[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation website

[Aphaia]

Hi,

Basically I agree with Anthere on that point WMF site should be
improved and activated, and I expect Angela agrees too, if it will
survive. If it is hardly maintained a dormant site isn't a good
representation for a grobally known organisation.

On 11/10/05, Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:

> How is having that directly on the Wikimedia FOundation website
> different from having it on the Quarto ?

If so, perhaps so. But I don't think Quarto has featured like Louvre
essay in its backnumbers.

I worked on three editons of Quarto, and as far as I know, there was
no contribution whose theme isn't on Wikimedia project, Board member
activities or of course, WMF administration. A contribution about
copyright issue in French wasn't included into the WQ3, if I recall
correctly.

And for me there is a difference of directness.

It is acceptable for me a contribution to Quarto like this with a
remark "it doesn't refrect WMF view completely" like IRIN article
remarked like a similar way; some editor would complain even in this
level, though. On the other hand, a content of WMF site would give a
stronger impression to visitors, a particular idea is ensured by the
foundation, or others wonder what relevance is between the WMF and the
issue or th what kind of WMF opinion would be reflected at that page.
As people vary, their impression would vary too.

As for this article, I have been dull and not so much aware the Louvre
essay would be put on the site directly, not a part of Quarto. My
memory is vague but somewhere I read it would be a part of Quarto.
However, I had read Anthere's announcement, the Quarto publification
would finish and the website would be renewed drastically. So it was
my fault to pursue this "contradiction".

On the site itself, I think it should exist, but of course,
improvement and acceralation are necessary.

> > 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.
>
> Merging Foundation Wiki with meta is absolute nonsense. And I think
> Florence found a very good compromise.

> I totally don't agree. As a matter of fact, there should be a person
> completely dedicated to this website and it should be static. And yes,
> it should reflect editorials from members of the community, the things
> they find that are good and those they find difficult. That's the only
> thing that will give it a little bit of life.

Generally agreed, but I say, not a person but a person per some major
languages - so people in a certain number have to dedicate; now except
some languages most of pages are poorly maintained. Even "latest news"
on the Main Page by language haven't been updated except some
languages.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to get rid of some languages whose
editors support maintenance unless some dedicated translators or site
editors will be available.