My usual optimism can sometimes lead to disappointment, but I think I'd rather have it that way. Projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia have a huge potential for doing good work, and they need the community to support and engage with them to make sure they deliver that good work.
I am pleased to read Andreas' précis of the extent to which he would support projects, but it's worth fleshing out the positive side of engaging in such projects, either as volunteers or as a body: 1. There is an opportunity to create many new encyclopedic articles, not only in English but also in myriad other languages. 2. There is an opportunity to take and publish photographs of notable objects and people. 3. There is an opportunity to enthuse existing editors and recruit new editors, training them as we go along. 4. There is an opportunity to create networks to support more projects between interested groups who share our aims. For example, Monmouthpedia generated many new articles in multiple languages as well as new photographs; the volunteers' efforts have helped vitalise the Welsh Wikipedia; the contacts made are leading to a shift in attitude of the Welsh Government and academia towards free and open licensing of work that they create or are custodians of. Gibraltarpedia has the potential to involve the whole area from Gibraltar into North Africa and create links between British, Spanish and North African wikimedians - perhaps even help to establish new communities of wikimedians where they do not yet exist. Andreas' concerns are clearly genuinely held, and we should never fear honest scrutiny and criticism. I'm looking forward to seeing new initiatives in the future and I'd welcome everyone's input on how best to ensure that they meet the vision of our wiki-movement. Contributions from our sternest critics are potentially the most valuable. -- Rexx On 12 February 2013 13:41, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas, > > I don't think there is much wrong with projects like Monmouthpedia and > Gibraltarpedia at all. When I first heard about Monmouthpedia, I thought it > was a great project. > > Problems arose from – > > 1. the conflation of roles within the chapter, > 2. the projects' being plainly described as tourism marketing initiatives > in the press, and > 3. the use of the Wikipedia main page to increase project and customer > visibility. > > I see a PR, credibility and integrity problem for the Wikimedia movement > if such projects are prominently sold by Wikimedia as marketing projects > designed to increase tourism – because this means we are saying it is fine > to leverage Wikipedia to boost local business. > > Similarly, I don't think it is wise to leverage the main page to enhance > such projects' visibility, or for Wikimedia UK to endorse any such use of > the main page. Commercial interests should be kept at arm's length from WMF > and the chapter, and from the Wikipedia identity. > > I don't want to see the Wikipedia main page play host to all manner of > hidden commercial interests, especially when the commercial background is > not transparent to the average reader. In relation to the lack of > transparency, there is also a potential legal problem here under EU > legislation, as described in the Signpost a while back: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_and_notes > > > In my view, Wikimedia should support such projects as outreach efforts, to > get people involved in writing content, but not as marketing ploys. > > In terms of content generation, and getting people involved in Wikipedia, > these are good projects, and to that degree I support them. > > Best, > Andreas > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Thomas Dalton > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the >> > Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like >> > Gibraltarpedia. >> >> What do you count as "projects like Gibraltarpedia"? Are you opposed >> to the entire concept of wikitowns? Or is it the specific >> circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
