Hoi,
At the same time, Wikipedia was offered to the world in English and only
now we put more effort into bringing Wikipedia to the rest of our world, in
other languages. When you consider the huge bias we offer in our
information about ourselves. Your arguments centre around a past that was
glorious as a start. It is hightime we ensure that we grow Wikipedia for
the rest of the world,. Yes, we are not only Wikipedia and underinvestment
and lack of interest in other projects is obvious.
Thanks,
Gerard
On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 08:03, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Nate,
You say, "By contrast, the bulk of mission-related services from the
Wikimedia movement are offered to the world at large centrally by the
international office (i.e. the Wikimedia projects)."
Just think about this statement for a moment. It is not true. The bulk of
mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the
world at large by volunteers distributed all over the world, some of whom
organise themselves into local affiliates.
How do we know this? We know this because Wikipedia became a top-10
website serving the world in 2007, at a time when the WMF had less than a
dozen staff and annual expenses of $2 million.
I'm not advocating a return to those times, but I think it makes clear
where the value came from.
Best,
Andreas
On Wednesday, September 7, 2022, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nicole,
Thanks for sharing this - very interesting reading so far. I'm hoping
you can
elaborate on WMDE's thinking around selecting INGOs for evaluation.
Your criteria is very straightforward - INGOs with a confederation of
independent organizations, connected by a global mission.
But each of your selected INGOs is composed of
individual organizations
that deliver the products and services that advance the
global mission
within their geographic area, with an "international office" that fulfills
a coordination and governance role. By contrast, the bulk of
mission-related services from the Wikimedia movement are offered to the
world at large centrally by the international office (i.e. the Wikimedia
projects). Did WMDE consider how comparable these INGOs are to the
Wikimedia movement in this sense? I don't see a section of your paper that
compares the service/product delivery structure of these INGOs, so perhaps
this distinction did not come up during your review? Or is the thinking
that decentralization of project hosting and support is on the table, and
the report can inform that consideration?
Thanks for any insight you can share,
Nate _______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org