Greetings and good day, >> What you have to ask yourself: If it had been named "Wikipedia Foundation" >> from the start, would you have left it? – That's citing an imaginary situation while dealing with a real problem.
Thanks Tito Dutta On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 at 03:44, 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
