Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikipedia christmas calendar?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: 2009/11/2 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs: Дана Monday 02 November 2009 18:31:50 Andrew Gray написа: First image is probably your best bet - the odds are reasonably high it'll be a picture, or something else representative, in the conventional top-right slot. Certainly better odds than random selection! First image could easily be an icon. Mmm, true. First image directly invoked in the wikitext, or something, I guess. So, no images from infoboxes, then. (Except those few that actually require [[File:..]]). Cheers, Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The state of Foundation-l (again) was: Recent firing?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 11/2/09, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: From: wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing? To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, November 2, 2009, 4:55 PM Personally, I process about two or three hundred emails per day (yes per day), so the small amount of noise the Foundation list creates is negligible to me. If someone is so annoyed by a thread, that they can't even bother to DWR (delete without reading) based merely on the subject title, I would think we need to question whether that person has the right temperament for the internet whatsoever. I delete at least two or three dozen emails every day without reading them, if I already know the subject is not going to be of interest to me. I would submit the real issue here, is not that people are doing that or could, but rather that they have a compulsion to *keep reading* the thread. Sort of a, I don't want to be left out, or I want to keep watching the train wreck or something. I'm not a psychologist. I do know however, that the entire issue of let's close this thread, let's moderated these people, this is too noisy and so on, is endemic to the entire email world. Not merely this list. I can't think of any list I'm on (and I'm on a few dozen), where the issue does not come up with regularity. It is merely part of the way internetlife is, in my opinion. The right temperment for the interner? Maybe you would have a point if this was and email list targeted at people who spend every waking hour plugged into the internet. I realize some of come close to that. But that is not the target audience of this email list. Nor the Wikimedia movement. And if those of you who have the temperment and lifestyle for such participation do not control yourselves enough so that this forum might succeed in included more than just those participants similar to yourselves, Wikimedia will be sorrier for it. On a personal note, last week I have gone to having the responsibilities of three people jobs, instead of only those two I have been handling for most of the past year. Maybe I will resubscribe when I can hire people again. Good luck with making sure this list is worth re-subscribing too. I truly hope you all succeed with that. Birgitte SB Hear hear. And even people who do spend a heck of a lot of their time on Wikimedia might not want to spend it all reading F-l. And no, they don't have to -- but if you want to keep up with general discussion about the Foundation, you actually *do*. This is the main forum. Dominating it is as rude as being that guy in a classroom who won't shut up, to the detriment of all the other students who can't get a word in edgewise; only in this case, there's no professor to maintain order. If you're that guy, it's not like you're more brilliant than everyone else; you're just more talkative and don't have any social skills, and you are adversely affecting everyone else that has to share the space with you. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l is still up but hasn't gotten any new traffic in the last few weeks. Suggestions included: * starting a forum * starting an announcements list * limiting posting others? -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Strategic Planning Office Hours
Sorry folks, I could not make it yesterday. Is there a protocol in the net or elsewhere? Kind regards Ziko 2009/11/3 Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org: Strategic Planning office hours are tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3, from 20:00-21:00 UTC. We meet in #wikimedia-strategy on the freenode network. You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net/ and filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-strategy). You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine. Another option is http://chat.wikizine.org. For more information about IRC clients, go to the Wikipedia entry on IRC or the Meta page on Wikimedia IRC. Hope to see you there! Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454) Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Strategic Planning Office Hours
Hi Ziko, you find them all on http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours Alice. 2009/11/4 Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com Sorry folks, I could not make it yesterday. Is there a protocol in the net or elsewhere? Kind regards Ziko ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [Fwd: Annual Fundraiser starts November 10th, UTC]
Hi all, Rand asked me to forward this email for him as his client is presenting difficulties getting it to the list. -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] [Fwd: Annual Fundraiser starts November 10th, UTC]
