"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge"
Of course it's for any Wikimedia project, Dominic. We are talking about free
knowledge. And Wikimedia Foundation, in all activities, all, have one thing in common:
free the knowledge. Make a world with every single human could acess and share all
knowledge, may this is an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a text, a class even. Our objective,
of wikipedians and any other wikimedia projects is just one: Share and make available free
knowledge. Knowledge free the world's mind, so, knowledge have to stop being limited.
Has to be FREE. Here's our objective, in my view.
_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:19:25 -0400
From: mcdevitd(a)gmail.com
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP
On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <kwadhwa(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
Hi,
Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories?
Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you
are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made?
In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for
Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the
Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring
to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was
reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia
administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising
tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the
community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a
useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for
acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia
alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized.
This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as
relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.
Dominic
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l