On 13 July 2010 09:05, Charles Matthews <[email protected]>wrote:
> James Alexander wrote: > > On a related note: someone brought this Times article to the meetup in > > Boston Monday > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/business/media/12link.html. > > There is some truth to it I think and the staffing changes reflect that > some > > with a larger focus on development outside en. > > > > > Having discussed certain things with Liam Wyatt face-to-face after the > British Museum workshop, I'm prepared to say that I disagree somewhat > with him as a pundit (as distinct from an activist). It is so not true > that enWP is "full" in any sense. We still don't get careful analysis of > our "brand" in the media, though they make fewer complete blunders about > WP in the past. > <snip> > Charles > > Just a quick reply - I also do not think WP (and especially en-wp) is "full" in any sense. The quote from the article is: “By definition, as it gets bigger, people don’t have as many places to start. It is a good problem to have, but it is a problem.” And that's just one quote pulled from a much wider conversation and therefore has a necessary lack of contextualisation. As Noam's article put it, the community in general and the WMF are starting to push (in a variety of ways) into engaging different kinds of people - people in developing countries and also subject-area experts especially. I think everyone agrees that it's no longer as easy to "just jump right in" to en-wp as it used to be which is because we have much better content than we used to - this is the "good problem". But I also think that we all agree that there's definitely a long way to go before en-wp could be considered "full". IMO we're only just scratching the surface of what we can eventually achieve :-) -Liam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
