On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se
I can agree on the dilemma you present.
But would not a better solution then the close down on Wikipedia Zero, be
to close down the projects that is not run "compatible with the values
underlying the idea of a free and open web"?.
I am (still) of the opinion that is is of utmost importance for the
movement and our brand that we start closing down projects. And not only
the 20-30 which are hijacked by unserious people but also the 50-100 which
are not properly managed and infested with vandalism and unserious articles
This reminds me of a slide shown at Wikimania. It read as follows:
Reality check 3: 284 Wikipedias
12 dead (locked)
53 zombies (open, no editors)
94 struggling (open, < 5 editors)
125 in good or excellent health
And I would disagree with the judgement implied in these figures that a
Wikipedia with 5 or 6 editors is "in good or excellent health". The
Croatian Wikipedia had considerable more contributors than that, and still
turned into a disaster.
I suspect the Foundation will be reluctant to close down projects for which
there is any hope. However, I would very much like to see the Foundation
provide the public with honest, realistic and transparent information and
consumer advice on the quality of these various Wikipedias, both in terms
of political freedom, as mentioned earlier, and in more general terms terms
of content reliability.