
> > Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
is bad. There are dozens of examples
> > illustrating why this is true, but this forcible rebranding is a
> > particularly good demonstration of the rot.
> > The people most directly
responsible here are Katherine Maher and
> Walls. They're both subscribed to this
mailing list, they both
> that this decision would upset long-time
contributors, and they both
> simply decided to ignore any complaints in favor of attempting to
> more money from donors and force their
"vision" on the broader
> You don't see either of them defending
themselves or their actions here
> for a reason. They didn't both forget how e-mail works or how the wikis
> work, they've intentionally chosen to plug their ears and march
> > What's more offensive,
in my opinion, than this forcible rebranding
> > is that they've spent and will continue to spend hundreds of thousands
> > dollars on it. It would be bad enough to make this unilateral decision
> > implement it with the existing bloated staff, but instead they've hired
> > agencies and consultants and wasted additional hundreds of thousands of
> > dollars in donor money on this sham exercise.
> > But don't worry, highly
deceptive advertising is back on the projects,
> > mid-April, to ensure continued funding of this and other charades.
> > MZMcBride
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org