[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

[geni]

On 3/31/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94._%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Ajvol:.#Moscow_map
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PanBK#Great_pics.21
>
> Errrr, I did not see exactly why these links were here.
>

People disscussion interlang issues (with ru.wikipedia).





> Well... possibly. But this also happens in the other languages. Again,

> An example of something it would be only mildly nice to discuss only on
> en would be the creation of a new project, such as wikiversity. But even
> if discussion occurs on en, what is important is that the decision takes
> place on a neutral ground. The decision over a new project should not be
> done on en. The decision for a new feature should not be done on en.
> Those must take place on meta or on a general list. And unless I am
> wrong, this is what is happening.
>

En is the ideal place to discuss many new features since we have the
highest editing load and most sophistacted vandles.


> And *this* is to be highly regretted.
> Who takes care of Wikimedia funding ?

Dunno I think that was part of the issue. The new finace comitte (or
whatever it was called) has a seriously tough job ahead of it.

> English editors ? No.

En readers and de local branch as responcible for provideing the vast
majority of the funding.

> Board members ? Much more indeed.
> I presume the debate on funding certainly was interesting. But did it
> have any outcome ?

Yeah the financial model was a complete joke and the board considers
donator fatigue to be a non issue. Oh an meta/The board was incaperble
of rapidly translating fundraiseing notices.

>Was any new type of funding implemented after that
> debate ? How much was brought in the purse after that discussion ?
>

None. The pro board people won.

> Discussion on the matter certainly can take place on en, but it would be
> wise either to point out this debate to those practically involved in
> financing the project, OR (even better) to make those a report with the
> best ideas. A debate which bring nothing in the end is intellectually
> fruitful. But it also should bring an outcome.
>

I found what is probably a better option for cafepress for wikipedia
mechendise. In fact I belive submitted the info to the suggestion page
on meta. No responce.

> For example, en has often talked about a paper version. But those
> currently *making* a paper version are the germans.

Last I heard that project was on hold/abandoned which would push
Wikijunior back into poll position.


> I do not mean to say there are not good discussions on en on many topics
> Geni, but 1) these debates must offer practical outcome and 2) outcome
> is more likely if people from several projects and several languages are
> working on it together.
>
> Ant

Which is why en wikipedia will en up takeing over if meta doesn't get
it's act together. We've got the people from multiple
progects/languages with got plently of places to disscuss stuff. The
only barrier left is the cry of no no this must be done on meta. If
meta continues to drag it's feet that barrier will cease to exist
--
geni