On 9/26/2017 6:34 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
So what is Wikipedia-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l> for? It is
describe "for issues specific to Wikipedia (and not sister projects such as
Wiktionary) but affecting editions of Wikipedia in more than one language".
Exactly what you are talking about "content about Wikipedia,
*particularly* when not specific to any one language"...
In terms of the original design, you are correct that wikipedia-l was intended for this. However, if I may attempt to restate Asaf's point, that list has no meaningful activity, and it is counterproductive to insist that people use it when this list can serve the purpose. Initiating a productive conversation on this list is already work enough, we should not multiply the effort needed by requiring that someone also revive a comatose mailing list.

That being said, if someone else wanted to take on the second task (reviving wikipedia-l) and forwarded this message there, or started a parallel conversation, I don't think that would be particularly problematic. But as this situation indicates, there is a challenge involved in determining how to use our multiplicity of lists with adjacent and potentially overlapping topic areas. I suspect the activity patterns into which we have drifted should tell us something about the optimum configuration of lists and topics, in the same way that say, Wikiversity languishing while Wikidata flourishes should tell us something about the optimum number of projects we can support.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to