Trying one more time. Seems to have disconnected from my previous message. Original Message Subject:Annual Fundraiser starts November 10th, UTC Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:42:00 -0800 From: Rand Montoya rmont...@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Wikimedians-- As some of you know, the 2009 Annual Fundraiser has a projected start date of November 10th, 2009 UTC. You can find a general time line here (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Timeline). This fundraiser has messaging and tone that is part of an overarching public relations plan that was approved by the Board and WMF management, and was developed with a reputable non-profit/cause-focused marketing and PR firm, Fenton Communications. You can read more about the partnership with Fenton here: http://www.fenton.com/intelligence-report/2009/08/wikimedia-selects-fenton-for-two-pronged-marketing-task.html. You can see some of the designs for this year's fundraiser at the following: http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate-Chapter/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate/Thankyou/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate/Support/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate/WaysToGive/en Banners and Site Notices (a sampling): http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice1/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice2/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice3/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice11/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice12/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice22/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice23/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice27/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice28/en And see parts of the messaging and phases through the translation process: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/core_messages/en There is currently lots of valuable feedback at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2009/Website_Design from the community. I appreciate that feedback and encourage more.I will be monitoring feedback there and on this list. It's worth keeping in mind that there is no single message for this campaign. As you can see we're going to test a number of new messages that, backed with some valuable research by the contractor we're working with, we feel will engage a new audience of donors to the Wikimedia cause. We are currently working several ambitious technical upgrades to this year's campaign: GEO IP localization for chapter messaging, local processing of credit cards, and project specific integration of the donation pages.Like all other fundraisers, we appreciate your patience as we work to bring these pieces together. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. -Rand -- Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving Wikimedia Foundation www.wikimedia.org Email: r...@wikimedia.org Phone: 415.839.6885 x615 Fax: 415.882.0495 Cell: 510.685.7030 “At some future time, I hope to have something witty, intelligent, or funny in this space.” -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Annual Fundraiser starts November 10th, UTC]
Not bad. I don't think all of it is good, but generally not bad. (I'd especially question some of the esoteric stuff in phase one, which gives no indication that this is a fundraiser, and simply assaults the visitor with platitudes in large font. I would suggest that the marketing instinct to build mind-share around slogans and the like is actually counter-productive during a fundraiser for a project that is already a household name.) Altogether I think the organized state of things seems like movement in the right direction. I'll be especially pleased if people monitor the reactions in near real time and are prepared to pull or change messages that perform poorly after a few days because there certainly will be some poor performers if my instincts are right. It is easy to forget that most potential donors don't really understand Wikipedia despite using it regularly, so it is good to remind them of the mission and our volunteer nature. Some of the messages do that, which is good. I would also hope we remember the biggest lesson of 2008. The personal appeal, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/Letter/en , worked REALLY, REALLY well. Like a similar effort in 2005, and contrary to some conventional wisdom, a somewhat longer form appeal can be really effective at telling Wikimedia's story and connecting with potential donors. The two most successful fundraising campaigns in Wikimedia's history (in a dollars raised per visitor sense) both used that general format, and I hope we aim to replicate that again this year. -Robert Rohde On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: Trying one more time. Seems to have disconnected from my previous message. Original Message Subject: Annual Fundraiser starts November 10th, UTC Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:42:00 -0800 From: Rand Montoya rmont...@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Wikimedians-- As some of you know, the 2009 Annual Fundraiser has a projected start date of November 10th, 2009 UTC. You can find a general time line here (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/Timeline). This fundraiser has messaging and tone that is part of an overarching public relations plan that was approved by the Board and WMF management, and was developed with a reputable non-profit/cause-focused marketing and PR firm, Fenton Communications. You can read more about the partnership with Fenton here: http://www.fenton.com/intelligence-report/2009/08/wikimedia-selects-fenton-for-two-pronged-marketing-task.html. You can see some of the designs for this year's fundraiser at the following: http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate-Chapter/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate/Thankyou/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate/Support/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Donate/WaysToGive/en Banners and Site Notices (a sampling): http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice1/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice2/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice3/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice11/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice12/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice22/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice23/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice27/en