[Wikimedia-l] The new narrowed focus by WMF

[Theo10011]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:28 AM, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Well, there's your problem. You're reading the talk page! You want the
> subject-space page, of course:
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus>.
>

Ah darn. And there I was so lost, you saved us.


>
> I've read (or skimmed) your posts to the talk page and to this list and I'm
> a bit lost why you seem to be hostile to the document. Were you a big fan
> of
> the fellowships or India programs? Do you think Wikimania can't sustain
> itself? I think you have been pretty vocally critical of programs like
> these
> in the past and I would think you would be pleased with the narrowed focus.
> I am. And I think the Board will be. Is it a perfect plan? No. Is there
> more
> work to do? Of course.
>

Well, you seem to be singling me out as if I'm the only one. As of writing
this, there is Liam, Bence, Pine, Ocaasi, DGG and several others
criticizing these developments, some even started before me. I wasn't a fan
of the what preceded these changes, and no, I'm not happy about some of the
things replacing them including what's being done with the India program. I
also don't think Wikimania can sustain itself without constant WMF support,
and fellowships have become an integral part of the annual program. These
changes will affect a lot of things - GLAM, Wikimania scholarships, events
around the world - there is also a lot more that money could have gone
to. My post here was just to bring the discussion in view, just like Pine
did a week or so ago, and hopefully get more participation, maybe the
rhetoric got a bit heavy somewhere along the line.

Perhaps, you can assume that I have a different set of concerns than yours.
Understandably, most of these changes don't interest you (beyond the
concern you displayed for the term 'Global South'), but it shouldn't be
hard to understand that they might concern others. If you see the talk page
again, I'm certainly not alone in some of these thoughts. If this seems
uninteresting, fine, I'm sure there is a Jimmy conspiracy not far from
here, that usually interests the majority. You see, I'm also not as
detached as you are, after spending the better part of the decade following
this, you can look at it with a mixture of amusement and apathy, I can't. I
expect to burn out soon and not care, but until then I'm certainly going to
rage against the dying of that light. (tl;dr version - Whatever, brah!)


> But I'm sincerely confused about which parts you're upset with and why. If
> your intent is to rabble-rouse, you're doing it wrong. :-)
>

Heh, you'd know. ;) I think I can be a bit more effective, if my only
intention was to rabble-rouse - it wasn't.

Regards
Theo