Yes, I guess Commons is kind of useful - as an adjunct to Wikipedia. Leaving aside its usefulness to Wikipedia, though, would anyone else notice if it disappeared tomorrow? If they did, Flickr and Google would fill any gap overnight.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data on the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the books end up (for want of new books and for the cost of publishing).
Really. If projects like Wikidata and Commons received proper attention to give them the credit they are due, they would improve exponentially while more attention to Wikipedia only improves things marginally.
People who are one track ponies about Wikipedia are in fact clueless. They forget about what we stand for; sharing the sum of all knowledge. That sum of all knowledge is better represented in both Commons and Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 February 2016 at 07:17, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only successful Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a success one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world loves, it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia
that
is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the other entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.
The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this
host
- chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact that
all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant measurable impact on the distribution of knowledge.
So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only
one
way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that
part
of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com
wrote:
WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on
the
road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
absurdity.
The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
builders
of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a membership organisation, and then into something that represents the
aims
of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
- I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can
swap
to
new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service
being
provided by the WMF.
- Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary
tech
contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take
most
of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors.
Hopefully
we
could publicly shame them into handing it over.
George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best
as
I
can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege
its
view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
editor.
When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the
WMF,
that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has
historically
just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
valley
entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really
should
be
the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really
care.
But
this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
completely
separate from the community. As an organised community, if we
become
dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could
just
sack
them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the
people
who
actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set
the
course
for its development.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole <
ahcoleecu@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional representative body that had the community's trust and
respect,
that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between
us
and
the WMF.
Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we
are
atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking
becomes
a
serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But
without
that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take
whatever
from the WMF - good and bad.
Anthony Cole
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic < > dvrandecic@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things
that
> will > > be true now matter how much you reorganize it: > > > > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the
Foundation
> - not > > to the movement. > > > > Hi Denny, > > Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat
different
view.
> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit > directors > an idea of what's expected of them. It includes: > > > > "... > I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the > organization, > speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the
organization
> accountable. > " [1] > > Sarah > > [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe