On 9/26/2017 6:34 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
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.
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"...
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.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com