http://dev.donate.wikimedia.org/index.php/2009/Notice28/en And see parts of the messaging and phases through the translation process: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2009/core_messages/en There is currently lots of valuable feedback at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2009/Website_Design from the community. I appreciate that feedback and encourage more. I will be monitoring feedback there and on this list. It's worth keeping in mind that there is no single message for this campaign. As you can see we're going to test a number of new messages that, backed with some valuable research by the contractor we're working with, we feel will engage a new audience of donors to the Wikimedia cause. We are currently working several ambitious technical upgrades to this year's campaign: GEO IP localization for chapter messaging, local processing of credit cards, and project specific integration of the donation pages. Like all other fundraisers, we appreciate your patience as we work to bring these pieces together. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. -Rand -- Rand Montoya Head of Community Giving Wikimedia Foundation www.wikimedia.org Email: r...@wikimedia.org Phone: 415.839.6885 x615 Fax: 415.882.0495 Cell: 510.685.7030 “At some future time, I hope to have something witty, intelligent, or funny in this space.” -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has failed
We keep it because some people use it, some people contribute to it, and it costs us very little to keep it going. All projects that are useful and well used were at one point completely obscure, including the English Wikipedia. That obscurity is not, of itself, a good reason to delete the entire project. Is this because you're upset at being moderated on wikinews-l? Nathan On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:02 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Wikinews should be gracefully shut down. It's long since failed to serve any service to the community or to the world. Few to no Wikipedia articles point at Wikinews even when there is a Wikinews article. And I submit that no outside agency points at Wikinews articles for anything. Why do we still have this project? Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has failed
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: [...] Few to no Wikipedia articles point at Wikinews even when there is a Wikinews article. I believe that there's a policy determination that Wikinews is not a Wikipedia Reliable Source as defined in [[WP:RS]], so not having pointers from Wikipedia to Wikinews is to be expected. (I leave the rest of the case for others to debate). -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
I have been part of the wiki community for 6 years now. As I reflect on what I've seen over the years, I've developed a definite sense that the enthusiasm and energy in the community has waned. (I'm going to frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.) It's a qualitative sense that the community is less active and excited about what they are doing today than they used to be. Some data supports this, like the declines in editor activity and administrator attrition, though I think I perceive it most directly as a change in the experience of being in the community. At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history, become a household name, and created a top web destination. Great job. What now? Most of our processes and policies have changed little in years. Most of the recent software changes are small and evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Compared to the days when parser functions, templates, cite, and other things were being introduced, it is rare to see changes that excite people and grow to be widely used. There are perhaps a few such things still promised on the horizon (e.g. open street maps), but mostly it seems like we've become satisfied with what we have and are slow to change. In the editing community, we see a growing interest in removing redlinks on the theory that if it hasn't been started yet how interesting can it really be, or worse deleting stubs and other incomplete articles because no one seems interested in finishing them. At the Foundation level, we see efforts to leverage Wikipedia with third party deals (e.g. Orange) and important incremental improvements (e.g. Usability), but it is rare to even consider whole new projects or have anyone articulate a grand new vision. I'm wondering what people think about this. On the one hand we could simply accept it. We've already created a world changing encyclopedia. We can embrace Wikipedia for what it is and accept that maintaining it will not be as exciting as building it. That's the direction I think we've implicitly been following, by inertia if no other reason. We allow the policies, processes, and structures we have now to become entrenched, and focus on ensuring that the work which already exists will persist into the future. That would still be a great achievement, but it is not sexy, and I think we would continue to see a slowing and contraction in the community. Filling in details and improving prose, isn't going to easily attract volunteers. On the other hand, I think we could try to recapture some of the vision and fire of our initial growth. Push for new tools (e.g. string functions, data storage mechanisms, new communication tools) and new projects (e.g. directory services, almanacs). There any many risks with innovating. It could backfire and damage what we have, but on the other hand having new things to do and a fresh vision could bring new energy to the community. Personally, I look at Wikimedia and think there is still a lot of room for expansion, innovation, and growth, but I also think we've become resistant to it. I'm wondering whether other people at the Foundation-l level perceive the same trends, and what they think about the balance between innovation and growth versus simply maintaining and solidifying the processes and products that we already have. