[Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP

[MZMcBride]

Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
> On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <kwadhwa at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>> 
>> 
>> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
>> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
>> back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
>> strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
>> into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
>> projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
>> from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
>> interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
>> initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
>> limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
>> well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
>> operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
>> countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
>> that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
>> 
> 
> Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories?
> Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you
> are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made?
> 
> In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for
> Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the
> Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring
> to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was
> reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia
> administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising
> tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the
> community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a
> useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for
> acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia
> alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
> freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
> relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
> causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized.
> This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as
> relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.

I generally don't like "+1" posts, but wow, well said, Dominic.

MZMcBride