Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

A Wikimedia project has forked

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


werespielchequers at gmail

Sep 13, 2011, 4:25 AM

Post #51 of 79 (1118 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

It isn't entirely clear from the posts on this list whether this is a fork
of half the community of WikiNews or half of EN Wikinews. Looking at the
OpenGlobe site I get the impression it is the latter. Clearly there is a
difference in impact between the two, and it would be good to hear from
those who've chosen not to fork as to how healthy the rest of Wikinews is
and how they intend to respond to the fork.

If OpenGlobe succeed in creating an equally open but more inclusionist fork
that is more friendly, and also more welcoming to new editors, then they
will be hard to compete with. It is a good aim though and very sad that they
thought they had to fork to achieve it. When the anti advertising fork
happened wikimedia responded by dropping plans for advertising, and I hope
that we can respond to this fork with a similar attitude of seeking to
address the problems that drove people away.

I wish both forks well. We now need to be realistic that News is a yet more
crowded market, and other than closer synergy between Wikinews and Wikipedia
I see difficulty in getting WikiNews to the point where the problems that
inspired the fork can be resolved. One possible solution would be to try and
get the WikiProjects to be more generically Wikimedia rather than as at
present very Wikipedia focussed. This could be done by running a bot on
WikiNews to inform relevant Wikiprojects, so when someone submitted a
wikinews story relating to Archaeology in India, Wikiprojects India and
Archaeology both had requests for reviewers.

Another solution would be to upend our approach to IT development, whether
you are a fan of Wikilove and article feedback both are very much topdown
initiatives. I think it would be great if we could ringfence some IT budget
for bottom up initiatives, the image filter consultation had a question as
to how important that development was, but lacked the comparators that would
have made the question meaningful. What I'd like to see is a
prioritisation page on Meta comparing the priority of multiple potential
developments, - much like the way Wikimania chooses presentations. That way
projects and editors could make a pitch for IT investments that their
communities actually had consensus for - currently even EN wiki can get
consensus for change but not get IT resource for it to happen.

Regards

WereSpielChequers



On 13 September 2011 06:39, <foundation-l-request [at] lists>wrote:

> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l [at] lists
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request [at] lists
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner [at] lists
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (Stephen Bain)
> 2. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (geni)
> 3. Re: Wiki Loves Monuments (Was: On curiosity, cats and
> scapegoats) (Milos Rancic)
> 4. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (Erik Moeller)
> 5. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (Sue Gardner)
> 6. Re: A Wikimedia project has forked (Phil Nash)
> 7. The Wikinews fork: updates (Tempodivalse)
> 8. Re: On curiosity, cats and scapegoats (Keegan Peterzell)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:36:54 +1000
> From: Stephen Bain <stephen.bain [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID:
> <CAO5b2ftngOmENaYDQ7F4nQ8Tx3fG0d5FOMzWwfOiHqYndhNwbQ [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> >
> > I would characterize WMF's prioritization as an "A rising tide lifts
> > all boats" policy. Improvements are generally conceived to be widely
> > usable, both in Wikimedia projects and even outside the Wikimedia
> > environment, and to have the largest possible impact. Even if a first
> > deployment is Wikipedia, they will generally benefit other projects as
> > well.
>
> I believe the correct name for that is the trickle-down effect :)
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain [at] gmail
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:15:51 +0100
> From: geni <geniice [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID:
> <CAOU87sQPag3+ULEmDZT78bVLR+=8MSo+C6BjcS9vJfATeoVefA [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
> > Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
> > What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>
> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
> field pretty much to itself when it started.
>
> > ?MZM, you are
> > confused in this thread - Wikimedia doesn't exist to serve EN:WP, or
> > to serve its most popular *current* project, it exists to support the
> > global dissemination of all sorts of knowledge, and collaboration to
> > create that knowledge.
>
> The reality is however that it's always en.pedia that is on the
> receiving end of whatever the foundation wants to do at any given
> time.
>
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:45:59 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki Loves Monuments (Was: On curiosity,
> cats and scapegoats)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID:
> <CAHPiQ2FBuo_0Zg_Oa91z1ZbHC-P=m_R9ixa61oZseFRQt9PpFQ [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
>
> 2011/9/12 Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek [at] gmail>:
> > W dniu 12 wrze?nia 2011 19:30 u?ytkownik Tomasz Koz?owski
> > <odder.wiki [at] gmail> napisa?:
> >> On 12.09.2011 19:05, Milos Rancic wrote:
> >>
> >>> Eh, wrong example. There is Wikimedia Macedonia and they really hate
> >>> monuments because every local tycoon builds monuments in Macedonia,
> >>> presently.
> >>
> >> What was that supposed to mean? Either I don't get the joke or this
> >> isn't really a joke, is it?
> >>
> >
> > Maybe it is just missunderstanding of word "monument"? In "Wiki Loves
> > Monuments" it does not mean a memorial statue of the person, but an
> > "unmovable pice of human heritage" such as historical buildings, old
> > towns, old cementaries, etc. So - a recently built memoral of recent
> > political or social activities rather do not fulfill the definition.
> > In order to avoid this missunderstanding we called our (Polish) part
> > of "Wiki Loves Monuments" -"Wiki Lubi Zabytki". Maybe in Macedonian
> > there is similar word to Polish "zabytek" ?
>
> Not expert in Macedonian, but I think that you are probably right, as
> it seems that nouns are the same in Serbian: "spomenik" is both
> particular ("memorial statue") and general word (Belgrade Castle is
> also "spomenik"). There is a word "monument", but that one means
> something of really big importance (Egyptian pyramids are "monument";
> while even Belgrade Castle isn't usually named with that word;
> Wikipedia could be called "monument", as well) or for something very
> old, usually connected with civilization which doesn't exist anymore
> (obelisks could be called "monument").
>
> And, yes, according to Macedonians which I know (including
> Wikimedians), there is ongoing "monument/statue rush" in Macedonia.
> It's a kind of subcultural kitch movement among richer Macedonians. At
> lesser level, it could be seen in the rest of Balkans, as well.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:55:35 -0700
> From: Erik Moeller <erik [at] wikimedia>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID:
> <CAEg6ZHkKJZsWza+3RzUpkFiDdL4HhcT_EjVQuhawb6q37Hs=Rw [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:26 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
> > My point is that without specific focus, these
> > other sites languish and slowly die. A software package that was built
> for
> > an encyclopedia can't work for a dictionary. It doesn't work for a
> > dictionary. It also can't and doesn't work for a number of other
> concepts.
>
> Of course, up to this point we all agree. That said, far from a myopic
> focus on English Wikipedia, strategies to support specialized needs
> and exploration of new ideas have long been very much a high priority
> for WMF. It's an issue that's very clearly articulated in the
> "Encourage Innovation" section of the strategic plan:
>
> [begin quote]
> Support the infrastructure of networked innovation and research.
> - Develop clear documentation and APIs so that developers can create
> applications that work easily with our platforms.
> - Ensure access to computing resources and data for interested
> researchers and developers, including downloadable copies of all
> public data.
> - Continually improve social and technical systems for volunteer
> development of core software, extensions, gadgets and other technical
> improvements.
>
> Promote the adoption of great ideas.
> - Develop clear processes for code review, acceptance and deployment
> so that volunteer development does not linger in limbo.
> - Organize meetings and events bringing together developers and
> researchers who are focused on Wikimedia-related projects with
> experienced Wikimedia volunteers and staff.
> - Showcase and recognize the greatest innovations of the Wikimedia
> movement, and create community spaces dedicated to the exploration of
> new ideas.
