[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation website

[Anthere]

Angela wrote:

> How is it beneficial to have personal essays that do not necessarily
> reflect the views of the Foundation on the official Foundation website
> rather than on Meta?
> 
> <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/It_is_forbidden_to_take_pictures%21>

Hmmmm, a tendency I observe in most global issues is that
* a person indicates her desire to change something 
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004418.html) 
or to create a new policy

And no one comment (or so few ...)



* then, a second step happens when outlines of changes are done, the one 
promoting the changes invite other editors to comment on the proposal
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-October/004456.html 
or announce a last week comment on a new policy (do I really need to say 
which policy I am talking about ?)

And no one comment (or so few ...)



* then, the last step is to proudly announce the stuff going live, a new 
site, or a new policy, whatever.

And suddenly, the comments (understand the criticisms) are pouring like 
rain in France in november.




If I were inspired by certain psychologists, I'd say that overall, all 
wikipedia projects are castrating.



I feel castrated.



This is not only for this issue, it is a more general feeling.




> If this is what the site is turning into, I'd rather go with earlier
> suggestion (I think by Elian) of merging the foundation wiki with
> Meta. Since the Quarto experiment has, as far as I can tell, been
> abandoned, and press releases are scattered over the projects and meta
> rather than being in any one "official" place, I'm less and less
> seeing any point to this site. It doesn't reflect anything official,
> and locks down editing for no benefit.
> 
> I no longer think an uneditable wiki is the best way to present the
> Foundation to the world.
> 
> Angela.


I'll let other people make that decision.