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 23:36, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: I have been part of the wiki community for 6 years now. As I reflect on what I've seen over the years, I've developed a definite sense that the enthusiasm and energy in the community has waned. (I'm going to frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.) If you miss the excitement, learn the Sakha language, or at least Russian. Many small wikis in African and post-Soviet languages are mostly abandoned, but the small group of editors of the Wikipedia in Sakha are very excited. At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history, become a household name, and created a top web destination. Great job. What now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog I find it pretty exciting. I don't see a big difference between writing new articles and improving existing ones. -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history, become a household name, and created a top web destination. Great job. What now? Are you already on http://strategy.wikimedia.org ? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history, become a household name, and created a top web destination. Great job. What now? Are you already on http://strategy.wikimedia.org I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired to make a proposal. My impression though, and correct me if I overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has generally been framed in terms of individual projects, but there has been very little discussion of general philosophy. Should we be innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities? Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing positions and projects? One position or the other might be implicit in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which general path people might want to emphasize. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has failed
But George we do have pointers from Wikipedia to Wikisource, Wikiquote, and so on. Wikinews is sort of the red-headed stepchild of the entire collective. It's been going for years and yet only has 15,000 English-language articles. That's probably smaller even than Citizendium. The failure is even more severe when a project is so small that it can be dominated by a clique of people pushing power-plays to silence opponents. That is simply in my mind anathema to our entire structure. When a club becomes an effective tool, used by those in power against those not, than a project should be shut down. Will Johnson -Original Message- From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has failed On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: [...] Few to no Wikipedia articles point at Wikinews even when there is a Wikinews article. I believe that there's a policy determination that Wikinews is not a Wikipedia Reliable Source as defined in [[WP:RS]], so not having pointers from Wikipedia to Wikinews is to be expected. (I leave the rest of the case for others to debate). -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has failed
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Wikinews should be gracefully shut down. It's long since failed to serve any service to the community or to the world. Few to no Wikipedia articles point at Wikinews even when there is a Wikinews article. And I submit that no outside agency points at Wikinews articles for anything. Why do we still have this project? Will If you are serious, and not just trolling sour grapes after being moderated on the wikinews mailing list, the appropriate place to suggest project closures is Metawiki. --Majorly ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
Robert Rohde wrote: On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: Are you already on http://strategy.wikimedia.org I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired to make a proposal. My impression though, and correct me if I overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has generally been framed in terms of individual projects, but there has been very little discussion of general philosophy. That is, if anything, an unfortunate myopia that arises out of the submissions. As was noted during the board meeting prior to Wikimania (I believe you can find the comment in the minutes), a lot of the proposals there are not particularly strategic in nature. While we don't want to simply discard ideas that might have value, we will be focusing more on these kinds of fundamental questions as the process moves forward. Any help in framing these issues, and identifying which proposals really grapple with them, would be appreciated. Should we be innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities? Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing positions and projects? One position or the other might be implicit in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which general path people might want to emphasize. I'm glad you're helping to start the discussion. I encourage people to continue it, both here and on the strategic planning wiki. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
Hi all, While specific proposals have indeed been solicited (largely focusing on individual projects), task forces focusing on larger strategic issues have been formed in the past few weeks. These task forces are deliberating on key issues that affect the Wikimedia community broadly. You can find a list of these task forces at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force. Robert, your comments seem very aligned with the Enhance community health and culture task force, which you can access at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Enhance_community_health_and_culture_task_force. Your comments and input there would be much appreciated. Best, John -Original Message- From: Robert Rohde [mailto:raro...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:31 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history, become a household name, and created a top web destination. Great job. What now? Are you already on http://strategy.wikimedia.org I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired to make a proposal. My impression though, and correct me if I overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has generally been framed in terms of individual projects, but there has been very little discussion of general philosophy. Should we be innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities? Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing positions and projects? One position or the other might be implicit in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which general path people might want to emphasize. -Robert Rohde ___NOTICE This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain Company, Inc. (Bain) and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract. ___ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Growth vs. maintenance
