[Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Erik Moeller]

On 11/16/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> The suggestion that teaching everyone English and offering them
> English works is equivalent to offering them works in their own
> language is... really appalling. We may as well shut down all the
> other languages and just offer Wikibooks "learn English" in x trillion
> languages, right? I don't think so...

The idea that humanity can unite under a single language is not
appalling at all to me, rather the opposite. Some people believe this
"world language" to be Esperanto, others might think it can be Chinese
or English, or a new artificial language. But I don't think Wikimedia
should adopt a position that implies humanity should continue to
actively use hundreds or thousands of languages indefinitely. To me,
supporting multilinguality is first and foremost about breaking down
barriers to knowledge, but it's not the only strategy to achieve that.

> Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
> the projects? If not here, then where?

Project charters -- TBD. Let's get the general statement sorted out first.

> Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as
> well, considering how important it is to the projects...

Possibly, though I see WMF as an organization that is not focused on
technology and lacks the dedication to become one.

> Also seems to be some mention of project communities vitally missing
> here.

Yes, some additional emphasis on community (and its values) in both
M&V might make sense.

> Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these
> statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or
> how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for
> Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends
> and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school
> teacher.
> Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.

Perhaps - though even "knowledge" was a bit controversial, and that
word is quite flexible in its interpretation. (Are 10 marginally
different ways to show the same thing a useful addition of knowledge?
Is unverifiable information knowledge?)

As for VG guides, I wouldn't _want_ them to be excluded from
Wikimedia's scope. That Wikibooks is becoming more narrowly focused on
textbooks may make sense from a strategic point of view to attract the
right authors and institutions, but I don't see why we should not ever
host HOWTOs about video games in a separate project, for example.

-- 
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.