Doh! For "Wikipedia community governance review" at the end of the first paragraph read "Wikimedia UK governance review".
A. On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > An idea that arose from a discussion on whether to lift restrictions on > Gibraltarpedia hooks on the English Wikipedia main page (1), in the wake of > the recently published Wikipedia community governance review (2): > > Would it not make sense to run content generation projects with a local > focus – think Maltapedia, Guyanapedia etc. – under the aegis and > supervision of the foundation, and with funding from donations and > university grants, much like the Public Policy Initiative? This could > involve hiring a freelance consultant to coordinate the project, paid and > supervised by the foundation rather than a tourism office. > > Note that the Wikimedia UK governance review** commented on page 31 on an > absence of "career paths" for Wikipedians, with the result that people had > begun "inventing them". This type of project could provide a bona fide > career path for Wikipedians that would remain under the supervision and > control of the foundation. > > Content selection could be done strictly on the basis of an encyclopedic > needs assessment, rather than on the basis of commercial interest. For > example, if a particular country is poorly covered, or if there are dozens > of sizeable Chinese cities that Wikipedia doesn't have articles for yet, > there could be a corresponding Wikimedia project to expand coverage. > > Given that the foundation is "flush with funds, short on volunteers" (3), > it strikes me that this could also be a powerful recruitment tool: a > project like Maltapedia could be widely advertised in the press and > specialist journals, along with a call for knowledgeable members of the > public to come forward and join the effort, complete with a competition and > prizes sponsored by the foundation. Publicity around such projects could > also draw topic suggestions from the general public. > > This would be an alternative to projects like Monmouthpedia and > Gibraltarpedia, which are funded by local government, tourism offices and > the like, and are managed by private contractors. It might also avoid some > of the pitfalls associated with these projects. > > Of course, there is no need to bar the latter type of project. There could > still be a free market for this type of more commercially motivated > community project, independently of the foundation's own projects. > > However, in order to cut out the paid product placement element, articles > generated as part of such free-market projects should not qualify for > Wikipedia main page DYK slots. Even without main page placement, there is > still a benefit for people locally from better online coverage of their > area; the incentive for participation should no longer include the promise > of coverage on Wikipedia main pages (4), or incentivise the submission of > DYKs. > > Andreas > > (1) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Gibraltar-related_DYKs > > (2) > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_UK_gov_review_rpt_v5.djvu > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_UK_Governance_Review_Descriptive_Chronology_v6.djvu > > (3) > http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-13/wikipedia-faces-shortage-of-editors/4515928 > > (4) > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rO6ZrWJeaOM#t=742s > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