> [end quote]
>
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Encourage_Innovation
>
> That strategy is very much reflected in our actions and our budgeting,
> as is evident from consulting recent activity reports.
>
> One can legitimately criticize that this helps achieve incremental
> improvements across the board, but leaves a gap of "large, focused
> investment to meet specialized needs" (e.g. build new software to
> support a wiki-based dictionary). But it doesn't necessarily have to
> do so.
>
> IMO, the question that's worth asking is: What's the constraint that's
> keeping more people from launching successful initiatives under the
> Wikimedia umbrella? There are clearly both technical and social
> constraints. One technical constraint is the fact that taking an
> initiative from scratch to a successful launch requires considerable
> WMF support along the way. How can we reduce the need for WMF
> organizational support?
>
> The Wikimedia Labs project (
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Labs ) is designed to push
> that boundary. In the "Test Dev Labs" environment, the goal is to make
> it possible to test and develop software under conditions that are
> very close to the WMF production environment. This means that,
> provided you're willing to invest sufficient resources, you should be
> able to get a project much closer to "WMF readiness" than you are
> today with far less WMF help. Indeed, it is designed to not become an
> on-ramp for new volunteers not just in development, but also site
> operations.
>
> That's of course a risky project and it may not live up to our
> expectations. But it's IMO a smarter bet to make than just picking
> (with an unavoidable element of arbitrariness) one of the many
> specialized areas in which we currently aren't succeeding and throwing
> $ and developers at it. Because it could enable us to approach far
> more organizations and individuals to invest time and money in complex
> free knowledge problems without having to pass through the WMF
> bottleneck.
>
> There are literally thousands of mission-driven organizations that
> would love to find ways to help solve problems in the free knowledge
> spaces we're occupying. Yet, even Wikimedia's own chapter
> organizations are still only a relatively small part of the ecosystem
> of technical innovation (which is no discredit to the many things they
> have done, including some great technical work).
>
> Having organizations take on challenges either because they are
> inherently suited to do so, or simply because they have the
> organizational bandwidth, seems like a fairly rational path to
> increase our ability to get things done. If that's the world we want
> to live in, it also seems entirely rational to me that WMF should
> focus on general high impact improvements while continually investing
> a considerable amount of its capacity in helping more people to build
> great things.
>
> In addition to technical support systems, forks can be a very good and
> healthy part of that development (to break out of social constraints),
> as can be the development of new organizations. A Wikinews
> Foundation, or a Wiki Journalism Foundation, or some other such
> construct may make a lot of sense in the long run, specifically when
> it comes to the problem of citizen journalism.
>
> --
> Erik M?ller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:36:27 -0700
> From: Sue Gardner <sgardner [at] wikimedia>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID:
> <CAGZ0=LMsBjgFOJFkhnA0cbTMN9h2mr16ik+hGbF1heSXp=-KuQ [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geniice [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
> >> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
> >
> > Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> > rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
> > original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
> > operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
> > field pretty much to itself when it started.
>
>
> On the English Wikinews [1] at least, it's seemed to me that part of
> the issue is that different editors are working on different genres of
> news. Some do celebrity coverage, others do investigative work or
> collaborative coverage of breaking events, etc. Those are quite
> different value propositions that appeal to different types of
> readers, and I would think that Wikinews has simply never produced
> enough critical mass of any one genre, sufficient to create and
> maintain a large readership that wants that genre.
>
> Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
> because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
> look like. I think that's true, and I think Wikinews has suffered in
> comparison, because there are many different types of news, not just
> one.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
> [1] the only one I personally can read
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 04:04:18 +0100
> From: "Phil Nash" <phnash [at] blueyonder>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID: <94B3D8AB562741668345CAC74D7A1089 [at] mothere50f7f7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geniice [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
> >>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
> >>> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
> >>
> >> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> >> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
> >> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
> >> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
> >> field pretty much to itself when it started.
> >
> > Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
> > because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
> > look like.
>
> Practical experience on a day-to-day basis would suggest that this is
> unduly
> optimistic. We are failing to attract new editors who can be, or wish to
> be,
> educated into "what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like", and
> are discarding those experienced editors who do. Even those who remain but
> are becoming increasingly disillusioned with all the nonsense that goes on
> will eventually leave, or create a fork of Wikipedia, and to be honest, if
> I
> had the money right now, I'd do it myself, and cast ArbCom in its present
> form into the bottomless pit.
>
> I used to care about Wikipedia, as did others, but it's becoming
> increasingly difficult to do so.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:25:14 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Tempodivalse <r2d2.strauss [at] verizon>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] The Wikinews fork: updates
> To: foundation-l [at] lists
> Message-ID:
> <987992995.5676448.1315884314473.JavaMail.root [at] vznit17006>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hello! Thanks for the show of support; I was expecting the response to be
> more
> lacklustre than this. I can't answer everyone's comments individually, but
> I'll try
> to address some of the more common questions.
>
> To be clear, OpenGlobe was not created due to a dispute with the
> Foundation.
> The main reason for forking was the perceived hostility and rudeness among
> Wikinews editors,
> especially to newbies and outsiders, which makes it difficult to get
> anything done
> and drives off new recruits. Bureaucracy also
> played a role: article standards have become so high that very few stories
> make it to the front page; the project currently averages fewer
> than two published pages a day and 75%+ of stories are deleted as old news
> before they see
> "daylight". The stories that are published generally go live only after a
> lengthy delay and
> some time after the event has taken place, making their usefulness
> questionable.
>
> Re how we're going to be different from Wikinews: OpenGlobe is still in the
> developing
> stage, so I'm not sure what direction things will take, but two important
> things are on our
> agenda: make publication of articles much easier and more rewarding, and
> put the focus on
> quality, in-depth reporting, and articles on underreported but relevant
> events,
> instead of just rewriting an article done by AP or Reuters. We also might
> allow more
> "human interest stories", that are unbiased but thought-provoking, as an
> addition to the
> more typical coverage. (There's been a complaint that I've created several
> articles from the PD
> Voice of America, but rest assured I don't want to do that on a daily
> basis; I just needed "filler" for the main page
> until better articles could be made.)
>
> We probably can't keep up with the MSM with sheer manpower, but we can sure
> be a lot
> less biased/superficial. That, plus the fact that we're open-source, and
> anyone can
> contribute, gives us our own little (but important) niche. I think citizen
> journalism has
> become more appealing to the public over the past few years, and we're in
> position to
> take advantage of that.
>
> We have a freenode channel set up at #openglobe, and we're frequently
> brainstorming
> in there, so you're invited to join if you want to see what's going on (and
> have your own
> say).
>
> I've suddenly become quite busy with this new project, so please don't
> expect frequent replies
> to this list.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Tempodivalse (http://theopenglobe.org)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:39:27 -0500
> From: Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki [at] gmail>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Message-ID:
> <CAELXKRK-chNaiXzkbYLsp+DQZs0FiiuHLYrZx8OW7_iMWuetWQ [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I didn't participate in the referendum. I understood from the beginning
> that this was going to be implimented, the matter of community opinion is
> nice to ask for but didn't really matter, and ultimately the only thing
> that
> comes of this is help answering Islamic users questioning us showing
> depictions of Mohammed.
>
> The conversation in this thread has been engaging in helping me decide my
> opinion on a personal level: I'll go with the filter as responsible
> concept.
>
> Milos, you state that Americans see everything involving nudity under the
> label as porn and offensive, and filtering with that mindset is a bad idea.
> You're correct about Americans acting that way in general. I could pull a
> juvenile prank and replace someone's computer background with the image of
> a
> penis, and it will be called porn. It's not, it's an image of a penis, but
> that's the feeling we evoke.
>
> We're growing and developing in Islamic countries and countries with a high
> percentage of Islamic population. A highly held principle is not seeing,
> publishing, or distributing depictions of Mohammed. This is a deeply felt
> belief, one which makes any claims to offending morals seem trivial. We
> had
> a massive problem at the Arabic Wikipedia over providing content that
> depicted Mohammed. From our standpoint in customer relations on OTRS and on
> Wikimedia projects in general, we could do little but provide information
> on
> how the hide all images with the disclaimer of NOTCENSORED, NPOV, you
> should
> be more cultured than to believe that's actually what Mohammed looked
> like/be more open minded...the list goes on.
>
> Now, when we choose to point to cultural trends as a reason something is
> bad, the argument will die. If you inform most of the Western readers that
> you are offended by images of Mohammed, at some point someone will have the
> same reaction that happens when talking about Americans and sexual images.
> Americans might have the same argument used against them with Muslems.
> The
> point is that we have to respect cultural norms and see why they are what
> they are. We can disagree, but the first step for globalization is the
> ability to say "Oh, I see where you're coming from."
>
> What is fundamentally ingrained in a culture is part of the root of that
> culture. We're global, but culture is not. Which leads to...
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Fajro <faigos [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain me how this Image Filter is not against the mission
> > of the Wikimedia Foundation?
> >
> > Letting some users to block Wikipedia content is NOT a good way to
> > "disseminate it effectively and globally" as stated in the mission
> > statement.
> >
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement
> >
> >
> > --
> > Fajro
> >
>
> I fundamentally disagree. If the content can be managed to be culturally
> sound, that is effective to disseminate globally. If Islamic countries do
> not want to see images of Mohammed, that is effect in maintaining other
> content without blocking the site. Same applies to other religious
> imagery,
> political imagery, sexual imagery, and whatever else. The filter is for
> images, and while pictures are louder than words, we can at least have the
> words while maintaining cultural integrity.
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 90, Issue 70
> ********************************************
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

