Hi Xavier and all, You say, "even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider a disbelief towards its own content legacies"
It seems these rebranding efforts are in fact ongoing after all. According to Meta,[1] the fundraising emails sent to donors over the past few months have had Jimmy Wales signing off as follows: Thanks, Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Foundation [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundraising&diff=next&oldid=22133512 Email text linked in that edit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OAjBvUJh3cwuYDzpXRusX7HqOOJIwtTfLXgTMRsblAc/edit?usp=sharing Archive link: https://archive.fo/J30ls On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 12:37 AM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi/Bona nit > > Specifically regarding the last emails about videos and new formats in > university students and their use of Wikipedia. A truth is that we already > had the chance to integrate better multimedia contents and formats via some > channels that he already had: our sister projects. > > Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikisource were in the past powerful and > attractive tools, valid to integrate knowledge in more flexible > (non-enciclopedic) forms until mid- last decade. Until they were abandoned > with no further tech investing. I remember having trained and mentorized > schools, universities and public institutions in Catalonia on Wikibooks > until 2015. It was seen as a really valid alternative by then. > > Since then WikiHow, Moodle, StuDocu, Notion or other participative niches > have progressed with some multimedia inclusions as better opportunities > than the WMF sister projects —even the WMF tried to rebrand itself from > «Wikimedia Foundation» to «Wikipedia Foundation» in a move that I consider > a disbelief towards its own content legacies. All this, despite many > small-sized community efforts and requests to claim for better integration > of multimedia features, that imho are the key to get these projects a bit > back to new success. I don’t think that these competitors offer amazing > features that we could not develop (apart from their cuter and cleaner > interfaces?). > > Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore I find that is normal that has > some conceptual limitations in how it shapes and shows the content. You > rely in other niches for more specific stuff. However, this may be easily > tackled in Wikimedia if sister projects' potential and existing contents > would be really valued and connected. > > That way, if videos are one of the reasons why there is a loss of readers > (I agree that we should be able to see longers trend to unmask possible > covid peaks) on Wikipedia, we could still redirect/invite/seduce them to > alternatives that are still interactive, Open Access, participative & > transparent (i.e. Wikimedia wikis). > > Best, > > Xavier Dengra > > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3LAQRI6NGVKMYZAZNAMLCGY4KKSNUEWV/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
