On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Wil Sinclair <wllm(a)wllm.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Fæ
<faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you intend
to focus discussion in one place, rather than on
multiple projects, email lists and on non-wikimedia managed websites
at the same time, then meta would probably be a sensible place to
summarize or ask for a community consensus. As has been explained,
this has been done before, and one learning point was that by having
multiple channels, drama or even excitement may be created, but any
potentially good ideas for improvement are *far* more likely to drain
away in the sand and result in continued general dissatisfaction and
frustration.
People can obviously discuss whether the policies are optimal and/or
sufficient, but I'm just asking what the current policies are. Since I
started the discussion here and no one seems interested in drama, it
sounds like the thread should be continued here. Sorry if I didn't
post to the most appropriate list; I'm a newbie.
Wil, no need to apologize -- nobody accused you of doing anything wrong,
just
pointed out the likely consequences of certain approaches. But I do
think it's very likely that, given your strong connection to the Wikimedia
Foundation, your choice to engage extensively at the Wikipediaocracy site
will continue to generate a great deal of interest and curiosity.You may
consider yourself a newbie, but you also have higher than normal access to
information about Wikimedia, and -- like it or not -- your actions will
surely be received by some as providing a window into how the Wikimedia
Foundation is building its understanding of its community.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.