Hoi,
You are not answering the question. You are only producing arguments that
may be meaningful to you but they do not explain why you are interested and
what you do to affect what you aim to achieve.
IMHO it is important for the WMF to concentrate on what it is that we do.
Make it more relevant in every possible way. When you ask for overarching
vision, I want the WMF to explain why Wikisource does not get its
audience? I want us to engage more in bringing quality to Wikipedia and it
is not theoretical what I propose I have challenged anyone to refute my
arguments about associating red links and wiki links with Wikidata items
and how it will improve quality.
My point is; I want substance. I want us to concentrate on the things that
help us to "share in the sum of all knowledge". For me your demands take
time and more importantly energy away from the real questions. We should
start with "share in the sum of our available knowledge" because this is
achievable and we do not really consider it.
I refer to your user page when I say that you are not involved. So you make
no difference but demand attention. We have better things to do things that
do not get done either. Please let us concentrate on what we can do to make
a meaningful effort and let us consider the issues as we know them.
Seriously better quality to Wikipedia requires a small change that nobody
needs to see, that people can opt in to and the people that do will improve
the quality in all Wikipedias. Again, I challenge anyone to show where my
arguments fail reality.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 13 January 2017 at 23:34, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Gerard,
>
> It isn't personal to me at all, of course. I'm not asking for privileged
> access to these plans or my own personal personal copy. I am requesting
> that the Foundation publish their medium to long term technical planning,
> the technical roadmap if you will, to the community so that the community
> can discuss and help to develop them. It seems to me that this is the only
> way that the Foundation and the Community can move forward effectively. In
> the absence of this sort of joined-up thinking we will continue to get such
> disfunctional episodes as MediaViewer and Gather.
>
> I asked the Executive Director for "a clear concise and measurable set of
> obectives around the areas of Visual Editor, Wikitext, Parsoid, Flow,
> Workflow and Discovery" back on the 24 June 2016. On the 5 January this
> year, Katherine stated that that sort of discussion "isn't the most
> effective use of my time". I find that regrettable, but it is of course
> her decision.
>
> I cannot believe that the Foundation does not have some sort of roadmap of
> the sort I have been requesting, and indeed, frankly if the Foundation went
> to a grant-making body and admitted that there was nothing of the kind to
> show them, they would be laughed at. Since that isn't happening, the
> Foundation have shared their planning with donors. So why not share it
> with the Community? What could the downside possibly be?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Rogol,
> > When I check out your profile, you are retired. Maybe you do not know any
> > more but the WMF has been pretty consistent in the way that it operates
> > over the years. So in details things change and arguably it could be
> > different for all kinds of reasons. But as the WMF is not actively going
> > for grants it would not surprise me that it is exact the consistency in
> its
> > actions that gives grant-giving bodies the assurances that they need.
> >
> > The question to you is what is it to you. Why are you not satisfied with
> > your answers and where would satisfactory answers lead us to? My problem
> > with the WMF and its community that is that it is stuck too much in
> things
> > we could improve upon. I am actively engaged in getting towards a vision
> > that I share in mailing lists and on my blog.
> >
> > What is your vision, what is it that you want?
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > On 12 January 2017 at 23:20, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Fæ, Surely no grant-giving body would even talk to the Foundation if it
> > > could not show them a plan for the medium to long term. For some
> reason,
> > > the Foundation is consistently unwilling to share this plan with the
> > > Community (its biggest donor in terms both of money and surplus value).
> > I
> > > wonder why that would be?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No need, it's on webarchive:
> > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20170112103412/https://upload.
> > > > wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/d/dd/Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Unlike Wikimedia projects, Webarchive has a long term plan that one
> > > > would expect of a digital archive, so it's a much safer space for
> > > > historical documents.
> > > >
> > > > I stopped asking about an equivalent realistic Wikimedia 100 year
> plan
> > > > a couple of years back. The $100m endowment thingy controlled by
> Jimmy
> > > > does not have this as a goal either, as far as I can tell.
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > >
> > > > On 12 January 2017 at 00:41, Newyorkbrad <newyorkb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > If it is decided not to host these materials on a wiki, whether for
> > > > > copyright or any other reasons, then someone (either in the Office
> or
> > > > > a volunteer) should be designated to retain a copy privately. That
> > > > > way, he or she will be able to upload it later if the copyright
> > status
> > > > > or policy changes in the future, or to make it available offline
> for
> > > > > research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
> > > > > could make good use of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Newyorkbrad/IBM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is
> that
> > > Meta
> > > > >> Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year
> and
> > a
> > > > half
> > > > >> ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14
> votes,
> > > > total),
> > > > >> but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on
> > > both
> > > > >> sides.[1]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In my opinion, the best outcome would be that Meta Wiki should
> have
> > an
> > > > >> Exemption Doctrine Policy (the board's name for a project's local
> > > policy
> > > > >> that would permit copyrighted files under specific
> > circumstances)[2] I
> > > > >> think the Meta Wiki decision should be revisited and considered in
> > > more
> > > > >> depth, with more participation, and probably reversed (with some
> > > careful
> > > > >> work on defining the proper circumstances for an exemption).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But of course, that's not an easy task. I have no ready answer,
> but
> > am
> > > > >> interested to see what ideas others have.
> > > > >> -Pete
> > > > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&;
> > > > diff=prev&oldid=13362698#General_discussion_on_
> > > allowing_or_rejecting_fair_
> > > > use_at_Meta
> > > > >> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_
> > policy
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Yann Forget <yan...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I would like to get more opinions about what to do with files
> such
> > as
> > > > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Education_and_WGIG.pdf
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This is a draft from a United Nations conference which mentions
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > >>> (the first and only AFAIK), and as such, an important historical
> > > > document.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It doesn't have a formal license, but there is no real copyright
> > > issue.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Where and how should we keep such files?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Yann Forget
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
