I postponed responding to this thread partly because I was busy and partly
because I was mentally bracing myself for a rough ride.
I thank Risker, Nathan, Philippe, SJ, and James for their calm comments
here. I wish that I had been calmer myself.
I have not discussed this thread with Fae off
Agree that a further collaboration with internet archives on this could be
an excellent solution as I imagine they already do much of it.
On Tue, May 14, 2019, 21:13 Samuel Klein wrote:
> Dearests.
>
> The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more
> archival gloss, and
Dearests.
The archival question is a good one. The wikiverse could use a more
archival gloss, and currently regularly breaks links where a slight
commitment to longer term reliably would preserve them intact. Nathan: long
term preservation is not yet part of the projects' raison d'etre. Perhaps
Lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an abiding commitment to
self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth? Isn't that what every
maturing community with more than a handful of participants grows up to be?
:P
The strategy process is certainly not except from these flaws. Why would it
I think questioning the strategy for sustaining the movement's projects is
worthwhile, particularly as part of the strategy discussion. I'm not sure
if sniping on this list is as fruitful.
I considered Fae's question as well; not just the mechanical "do we need an
archive site" that seemed
Philippe you are absolutely correct. Whilst I never commented on the
importance of any individual on this list nor the questioned the record of
anyone I admit that my tone was not what this list deserves. I also concur
there are merits to Fae's point.
However the intention behind my point is one
This. What Risker said. Fae raises a fair point. And while the Foundation
certainly does not make policy based off of small discussions on mailing
list, it should (and used to) listen to those lists, and use them to aid in
decisions about what policy to make.
I like you a lot Joseph, but I’m
Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally. Fae
is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
the
The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally,
the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its
projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and
Thanks for the reply! Especially from an official WMF Community and
Audience Engagement Associate.
Can we take it from your defensive email it is a fact that the WMF has
no known long term archive strategy?
By the way, in your apparent opinion we may be unimportant people on
an email list, but
Because the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make long term strategic decisions
based off of a 4 person discussion on a mailing list.
I really don't know why people keep being surprised by this.
Seddon
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:11 PM Fæ wrote:
> I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons
I saw a recent size estimate of Wikimedia Commons of just over 200 TB.
That's large but not astronomical.
With a bit of guesstimation, the hardware only cost of creating a
Wikimedia projects digital tape archive might be around $2,000 per
archive set, a cost that probably would only be once a
I think that raising the question here is fine. I also think that it is
more WMF's responsibility to be responsive than community members'
responsibility to guess where and how to ask questions.
In general (this is not intended as a criticism of you, Dan) my view is
that WMF has a very mixed
On Tue 7 May 2019 at 11:04, Fæ wrote:
> I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good place
> to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives,
> or not.
>
> Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups
> are undoubtedly
] On Behalf Of
Fæ
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 12:04 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive
I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good place
to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives
I am sure this Wikimedia wide community run list is a perfectly good place
to check whether the WMF has any commitment to long term public archives,
or not.
Thanks for your advice as to where to go, but the strategy process groups
are undoubtedly a worse place to ask this question and expect a
I think the correct venue to ask for such a large, cross-cutting, strategic
commitment would be with the strategy process working groups, and not this
mailing list. Did you try engaging with them?
Dan
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:35, Fæ wrote:
> With all of the strategy discussions still on-going,
17 matches
Mail list logo
