[Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

[Muhammad Yahia]

>
>
> resulting in such projects that really make Wikimedia looks like a host for
> childish projects that's
> written in a funny language never seen written before in
> any respectable scientific book, website, etc..
>
> I do not necessarily agree with that. I think the majority of the projects
approved are doing fine. My problem is with the closed process that does not
lend itself to improvement:


   - Members are appointed by the committee itself (self-appointed as Mark
   says), this doesn't lend itself to diversity or difference in opinion.
   - The archives are not totally public (some messages are, some messages
   are not), leaving a patchy history , so we cannot go back and discuss with
   the committee something we think needs improvement, because we simply will
   not know how the decision was taken.

So I don't know how transparency has increased? if the community has no say
in choosing members and does not have access to the deliberation archive,
what exactly has become more transparent?


-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia