Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-01/From the editor
Discuss this story
- Actually, a more nuanced explanation of Sue Gardner's proposed emphasis would be (1) on the technology which keeps the websites of the projects running; (2) building the community thru recruitment, training & retraining, supporting & rewarding its volunteers who "need to be incentivized [why couldn't she just say "encouraged"?], monitored and recognized"; & (3) encourage the development of an "on-the-ground" presence. Nothing there which could be read that they will prefer the Wikipedias while leaving the other projects to benign neglect. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, I put it badly. The part I was referring to was this, from the "Areas the Wikimedia Foundation will not prioritize" section:
"Investing specifically in the "smaller projects." The Wikimedia Foundation generally focuses on investments that have the largest possible net impact. Some of these investments may benefit smaller projects, but the Wikimedia Foundation will not make investments that are likely to have a disproportionately small impact."
- The implication I take from that is that resources will continue to go to the larger projects that have proven the possibility of a high impact, and obviously the Wikipedias are among them. The point I was trying to make is that strategy is important for Wikipedians to pay attention to, not that other projects will be or should be ignored. (Actually, I personally think more investment in some of the smaller projects, especially Wikinews, would be a good longer term strategy, but that's neither here nor there.)--ragesoss (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let us also not forget that the FCC is trying to pass Net Neutrality in the US that could also shut down Wikipedia and parts of the Internet in general. This could be the biggest threat to Wikipedia. Look at what happen to Google (who supports Net Neutrality) in China over Internet censorship. Chris (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- (A drive-by comment) ... After seeing the link a hundred times, I finally took a quick skim of the strategic planning information — and yes, very important ideas: Ideas that "the community" doesn't much think about discussing. If they don't think about it, will they read about it in Signpost (rather than, say, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc.)? Excuse my (usual) banked-shot commentary, but the bottom line is that YES we are at an important (pivotal?) moment in Wikipedia history ... and some design thinking (structural contemplation) is vital. What is Signpost's role in that?
(As I said, a drive by comment — ending with praise for the solicitation for writers in this area — and, of course, volunteering to do so ... in rhetorical sonnet form ... to fulfill expectations. ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is the Signpost's role? I'm not sure, but I think it could a useful one, in terms of giving people an easy way to find out if something at Strategy wiki is currently going on that they are interested in. A lot of the issues being discussed actually are things Wikimedians have been thinking about for a long while, just in different contexts. So regular coverage would give editors more opportunities to find something that they can connect to.--ragesoss (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, I appreciate the extra coverage. Sometimes people won't participate in these discussions, regardless -- I don't do it as often as I probably should -- but I don't think anybody would claim that increasing awareness of the topic is a bad idea. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is the Signpost's role? I'm not sure, but I think it could a useful one, in terms of giving people an easy way to find out if something at Strategy wiki is currently going on that they are interested in. A lot of the issues being discussed actually are things Wikimedians have been thinking about for a long while, just in different contexts. So regular coverage would give editors more opportunities to find something that they can connect to.--ragesoss (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad the foundation is confirming their place as one part of the Wikimedia movement with a particular role - support of the editors who actually create the content and share it. The strategic planning is not about deciding where the foundation us going to lead us. It is about choosing which technical and social tools are likely to be most useful to the community in whatever direction we decide to go in the next few years. filceolaire (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this task force. I look forward to good discussion about the pressing issue's that we all face going forward. Let the knowldge flow. --〜〜〜〜 02:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synergy44 (talk • contribs)