Hi Nemo, thanks for you answer.
I wholeheartly agree with you,
and thanks again for having expressed your ideas so clearly (much better
You give me the chance to be much more sincere:
I do not care of having another layer of bureacracy, or eventually be in a
board of whatever structure.
I actalluy *don't* want to, unless it is necessary.
I really really want that Wikisource can be the project we all work for.
I think (it's my opinion but I know many of you whom I've spoken with
agree) that we need some core features
(metadata management, good mobile UI, visual editor in the proofread
extension, perfect epub export, etc.)
to achieve our goals, (one of which is to be the best free digital library
out there :-).
My feeling is that, until we are scattered communities, and Wikisource do
we cannot ask the WMF to dedicate some staff time/money/development for us.
It's over and over the same recurring problem: it's systematic and vicious.
They won't hear us until we are big and strong enough to say that the
"wikisource community as a whole" wants something.
If we reach that point (if we manage to agree on one request, at least),
I'm confident that they will
give it to us.
This is the underlying motivation on the Individual Engagement Grant that
me and Micru are doing.
All the things we are proposing are just means for this end.
And this is way is crucial that everyone interested in the future of
Wikisource speaks up and join us in working on this.
We would really love you to give us even a ton of negative feedback, if the
discussion can lead the project to be more effective.
If you are interested in this, tell us your opinion and if you agree with
please engage your community. It is really important, because there isn't
other way to reach Wikisource editors
(we are trying with this ml, or some message bot in village pumps, and even
talk pages. non of which is really effective).
So, again, it's up to you :-)
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
Andrea Zanni, 10/09/2013 11:37:
as many of you know, we are asking the
Affiliation Committee to create a
"Wikisource User Group"
Personally, I don't like user groups; I suspect most Wikisource users
don't either. It's a paradox but for this very reason I think it may make
sense for us all to support it: the WMF likes user groups and pushed them a
lot; so the formation of a semi-formal user group can affect them, but
What I mean is that we can define a scope and a more concrete proposal and
then decide if we like it or not:
1) the scope would not to be the rulers of Wikisource; even if the group
tried to do so it wouldn't matter, nobody would be listening to their
2) the scope *would* be to interact with the WMF, summarising "from the
field" what the general direction of Wikisource is and what is really
absolutely needed for it to reach goals X, Y and Z (read: make them
confident enough to invest some developer time in very focused areas; the
WMF is only very moderately willing, has no idea where to start and fears a
3) as a consequence, we *do* need some "structure", not for the sake of
bureaucracy but for the contrary (otherwise the usergroup is just a layer
of bureaucracy around yet another discussion page which should be on
scriptorium); it can just be an open discussion among the
participants without predefined rules other than it has to end with 2 names
of coordinators/whatever (even the WMF chapter-selected board seats started
If it's useful I support it, otherwise I don't care. My opinion. :)
The idea is very simple:
we can create a group of interested Wikisource users, share ideas and
and also interact with GLAMs in outreach activities.
Many of you signed the page, so what I'm asking you is to decide
together what we do want to do with the User Group, as the AffCom asked
us additional questions.
IMHO, the best way to do this is:
* notify your own Wikisource about this idea, so we can spread the word
* discuss on the Talk page (or here, if you prefer) about what we want
to do, and what is your idea. [...]