Hoi, The basic assumption of Wikipedia is the article. When we are truly to reach out and take a next step, it has to be more than Wikipedia, more than obsessing with articles. People are not looking for articles, they are looking for information on subjects. Information on subjects may be delivered in the format of articles but it may also be delivered in the format of books data presentations and images.
This obsession of Wikipedia being the objective of all of that we do, the format that is to apply to everything we do is holding us back. A few examples; we do not officially present the data of Wikidata in a format that is useful to humans. Such formats have existed for years in the format of Reasonator and recently in the format of Scholia. Compare that to the bickering about including Wikidata in Wikipedia and it is obvious how Wikipedia is holding us back. Several volunteers used data from many sources and created a wealth of Wikipedia articles that would otherwise have hardly any at all. The verdict: it is not by a community and consequently it cannot be maintained. No research has been done, no outreach happened. It is a success story that does not fit the mold and is ignored. Within the movement there is a general agreement that the gender gap affects us all. It is why we celebrate the success of the diminishment of this gap and rightfully so as it is pervasive and recognisable in all of our projects. It is however not our biggest bias. Our biggest bias is the AngloAmerican bias. The only way out of it I see is in a change of outlook. Our outlook needs to be less Wikipedia and its articles and more about what DO we have on a subject and expose them in any form we have. Expose them together with all the organisations that have a compatible outlook. When we actively engage people who seek information by asking them to expand on what they seek, we will slowly but surely increase the amount of information we hold and have this information in all of our languages. This different approach can happily coexist with our Wikipedia bias. It does not take much to get it of the ground. What it does take is the realisation that Wikimedia is NOT Wikipedia. This is necessary for this experiment to start.. Thanks, GerardM On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 17:56, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat., Apr. 13, 2019, 2:27 a.m. Gerard Meijssen, < > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Wikipedia is indeed clearly the core global brand. The notion that > > Wikidata will "never match Wikipedia whatever its future success" is a > sad > > argument. > > > > You misunderstand me. I do not mean in importance: Wikidata will surely be > equally important to knowledge sharing, and more pervasive, though the two > are hard to compare and not independent. > > I mean purely in the memetics and brand sense: the history of humanity will > keep a mention of Wikipedia for centuries, should we persist that long. > Its success, elegance, and defiance of previous assumptions remains in many > places the dominant shorthand for crowdsourcing, period; for editable > websites; the standard visual template for reference works. > > Other projects that follow in those footsteps, even if they become much > more influential or pervasive, will not surpass the deep and broad appeal > of the original. > > ==== > > That said ! > > Aside from recognizing confusion around 'Wikimedia' that we can reduce, I > reckon a central > branding focus should be making our messaging and core interactions > (including Wikidata and Commons meta pages) truly interlingual. This takes > a combination of software, translators, and brand focus. It is the obvious > way to meaningfully amplify reach and participation in underrepresented > regions: literally underrepresented because the projects don't seem to > speak to or to know how to hear from them; and because of iterative network > effects of those on projects inviting their friends, enemies, and > colleagues. > > Rather than the somewhat zero sum efforts to change branding in a way that > shifts around community expectations (and may not attract any more > contributors), a branding effort that enhances cross language connection > and reminds people of the global bounty of the projects, would be an > updraft for all. > > Run translation drives every month, posting banners in other languages on > each project inviting participation. ;). Revel in the experimental > brokenness of multilingual-talk-page tools and invite pan-language web > designers to.come play + iterate with us, w a bit UN and translator-network > campaign. > > We don't have to keep repainting the sign on our house, we can now > relandscape the entire neighborhood. > > SJ > > p.s. if Commons hates 'Wikicommons' we can vid up and return to its > original name, MultimediaWiki. > _______________________________________________ > 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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>