Guys ,
Hope I'm not overstaying my welcome. But could we look at a few things. I was reading Liam's (beautifully thought out) suggestion about a professional journal. http://www.wittylama.com/2009/09/wikipedia-journal/ And understand why he's writing it. "the original concept for this proposal grew out of working on The <http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/sydney_journal/issue/archive> Sydney Journal, a side-project of the Dictionary of <http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org/www/html/7-home-page.asp> Sydney". This, to me, is reducing some brilliant minds, like I saw on stage at GLAMwiki, to the level of some bureaucrats masquerading as educators. If they can get away with producing their puffery (the Sydney journal) at the expense of the public purse, good luck to them. If they want to take advantage of Wikipedia by linking from this search's result http://www.google.com/search?q=sydney to their dictionary, then lucky for them. Wikipedia is the first stop for references good and bad. It is their best BILLBOARD, which in the real world of media they would be charged for. To believe that "given up-front academic legitimacy the Journal would need to be sponsored by an academic research funding body" is simply falling into the mindset of people with so little imagination they are unemployable outside academia. They have little to do with the (global) media industries of the future. So very few academic journals would survive in the real world. Institutional librarians on the other hand (like my good friend Fides at the UTS silo) are so lacking in experience of the real world that they can't see how to encourage (market) their authors to work with their global peers and build social networks, so their academic institutions don't get ripped off by the publishers. But we know all that, don't we? http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-future-of-science-2/ At the same time, my (quiet, unsung) hero, has pointed something out which is SO obvious and I'm sure would encourage people like me, and the timid ones in San Fran, to get involved. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/177857#177857 If there was any way to implement meta.forums.wikimedia, and make it something moderated like sitepoint, where if someone starts raving, they aren't deleted but moved to a room's thread, where they can talk something through quietly (or loudly), we might have a chance to move Wikimedia 3.0 along. This is not a matter of either (an email list) or (a web based forum). It's a matter of (as Rupert Murdoch would say) choice. How about we ask HO to sponsor a competition down at sitpoint (after giving them a spec). It would allow someone like me to go to Akamai and ask them if they would like to sponsor this first step to addressing some Real Time Communication's solutions for global groups. We can't rely on Skype forever. A bit of politics. I know you won't believe me when I suggest (as I have) that a Minister might say "put a cc license on every cultural site". But things are moving along. I notice that none of the "requests to GLAM's, or Gov") appear on this list. http://wiki.katelundy.com.au/PublicSphere3/Recommendations which seems strange. Would you consider taking Siliconbeach approach, and helping Pia put them on the Paper she's presenting to Kimmy? Pity to see all that hard work go to nought after your creative industry. And if you want to be real nice, you might like to vote for her. http://gov2taskforce.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/14278-5361 I'm a bit busy doing some lobbying with the old farts (like me). http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/proc/reports.htm All the best.
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
