Dear J. and Gerard
Firstly, whether or not I have edited a Wikipedia article is not particularly relevant to the proposition that the Foundation and the Community would work together better on planning the future of technical products if the Foundation would publish its roadmap to the Community. I think it's clear that they would, that the roadmap clearly exists and that the publication would take time time and effort for a signficiant mutual benefit. Do you disagree with any of that? Perhaps you think improved collaboration between Foundation and Community is a trivial (popcorn) matter? Do you think that collaboration would or would not help to build a quality encyclopaedia?
Secondly, the answer to J.'s specific but irrelevant question is Yes. I wrote about 70 articles in the period 2012-2014, when for various reasons I ceased to do so and abandoned my account.
Thirdly, my motivation here is, and always has been, to do what I can to advance the mission by pointing out simple, easy and effective ways in which everyone can work better together to do so. I think that we, the Foundation and the Community, are not doing that as well as we could.
"Rogol"
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are not answering the question. You are only producing arguments that may be meaningful to you but they do not explain why you are interested and what you do to affect what you aim to achieve.
IMHO it is important for the WMF to concentrate on what it is that we do. Make it more relevant in every possible way. When you ask for overarching vision, I want the WMF to explain why Wikisource does not get its audience? I want us to engage more in bringing quality to Wikipedia and it is not theoretical what I propose I have challenged anyone to refute my arguments about associating red links and wiki links with Wikidata items and how it will improve quality.
My point is; I want substance. I want us to concentrate on the things that help us to "share in the sum of all knowledge". For me your demands take time and more importantly energy away from the real questions. We should start with "share in the sum of our available knowledge" because this is achievable and we do not really consider it.
I refer to your user page when I say that you are not involved. So you make no difference but demand attention. We have better things to do things that do not get done either. Please let us concentrate on what we can do to make a meaningful effort and let us consider the issues as we know them.
Seriously better quality to Wikipedia requires a small change that nobody needs to see, that people can opt in to and the people that do will improve the quality in all Wikipedias. Again, I challenge anyone to show where my arguments fail reality. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 January 2017 at 23:34, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard,
It isn't personal to me at all, of course. I'm not asking for privileged access to these plans or my own personal personal copy. I am requesting that the Foundation publish their medium to long term technical planning, the technical roadmap if you will, to the community so that the community can discuss and help to develop them. It seems to me that this is the
only
way that the Foundation and the Community can move forward effectively.
In
the absence of this sort of joined-up thinking we will continue to get
such
disfunctional episodes as MediaViewer and Gather.
I asked the Executive Director for "a clear concise and measurable set of obectives around the areas of Visual Editor, Wikitext, Parsoid, Flow, Workflow and Discovery" back on the 24 June 2016. On the 5 January this year, Katherine stated that that sort of discussion "isn't the most effective use of my time". I find that regrettable, but it is of course her decision.
I cannot believe that the Foundation does not have some sort of roadmap
of
the sort I have been requesting, and indeed, frankly if the Foundation
went
to a grant-making body and admitted that there was nothing of the kind to show them, they would be laughed at. Since that isn't happening, the Foundation have shared their planning with donors. So why not share it with the Community? What could the downside possibly be?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Rogol, When I check out your profile, you are retired. Maybe you do not know
any
more but the WMF has been pretty consistent in the way that it operates over the years. So in details things change and arguably it could be different for all kinds of reasons. But as the WMF is not actively
going
for grants it would not surprise me that it is exact the consistency in
its
actions that gives grant-giving bodies the assurances that they need.
The question to you is what is it to you. Why are you not satisfied
with
your answers and where would satisfactory answers lead us to? My
problem
with the WMF and its community that is that it is stuck too much in
things
we could improve upon. I am actively engaged in getting towards a
vision
that I share in mailing lists and on my blog.
What is your vision, what is it that you want? Thanks,
On 12 January 2017 at 23:20, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if
it
could not show them a plan for the medium to long term. For some
reason,
the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus
value).
I
wonder why that would be?
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
No need, it's on webarchive: http://web.archive.org/web/20170112103412/https://upload. wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/d/dd/Education_and_WGIG.pdf
Unlike Wikimedia projects, Webarchive has a long term plan that one would expect of a digital archive, so it's a much safer space for historical documents.
I stopped asking about an equivalent realistic Wikimedia 100 year
plan
a couple of years back. The $100m endowment thingy controlled by
Jimmy
does not have this as a goal either, as far as I can tell.
Fae
On 12 January 2017 at 00:41, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com
wrote:
If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether
for
copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the
Office
or
a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately.
That
way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright
status
or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline
for
research use or consultation by historians or other researchers
who
could make good use of it.
Newyorkbrad/IBM
On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: > Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is
that
Meta
> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year
and
a
half
> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14
votes,
total),
> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made
on
both
> sides.[1] > > In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should
have
an
> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's
local
policy
> that would permit copyrighted files under specific
circumstances)[2] I
> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered
in
more
> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some
careful
> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption). > > But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer,
but
am
> interested to see what ideas others have. > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&
diff=prev&oldid=13362698#General_discussion_on_
allowing_or_rejecting_fair_
use_at_Meta
> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_
policy
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com
wrote:
> >> Hi, >> >> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files
such
as
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf >> >> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions
Wikipedia
>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important
historical
document.
>> >> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real
copyright
issue.
>> >> Where and how should we keep such files? >> >> Regards, >> >> Yann Forget
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe