Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[Info WorldUniversity]

And perhaps with a further focus on specific African countries that speak
Portuguese?

Scott_WUaS

On 5:46AM, Tue, Jul 31, 2018 Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> How about Portuguese from Africa?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jane,
> >
> > Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> > despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> > strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the
> point
> > that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
> > can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used
> to
> > have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
> > declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should
> use
> > the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
> > Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness
> and
> > knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
> > order to participate.
> >
> > Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and
> Galician
> > wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
> >
> > I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit
> of
> > everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
> > languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
> > over there, often in the same thread).
> >
> > I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
> > different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere
> "split
> > down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
> >
> > > Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there
> is
> > > often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> > > cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles.
> I
> > > think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> > > certain their country and by association, their language is the best,
> and
> > > any other speakers of their language should either conform or start
> their
> > > own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you
> haven't
> > > come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Jane,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that we are in fact
> > > split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on-
> and
> > > > offline".
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression,
> at
> > > > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> > > God,
> > > > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting
> that
> > > > "some languages are better than others".
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > >
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > > > interesting
> > > > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed
> into
> > > > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
> > at
> > > > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > > > whether
> > > > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think
> > > > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > "some
> > > > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > languages
> > > > on
> > > > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
> > > Then
> > > > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
> > folks
> > > > who
> > > > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> > > topic
> > > > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
> > to
> > > > any
> > > > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
> > groups
> > > > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> > > workers
> > > > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > > > workers"
> > > > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I
> respectfully
> > > > submit
> > > > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we
> all
> > > have
> > > > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really
> wrong
> > > > gets
> > > > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[Samuel Klein]

Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.

I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication*
to/from/about the current groups.  But I would be especially interested in
ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process)
could organize similar visions and proposals and priorities for the future,
in parallel.  Sometimes it is easier to develop crisp ideas as
contrast/critique of an existing process, than from scratch.  In which case
quirks of a process, like incomplete sections of articles, can serve as
helpful inspiration.

SJ


On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
>
> "The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the
> whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It
> is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global
> movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not
> organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being
> organised, yet they might want to participate.
> I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new
> ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do
> the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the
> status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more
> inclusive, approaches.
>
> > We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
> people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have
> ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> Ideas:
> - Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
> - Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent
> updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
> - Blog posts every 3-6 months
> - Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
> participants and community members
> - Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG
> participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language
> and participation barriers
> - Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
>
> > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities.
>
> I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of
> applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were
> not fulfilling.
>
> > As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
> published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts
> regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
>
> "Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the
> participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the
> motivation letters of the participants?
> I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know
> the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to
> format/structure it, I can help there.
>
> I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
> working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
> they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the
> value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and
> there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity
> within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is
> that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement,
> because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
>
> Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place,
> and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have
> been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the
> resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply
> once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also
> forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania.
>
> Have a nice day!
> Micru
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Micru,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
> > the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> > offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> > different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> > current status of the process.
> >
> > >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our 

[Wikimedia-l] Favoring FLOSS solutions and services [WAS: Re: Update #4: Upcoming call for participation in Working Groups]

[mathieu lovato stumpf guntz]

Hi Katherine and everyone,

Reading this email, my attention was caught by the fact that the video 
link is pointing to YouTube. I don't question the idea of publishing 
videos of the foundation on YouTube, the rational of having an immediate 
larger audience is obvious. But I think that wherever we can, we should 
promote FLOSS solutions and services first. All the more when we aim at 
becoming the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free 
knowledge, with anyone who shares our vision able to join us.


When it comes to host video, we should encourage Commons, at least when 
we point to them in official communications of the foundation. And 
include a link to the same video on Commons on every Youtube publication 
by the foundation would also be a way to better promote our own 
platform, maybe. Regarding video we might also have a look at 
peertube[1] as a potential element to add in the Wikimedia supported 
service stack. But that's an other point, for now pointing preferably to 
Commons would, to my mind, already be a best practice.


On the same topic, there are documents of the foundation which are 
written though Google Docs. That might be perceived as less problematic 
from a participation point of view as long as they are strictly internal 
documents. But of course once people are accustomed to a tool they will 
spontaneously use it for other documents, including documents on which 
community is expected to participate. When we invite the community to 
participate to edit a document using this kind of closed platform, I'm 
affraid that the tacit message will be "anyone can join us as long as 
they accept the terms of service of the closed platforms we use". /D//e 
facto,/ we promote them simply by using them and requiring others to 
also use them to participate, thus contributing to the reinforcement of 
closed platforms through network effects. I don't say that all feature 
of all closed platforms out there have complete FLOSS equivalents, but 
most of the time I don't see much interest to use closed platforms given 
what FLOSS services can provide. One might look at all services that 
Framasoft provide out of the box, based only on free software[2], each 
of them could have a wikimedia instance if needed.


Cheers

[1] https://joinpeertube.org/
[2] https://degooglisons-internet.org/fr/list/

Le 07/06/2018 à 03:36, Katherine Maher a écrit :

Dear all,

It’s been a while since I sent out the last movement strategy update. A lot
has happened in the meantime, and I wanted to give you a heads-up regarding
an upcoming call for participation!

But first things first:

1. The report from the Wikimedia Conference Movement Strategy Track

has been published[1]. It captures all the conversations, insights and
outputs from three days of intense strategy work, so it’s a (quite) long
but very interesting read. It is meant to document the state of the process
and to allow for a deep dive into it. It should be especially valuable for
those of you who did not have a chance to participate in the conference or
attended another conference track.

2. Based on WMCON outputs (and various conversations we’ve been having in
our movement for years), the core strategy team has mapped eight key
thematic areas

[2] -- and some initial guiding questions -- that should to be answered to
enable us to advance towards our strategic direction. These areas include:

- Roles & Responsibilities
- Resource Allocation & Revenue Streams
- Diversity
- Partnerships
- Capacity Building
- Community Health
- Technology
- Advocacy

3. The core team will be supporting the creation of Working Groups to take
on these critical conversations. These working groups will be asked to
assess the current situation of the thematic area, and obstacles and
opportunities. They’ll have access to all the relevant information already
collected, and the chance to do further research if needed. They’ll be
asked to identify the changes needed in movement structures and develop
concrete recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
them.[3] An open call for working group members will go out to the movement
this week -- please stay tuned for an update from Nicole!

I also had the chance to present more about these plans at last week’s
Metrics Meeting. Please do take a look, either look it all up on the
Meta[3] or watch the video![4]

Cheers,
Katherine


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas%3F

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Inc. working with Go Fish Digital, a company that whitewashes Wikipedia

[Mario Gómez]

Thank you for the update!

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input
> on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the
> possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this
> vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be
> helpful to this discussion.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish
> Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia.
> They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences
> department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and
> services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI)
> assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but we
> were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful for
> Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions about
> Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor,
> they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to
> identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
>
> The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been
> approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following
> standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in the
> inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract. Their
> activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did not
> request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract
> concluded last month.
>
> As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they
> should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will not
> be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will
> be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing
> their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally, we
> are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see if
> we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of
> concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with
> them. Finally, as they regularly do, our Trust and Safety team in Community
> Engagement are working with the functionaries investigating the possible
> policy violations.
>
> Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries
> and others who raised these concerns. We agree that the Foundation should
> avoid working with vendors who violate our policies, and hope the
> discussion around this will help reduce the chances of this happening in
> the future.
>
> Thank you,
> -greg
>
> ---
> Gregory Varnum
> Communications Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> gvar...@wikimedia.org
> Pronouns: He/Him/His
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Mario Gómez 
> wrote:
> >
> > I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation,
> > omitting any parts involving personal data:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_
> investigations/BurritoSlayer
> >
> > Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some
> > details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish
> > Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of
> >> Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on
> it
> >> themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet
> >> investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to
> >> continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM,  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here,
> please
> >>> bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to
> do
> >>> it
> >>> on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi Mario,
> 
>  I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
> >>> posted
>  here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and
> this
> >>> is
>  not English Wikipedia mailing list.
> 
>  Regards,
> 
>  Isaac
> 
>  On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 PM, "Mario Gómez" 
> wrote:
> 
>  There, is at least, one user that works for Go Fish Digital with a
>  sockpuppet account in English Wikipedia and has denied conflict of
> >>> interest
>  or paid editing disclosure even if he was asked too, since some user
> was
>  suspicious. Should I send

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hello Gerard,

AFAIK officially the PALOPs (Portuguese speaking African countries) use
European Portuguese. I'm quite used to reading news articles, laws, and
books from all those countries, and apart some local vocabulary, my
impression is that it's basically European Portuguese indeed. And at the
time we had Wikipedia Zero in Angola, one of the things that newbies & IPs
from there used to do was "correcting" Brazilian Portuguese to European
Portuguese in the articles.

They also speak creoule in many of those countries, but it doesn't count as
"Portuguese". I've no idea about the state of the local languages there, as
we hardly have any regular editors from those countries (I can only think
about 3, from Angola, at this point - one of them a sysop). But it
certainly is something that could develop, once a community is established.

All the best,

Paulo


2018-07-30 8:01 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> How about Portuguese from Africa?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jane,
> >
> > Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> > despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> > strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the
> point
> > that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
> > can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used
> to
> > have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
> > declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should
> use
> > the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
> > Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness
> and
> > knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
> > order to participate.
> >
> > Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and
> Galician
> > wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
> >
> > I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit
> of
> > everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
> > languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
> > over there, often in the same thread).
> >
> > I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
> > different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere
> "split
> > down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
> >
> > > Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there
> is
> > > often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> > > cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles.
> I
> > > think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> > > certain their country and by association, their language is the best,
> and
> > > any other speakers of their language should either conform or start
> their
> > > own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you
> haven't
> > > come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Jane,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that we are in fact
> > > split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on-
> and
> > > > offline".
> > > >
> > > > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression,
> at
> > > > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> > > God,
> > > > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting
> that
> > > > "some languages are better than others".
> > > >
> > > > All the best,
> > > >
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > > > interesting
> > > > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed
> into
> > > > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
> > at
> > > > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > > > whether
> > > > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think
> > > > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > "some
> > > > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > languages
> > > > on
> > > > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> offline".
> > > Then
> > > > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
> > folks
> > > > who
> > > > > work in just one language and never think of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How about Portuguese from Africa?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 27 July 2018 at 16:41, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hello Jane,
>
> Yes, maybe I have been lucky for having to deal with a Wikipedia that,
> despite having its fair share of problems, actually has not that kind of
> strife. We have 2 major linguistic varieties there (different to the point
> that stuff in European Portuguese is often subtitled in Brazil), and I
> can't remember the last time we had any problem related to that. We used to
> have some episodic problems, but since we passed a rule around 2011
> declaring that articles directly related to a geographic region should use
> the variety spoken in that geographic region, it ceased to be a problem.
> Language/variety diversity is often seen there as a source of richness and
> knowledge, and not as some kind of downside that people have to endure in
> order to participate.
>
> Some people of wiki.pt are also very active at the Mirandese and Galician
> wikis, projects with which we often engage in close collaboration.
>
> I'm also quite active at Commons, where we use mostly English, but a bit of
> everything as well (many categories are written using 2 different
> languages, for instance, and we often communicate in our native languages
> over there, often in the same thread).
>
> I wouldn't doubt that there are some people that despise languages
> different from the one they speak, but I don't believe it's anywhere "split
> down the middle". At least that is not my experience, at all.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Paulo
>
>
> 2018-07-27 14:57 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
>
> > Well just speaking from my experience with the nlwiki community, there is
> > often a tendency to e.g. delete Belgian versions of local folklore or
> > cuisine, or merge these into Dutch local folklore or cuisine articles. I
> > think in general, you could say that most mono-lingualists are fairly
> > certain their country and by association, their language is the best, and
> > any other speakers of their language should either conform or start their
> > own wiki, never mind local grammar rules, etc. I am surprised you haven't
> > come across this at all - consider yourself lucky!
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Jane,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that we are in fact
> > split down the middle into parties that believe
> > > "some languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > > languages on the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and
> > > offline".
> > >
> > > I don't know why do you wrote this, as I never had this impression, at
> > > all. We are split by languages since the Babel Tower was embargoed by
> > God,
> > > but I never, ever remember hearing someone saying or even hinting that
> > > "some languages are better than others".
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-07-25 8:28 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell :
> > >
> > > > Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some
> > > interesting
> > > > selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
> > > > forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians
> at
> > > > heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt
> > > whether
> > > > the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing.
> > > >
> > > > I think
> > > > that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe
> > "some
> > > > languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing
> > languages
> > > on
> > > > the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline".
> > Then
> > > > there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the
> folks
> > > who
> > > > work in just one language and never think of language as a movement
> > topic
> > > > at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe
> to
> > > any
> > > > mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping
> groups
> > > > between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field
> > workers
> > > > tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library
> > > workers"
> > > > tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully
> > > submit
> > > > that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all
> > have
> > > > enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong
> > > gets
> > > > proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something
> was
> > > > really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me
> being
> > > > unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g.
> > > personally
> > > > I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to
> > > seeing
> > > > they are useful - even on Wikidata.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> > > > m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>