[Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

Samuel Klein meta.sj at gmail.com
Sun May 3 06:08:26 UTC 2009

I could use a revision history and list of related discussions for
this conversation.  [perhaps a mailing list isn't the best or
highest-visibility venue, considering the audience]

Where else is this conversation taking place?
Are past discussions of high-priority questions relevant?

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> their scope. The three Working Groups, I am imagining right now, would
> focus on Reach, Quality and Participation.

Vision & Reflection is an important topic left out here, before all of
the others.
  What are we trying to accomplish?
  What is now possible, what should be possible?
  How are we doing it, how can we do it better?

This process itself form deserves more thorough ongoing consideration,
equal at least to the other topics you list.

Also high on my list : Coverage (of types of knowledge) and Reuse (in
other formats) are also high on my list.

Coverage : we've stopped creating new projects.  There are still
massive areas of knowledge not covered by existing Wikimedia projects.
 What does this mean?

Reuse : in formats other than one article per topic, online or off;
most works or processes which involve knowledge could benefit from
direct use of WP material, yet most do not use it directly, for
awareness, license confusion, or other reasons.

> First, let me note that Lennart Guldbrandsson and others have pointed
> out to me that Participation is itself a sub-set of Quality. I agree:
> the purpose of participation is to increase quality.  (We are here to

Was this discussion in another thread?  I'd like to see Lennart's and
others' rationale here.*


* I do not think Participation is a subset of Quality.  It could be
considered a complete subset of Reach, if the latter is interpreted
broadly.  Within reach, splitting reading and contributing may be
reasonable (I assume your intent above was that participation means
editors/conversers/lawyers/scripters).  For me an eventual goal is
that every person becomes a contributor (or understands what it means
to be a potential contributor).  I do not agree that the primary
reason for this is to increase quality.  For instance, new ideas and
directions, and increased reuse through personal affiliation with the
project, are both higher on my personal list of advantages to higher

More information about the foundation-l mailing list