On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Wil Sinclair wllm@wllm.com wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
If you intend to focus discussion in one place, rather than on multiple projects, email lists and on non-wikimedia managed websites at the same time, then meta would probably be a sensible place to summarize or ask for a community consensus. As has been explained, this has been done before, and one learning point was that by having multiple channels, drama or even excitement may be created, but any potentially good ideas for improvement are *far* more likely to drain away in the sand and result in continued general dissatisfaction and frustration.
People can obviously discuss whether the policies are optimal and/or sufficient, but I'm just asking what the current policies are. Since I started the discussion here and no one seems interested in drama, it sounds like the thread should be continued here. Sorry if I didn't post to the most appropriate list; I'm a newbie.
Wil, no need to apologize -- nobody accused you of doing anything wrong,
just pointed out the likely consequences of certain approaches. But I do think it's very likely that, given your strong connection to the Wikimedia Foundation, your choice to engage extensively at the Wikipediaocracy site will continue to generate a great deal of interest and curiosity.You may consider yourself a newbie, but you also have higher than normal access to information about Wikimedia, and -- like it or not -- your actions will surely be received by some as providing a window into how the Wikimedia Foundation is building its understanding of its community.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.