[Foundation-l] the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management issue;

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are missing the point completely as far as I am concerned. The
community was involved in defining our strategy. Making our community more
friendly is a strategic choice defined by the strategy project and endorsed
by the board.

I doubt very much that one of our many communities has the ability to
consider what is good for all of us. The notion of community self
management is in stark conflict to the reality that there are over 270
language communities for Wikipedia alone. The distribution of growth is
very much against the English Wikipedia community even though there is
still a lot of information lacking. The format of its content is arguably
very brainy and not really suited for reading on mobile phones.

It is very much like Commons, it is a place where you are free to add media
files but its utility as a resource is retarded. I blogged about it,
Michael Snow presented about it at Wikimania. No single (language)
community exists that will take this up.

Why do you think this is? Our aim is to provide information but we do not
consider the best format, Our aim is to provide freely licensed media files
but we do not consider its usability.

We bicker about Wikilove and relate it to community self management. Are
the needs of one community crucial or are we to consider what best realises
what our aim is ?
Thanks,
       GerardM


On 30 October 2011 13:33, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers at gmail.com>wrote:

> ------------------------------
>
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:05:37 +0100
> > From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >        <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> >        <CAO53wxVzz79KghtsAQe=YSacVtEL5XQuqfgA9nKt+2=
> w1XUTLg at mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> > Hoi,
> > There are a few issues:
> >
> >   - the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a management
> >   issue; what gets priority and why
> >   - there are always people who object to any project because they are of
> >   the opinion that something else should  be considered to be more
> relevant
> >   - when something is developed FOR a specific project, giving that
> >   project the option to opt out once it is developed defeats the
> objective
> > of
> >   the functionality; such a decision is very much taken at the start of
> the
> >   project
> >   - I know that a thread like this is read. Good proposals are considered
> >   when they stand out as such. Personally I like the notion of leaving a
> >   message as the first option..
> >   - I positively hate talk pages, prefer not to use them. I am a seasoned
> >   Wikimedian and when people like me are this negative about talk pages,
> > then
> >   the notion that they are good / usable / can be left alone is suspect.
> >   - have you considered that many of the advanced functionalities used in
> >   the English Wikipedia are actually REALLY problematic in other
> languages
> > -
> >   ease of use, even dumbing down is in my opinion acceptable when this
> > grows
> >   our editor community in our projects other then the English Wikipedia
> >   - I am known for my hobby horses; working for the "Localisation team"
> >   allows me to be part of much good work. However, there are still many
> >   things that are not going to be developed any time soon that I rate
> > highly
> >
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> >
> Hoi Gerard,
>
> Well spoken. "the choice of what is going to be developed is very much a
> management issue" or at least it is where that development is paid for as
> opposed to done by volunteers. So whether that choice is made by the
> community or by the Foundation is not only important because the community
> would probably make better decisions about the relative priority of various
> potential developments. Ultimately this is about whether the community self
> manages where that works and uses the Foundation where that doesn't. Or
> whether the Foundation manages the community, but allows some limited local
> discretion.
>
> WereSpielChequers
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>