Le 03/01/2015 12:55, Romaine Wiki a écrit :
Hi Fae,
I haven't seen a page about this on wiki yet. It appears that various volunteers who are working on organizing are informed about this behind the scenes directly.
It also was mentioned in a discussion about the organisation of Wiki Loves Monuments which raised many concerns. It was first mentioned in this mail: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/2014-December/00759...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/2014-December/00759...
Later confirmed by Alex Wang: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/2014-December/00760... https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/2014-December/00760...
As I said this is not a positive campaign they intent, this is a negative campaign as other projects are a victim here.
Yes, prioritizing is not a problem. But this does not feel good at all. This is not good for project organizers nor for the gender gap projects, nor for other projects.
Romaine
Thanks Romaine, that sounds terrible. I can imagine if Wikipedia was managed that way in its first period or anytime : "We will proactively address our gap in History for the next 3 months, so please no more biology article until may (or maybe later we'll tell you) "
The fact is we can't rely or very poorly on the WMF anymore. Or just in the same way some people may apply for some governmental organisations/agencies subsidies and have to be skilled enough, not in their core project but to fit in the expectations, know the tricks for that and have the ability to deal with such hitches without being discouraged.
User:Pi zero made a pretty good point here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&am... "The WMF is internally structured to centrally create major software initiatives to be designed, implemented, and imposed all from the top down. This is the way commercial enterprises approach proprietary software, so it's natural that people who come from that world (both administrators and software developers) would tend to do things that way. The approach is well suited to the purpose of creating software that maximizes customers' dependency on the commercial enterprise. In other words, it minimizes customers' ablity to improve, generalize, duplicate, or even maintain the software on their own. However, this approach is deeply inappropriate if you're trying to nurture volunteer wikis. (...)"