Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Hej, Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion :-) is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various reasons, but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Hoi, The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English Wikipedia receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This bias can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge educational effort going on for English and there is no strategy known, developed,

[Wikimedia-l] Advisory Board of the Wikimedia Foundation

This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in 2015, so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board but the corresponding page at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu wrote: > 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W : > > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people > who > > are not involved with affiliates? > > > > Starting from this assumption, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W : > Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people who > are not involved with affiliates? Hi Pine, I would like to give my view on this since extending the deadlines was the main feedback that I gave after the last