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: I've read a variety of things there though I haven't yet been inspired to make a proposal. My impression though, and correct me if I overlooked something, is that the strategy development process has generally been framed in terms of individual projects, A lot of the proposals are flawed precisely because of that. It's no surprise because many editors focus on one project. That's certainly true of me. Nevertheless I've tried to make a proposal that could encompass all projects: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Reward_editors Of course I'm inclined to big up my own idea. But there's 500 proposals so I hope there'll be a fairly large number that would work across all the projects. You said yourself: (I'm going to frame this discussion mostly in terms of the English Wikipedia, though I think it applies to most of the large, mature wikis.) OK. But what about the less mature ones? Huge opportunities there. *I* can't add to anything that isn't in English. But I could conceivably have an idea that would help. I mean, I doubt it in my case, but it's plausible that an English speaker could have an idea that would impact across the less mature projects. Strategy is your chance to come up with an idea there. You don't even need an idea of your own, you could build on one you find in the proposals and be a part of the process. but there has been very little discussion of general philosophy. Should we be innovating, taking risks, and looking for new growth opportunities? Or, should be focusing on solidifying and maintaining our existing positions and projects? One position or the other might be implicit in some of the proposals, but I haven't seen any discussion of which general path people might want to emphasize. Take a look at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Questions_that_need_answers I'm sure you'll find those questions you're asking reflected there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed
- wjhon...@aol.com wrote: ... Few to no Wikipedia articles point at Wikinews even when there is a Wikinews article. How about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty#Signing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87#Arrest_and_trial or indeed the nearly 3,000 other articles listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikinewslimit=500 And I submit that no outside agency points at Wikinews articles for anything. Google News has started to link to stories in both Wikipedia and Wikinews, depending on individuals' profiles. Andrew ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed
Is it possible that sometimes Wikipedia steals Wikinews' thunder? You get something like that kid (not) in a balloon and it struggles/fails to get on Wikipedia but I assume did OK on Wikinews. Sometimes a current event is big enough that Wikipedia can cover it without fear of deletion (I think of Katrina) and I seem to recall the coverage in Wikipedia was amazing. Perhaps that means Wikinews can only ever be a little brother because Wikipedia gets to cover the big stories as well as Wikinews ever will. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible that sometimes Wikipedia steals Wikinews' thunder? You get something like that kid (not) in a balloon and it struggles/fails to get on Wikipedia but I assume did OK on Wikinews. Sometimes a current event is big enough that Wikipedia can cover it without fear of deletion (I think of Katrina) and I seem to recall the coverage in Wikipedia was amazing. Perhaps that means Wikinews can only ever be a little brother because Wikipedia gets to cover the big stories as well as Wikinews ever will. The [[Colorado balloon incident]] Wikipedia article has had 120,000 views. I'm sure that the [[6-year-old boy in Colorado found alive, unhurt after runaway balloon allegedly carried him away]] article on Wikinews received far, far less attention. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed
How do you determine the number of views a particular Wikipedia page has received? -Original Message- From: Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 3:58 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible that sometimes Wikipedia steals Wikinews' thunder? You get something like that kid (not) in a balloon and it struggles/fails to get on Wikipedia but I assume did OK on Wikinews. Sometimes a current event is big enough that Wikipedia can cover it without fear of deletion (I think of Katrina) and I seem to recall the coverage in Wikipedia was amazing. Perhaps that means Wikinews can only ever be a little brother because Wikipedia gets to cover the big stories as well as Wikinews ever will. The [[Colorado balloon incident]] Wikipedia article has had 120,000 views. I'm sure that the [[6-year-old boy in Colorado found alive, unhurt after runaway balloon allegedly carried him away]] article on Wikinews received far, far less attention. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews has not failed
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: How do you determine the number of views a particular Wikipedia page has received? http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/Colorado%20Balloon%20Incident -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
