Hoi,
You are missing the point completely as far as I am concerned. The
community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our community more
friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy project and endorsed
by the board.
I doubt very much that one of our many communities has the ability to
consider what is good for all of us. The notion of community self
management is in stark conflict to the reality that there are over 270
language communities for Wikipedia alone. The distribution of growth is
very much against the English Wikipedia community even though there is
still a lot of information lacking. The format of its content is arguably
very brainy and not really suited for reading on mobile phones.
It is very much like Commons, it is a place where you are free to add media
files but its utility as a resource is retarded. I blogged about it,
Michael Snow presented about it at Wikimania. No single (language)
community exists that will take this up.
Why do you think this is? Our aim is to provide information but we do not
consider the best format, Our aim is to provide freely licensed media files
but we do not consider its usability.
We bicker about Wikilove and relate it to community self management. Are
the needs of one community crucial or are we to consider what best realises
what our aim is ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 30 October 2011 13:33, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:05:37 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<CAO53wxVzz79KghtsAQe=YSacVtEL5XQuqfgA9nKt+2=
w1XUTLg(a)mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi,
There are a few issues:
- the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management
issue; what gets priority and why
- there are always people who object to any project because they are of
the opinion that something else should be considered to be more
relevant
- when something is developed FOR a specific
project, giving that
project the option to opt out once it is developed defeats the
objective
of
the functionality; such a decision is very much taken at the start of
the
project
- I know that a thread like this is read. Good proposals are considered
when they stand out as such. Personally I like the notion of leaving a
message as the first option..
- I positively hate talk pages, prefer not to use them. I am a seasoned
Wikimedian and when people like me are this negative about talk pages,
then
the notion that they are good / usable / can be left alone is suspect.
- have you considered that many of the advanced functionalities used in
the English Wikipedia are actually REALLY problematic in other
languages
-
ease of use, even dumbing down is in my opinion acceptable when this
grows
our editor community in our projects other then the English Wikipedia
- I am known for my hobby horses; working for the "Localisation team"
allows me to be part of much good work. However, there are still many
things that are not going to be developed any time soon that I rate
highly
Thanks,
GerardM
Hoi Gerard,
Well spoken. "the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a
management issue" or at least it is where that development is paid for as
opposed to done by volunteers. So whether that choice is made by the
community or by the Foundation is not only important because the community
would probably make better decisions about the relative priority of various
potential developments. Ultimately this is about whether the community self
manages where that works and uses the Foundation where that doesn't. Or
whether the Foundation manages the community, but allows some limited local
discretion.
WereSpielChequers
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l