As far as I am concerned we have working and workable procedures. The
problem that I see is that the primacy is not with the "community" in
everything. We have multiple communities and there is no single subset that
can claim sovereignty over everything with the possible exception of the
board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Who has an explicit role in this.

What I have observed is that there is too much discussion that can be
characterised with "turf war" and too little discussion about what it is we
do and how we can improve on it. Quality of the content of our projects
trumps what some of the community want every time. We are so engrossed in
what we do and for most of the vocal ones it is English Wikipedia so much
so that we accept its resolutions as resolutions. They are often baked in
the software and to be honest that is extremely problematic.

When you start with our primary objective; sharing the sum of all
knowledge, the experiment performed on the Volap√ľk Wikipedia is of extreme
interest. It generated a lot of articles using translation software and the
result was a lot of interest including people reading it. Fast forward and
you find articles created based on DATA for Wikipedias that are actually
useful. These articles provide a purpose and are read. People still object
because their role as an editor is diminished and "who is going to update
when the data is wrong?".  Issues like this can be solved but they do not
get attention by the WMF staff because of "the community". They do not get
attention from the "community leaders" because obviously it would not play
well with "their" community.

Just consider what we are about. Are we about what we aim to achieve or are
we about whatever "community" and the interplay with its "adversary"  the
Foundation? I do care about what we aim to achieve, I resent the
inattention our objectives get.

On 6 March 2017 at 20:07, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gerard
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 7:28 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > For Rogol and Pine I have an additional challenge; when the WMF is to
> > support the community, is their time better spend serving quality or is
> > their time better spend discussing endless procedures that make us stick
> in
> > the mud as it stifles initiative?
> >
> A fallacious dichotomy, as no doubt you were well aware.  We need to
> establish working and workable procedures that allow Community and
> Foundation to engage together in planning at the level of long-term
> strategy and medium-term technical roadmap so that the WMF are able to
> deliver quality products that support the mission effectively.  Do you
> think we have those already?  Or do you think we can do without them?
> "Rogol"
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to