On 5/2/05, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:

Currently, the exchange among the wikis and between wikis and the foundation happens in an informal way. When there's need, announcements are sent to the mailing list and one hopes that someone feels responsible to take care of forwarding it to his wikipedia/wikibooks/wikiquote.... Sometimes it happens, sometimes not. Things like the privacy policy may be translated, may be transfered to a wiki, but there's no guarantee at all.

Agreed: Would you let me introduce current translation status, which I find importance ...

*Privacy policy Translations: العربية | česky | cymri | Deutsch | English | Español | italiano| netherlands | português | 中文 *WMF Home (Latest news) Currently updated or preparing to update: De, En, Es, Fr, It, Zh *WQ3 On-going: En, Es, Fr, It, Pt, Sr, Zh

We can easily find only a few languages appear in every line: En, Es, It, Zh. Except En, they seem not to be very involved on meta things currently, but I think the current situation will change thanks to such a high interest. On the other hand, it is a hard thing to know why, biggest wikis seem not to have a full interest in those matters, specailly an issue directly related to users, Privacy policy issue.

I'd like to suggest a concept of wiki representatives: each community elects two persons (or maybe one for very small wikis and three for the really large) who act as the official contact persons and take care of communication, approach the foundation if there are problems etc pp.

Generally agreed and in the future there would be election projectwide, but for a soon coming big election, I prefer to start with self-nominated representatives with a short term - a half year or less until each wiki will elect their representative(s). Of course, I have no opposition to local election if they would elect their reps before the election would have ended (yes, I would like to see the list of new embassy members who will help the Board election).

As for number of reps, based on my impression on ranslation issues I suggest as the below: Wiki with over 250 active editors (like enwp, de, ....es or zhwp) 3 reps Wiki with over 100 active editors (like svwp, ruwp, hewp ... or nowp) 2 reps Others: 1reps

It is generally good even for small wikis to have their reps who pay attention on projectwide issue, but perhaps we haven't to say they must have a rep; or they could have a rep if want.

Currently Wikimedia Embassy seems not to be vividly work. Some wiks have no active members, some have no Embassy. It is good to revive it and keep the group of Wikipedians who willingly coordinate between projects vivid and active.

Cheers,