Hoi,
At the time there were enough people who did not want a Wikipedia
Foundation so it did not happen. People insisted for the Wikimedia
Foundation to concentrate on Wikipedia and English Wikipedia at that and
that is what happened. In a marketing driven organisation, there would be
people specifically tasked with understanding, developing, optimising the
other brands. It was the German chapter that developed and still develops
Wikidata. Key parts are left to the Wikimedia Foundation; they are
integration of Commons, hardware and performance search and marketing...
The assertion that all the other projects are there to support Wikipedia is
not easy to explain. What is abundantly clear is that the existing bias for
the support of English means that the market for English is largely
saturated. We are at a point where Wikidata is at a point where it
overtakes English Wikipedia in supporting the other projects.
* Commons is now searchable *in any language* thanks to Special:MediaSearch
[1]. It just takes further development and marketing to make Commons bigger
than many of the commercial alternatives because of this.
* Scholia needs internationalisation and localisation. Having said that, it
already points to later papers for what you find in the reference section
of many/most articles. It follows that what was a NPOV at a time is no
longer neutral. Increasingly Scholia templates find their way on English
Wikipedia articles.That is how it "serves" Wikipedia
* Scholia is increasingly used by scientists in their professional
capacity. The demand for Wikidata increases autonomously as a result.
* Given that Wikidata knows about Wikisource, it could know about the
status of Wikisource books et al. This provides a basis to market the
finished product to an audience that would exponentially grow.
* This is not exhaustive
The point is that Wikimedia Foundation needs to market to realise its goal;
share in the sum of all knowledge. That is what it is there for and has
written a 2030 strategy for. It should not be beholden to Wikipedia or
anyone.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=bitmap&q=%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AC+%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%A9+%D8%AF%DB%8C%DA%A9
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 00:14, Lars Aronsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2020-06-19 09:58, Nicolas VIGNERON wrote:
> > All three options remove the term "Wikimedia" to replace it by
> > "Wikipedia" and indeed, there is no statu quo option...
>
>
> In my opinion, it was a mistake in 2003, when the foundation was
> established,
> to invent a new name for it. If it had been called "Wikipedia
> Foundation" from
> the start, it would have been so much easier to explain to friends,
> collaboration
> partners and donors what we are. We are a foundation to support Wikipedia
> (and also its sister projects). Wikisource, Wiktionary and the rest are
> just that:
> They are sister projects to Wikipedia, always were, always have been.
>
> Only Wikipedia is the groundbreaking innovation that could win the Nobel
> Prize
> (for peace, perhaps?). None of the sister projects could qualify for this.
> While Wikisource is great, we should be humble and grateful that we can
> benefit from all the money and technology around Wikipedia, including
> events like Wikimania.
>
> What you have to ask yourself: If it had been named "Wikipedia Foundation"
> from the start, would you have left it? Would you have left Wikisource, in
> order to administrate your own, separate, independent project? Asaf Bartov
> does this with Project Ben-Yehuda. I do this with Project Runeberg. These
> are not part of Wikisource, not part of the Wikipedia/-media movement.
> But we never broke away from Wikisource. The reason we maintain our
> own projects is because they are older than Wikisource. It is a lot of
> extra
> work to administrate your own project. If this kind of extra administration
> is your mission in life, perhaps you should leave Wikisource and run your
> own? See how fun that is.
>
> In my case, I could close down Project Runeberg and merge with Wikisource,
> if it weren't for some differences in licensing. Much of what I have
> digitized
> there can not fit in Wikisource. And so I continue to carry the extra
> burden
> of administrating my own project. But it's not because I hate the Wikipedia
> movement or Wikisource. On the contrary, I was active in establishing
> the Swedish chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation in 2007. And I have spent
> too much time explaining the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia.
>
> I wish it had been named "Wikipedia Foundation" from the start. When the
> burden of dual names was obvious in 2015, I wish the foundation had just
> renamed itself quickly without asking anyone. It would have been
> criticized,
> but now it is criticized anyway after very long and slow process, so no
> gain.
>
>
> --
> Lars Aronsson ([email protected])
> Linköping, Sweden
>
> Project Runeberg - free Nordic literature - http://runeberg.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
