"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge"
Of course it's for any Wikimedia project, Dominic. We are talking about free
knowledge. And Wikimedia Foundation, in all activities, all, have one thing in
common: free the knowledge. Make a world with every single human could acess
and share all knowledge, may this is an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a text, a
class even. Our objective, of wikipedians and any other wikimedia projects is
just one: Share and make available free knowledge. Knowledge free the world's
mind, so, knowledge have to stop being limited. Has to be FREE. Here's our
objective, in my view.
_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
30440865
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:19:25 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP
>
> On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
> >
> >
> > In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
> > about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
> > back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
> > strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
> > into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
> > projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
> > from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
> > interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
> > initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
> > limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
> > well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
> > operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
> > countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
> > that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories?
> Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you
> are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made?
>
> In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for
> Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the
> Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring
> to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was
> reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia
> administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising
> tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the
> community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a
> useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for
> acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia
> alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
> freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
> relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
> causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized.
> This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as
> relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.
>
> Dominic
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