Sep 13, 2011, 4:25 AM

Post #52 of 79 (1116 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On 13 September 2011 00:04, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
> Wikimedia indisputably now exists to serve the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia
> is quick to call Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director," isn't it? Or plaster
> "Wikipedia founder" on every fundraiser-related publication? Out of the last
> X extensions enabled on Wikimedia wikis, how many were written primarily for
> the English Wikipedia (MoodBar, WikiLove, ArticleFeedback, etc.)? If you
> can't provide percentages to the question above, do you know of any
> resources that have gone to a site other than Wikimedia Commons or a
> Wikipedia in the past five years? What resources have been devoted to
> Wikinews in particular?

The "Wikipedia Executive Director" thing was a short-lived, misguided
(but well-intentioned) attempt to avoid confusing donors by refering
to brands they weren't familiar with. "Wikipedia founder" is just
correct. Jimmy did (co-)found Wikipedia. "Wikimedia founder" would be
controversial - Jimmy didn't found the other projects. He did found
(or, at least, was involved in founding) the WMF, but that's not the
same thing as founding Wikimedia.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


r2d2.strauss at verizon

Sep 13, 2011, 8:51 AM

Post #53 of 79 (1117 views)
Permalink
A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On 12 September 2011 21:02, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Any comment from the Wikinews contributors who just posted to
> foundation-l saying everything was fine and people saying it wasn't
> were clueless?

Several Wikinews regulars have made comments about the fork on wikinews-l, if
anyone wants to see another viewpoint on OpenGlobe and the future of Wikinews:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2011-September/002034.html (and
several posts following)

Regards.

-Tempodivalse

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


andrew.lih at gmail

Sep 13, 2011, 9:45 AM

Post #54 of 79 (1116 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

Hi all, reading this thread with much interest. Lots of ideas on this,
in bullet points:

- As a journalism professor, I've followed (and debated) Wikinews
since its very start. I say this not to claim authority, but simply to
say it has been something I've pondered continually for six years now.
See this interview I did with Harvard Nieman Lab for my thoughts, both
text and visual on why I thought Wikinews had problems:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/why-wikipedia-beats-wikinews-as-a-collaborative-journalism-project/

- I remember having exchanges with Erik and others during Wikinews's
inception -- I didn't think wikis were well suited for producing news
(wire and breaking news) and predicted a long term problem. However, I
did support Wikinews in spirit and even took up arms as a Wikinewsie.
I received press credentials as a Wikinews reporter in 2005 to cover
the WTO conference in Hong Kong and saw potential in the spot
photography mission of Wikinews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikinews_creds-_Press_Pass_to_2005_WTO.jpg

- Where Wikinews has been successful and clearly valuable is in what
those in journalism call "feature" content. Interviews with political
leaders, photography of events, and investigative pieces. These
verifiable forms of reporting are not time critical and don't demand
"full coverage" like breaking news beats. The Wikinews interview with
Shimon Peres is a good example:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel

This got me to thinking about Wikinewsie Brian McNeil's signature that
says, "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news."

The corollary to this is: "At some point, news stops being news. A
Wikipedia article never stops being an article." This is where the
tension lies, and why Wikinews is not a clean mapping over of
Wikipedia principles.

Wikis depend on eventualism: given an infinite timeline, pages
eventually get better. News cannot survive on that. The "decay" of the
value of breaking news and the long timeline for eventualism are at
odds with each other.

- Pointing at WMF's lack of support seems misplaced. Wikipedia took
off and had its viral growth well before WMF had a board or a budget
for more than simply paying for servers and bandwidth. Few, if any,
community projects in the Wikimedia universe depend on explicit WMF
support for their fundamental survival.

- But all is not lost. Here is where I think Wikinews can rise from
the ashes, and be a powerful project. I was inspired by Achal
Prabhala's "Oral Citations" project he presented at Wikimania 2011.
The basic gist: in Wikipedia, how do you reference knowledge that
isn't on the web or even written down yet? This is where our "first
world" standards of [citation needed] and strict referencing clash
with nascent Wikipedia editions (like in India and Africa) which don't
have nearly as many online sources as in English and European
languages. Achal's idea: make Oral Citations a project where you can
record folk and non-written knowledge and make your own material that
can be referenced in Wikipedia articles. His example was documenting a
children's game in India that is widely played, widely known, but not
written-down and referenceable in a way that would satisfy Wikipedia's
standards. See the "People are Knowledge" video here:
http://vimeo.com/26469276

Immediately, I saw how Wikinews could step up to this challenge. Oral
Citations is fundamentally an act of journalism (even if Achal and his
team never use the term). Wikinews could be doing what National
Geographic does, by creating multimedia-rich feature stories that
document corners of the world not yet covered by market-driven
journalism. In essence, if People are Knowledge, create referenceable
works and stories from those people.

And, in Wikipedia's crowdsourced way, potentially a re-oriented,
mobilized Wikinews could produce in one week what National Geographic
normally produces in one year. This could be a multimedia endeavor
that could kick up the Wikimedia efforts in audio and video that seem
to have stalled lately. And I have to imagine how interesting this is
to GLAM cooperation that is now so prominent in the community. Putting
my educational hat on, I could see this project being something
journalism schools around the world could feed into, and be a powerful
global project that brings together many different storytellers to
help feed a feature journalism mission of Wikinews. It could be
something that museums and the cultural sector around the world
participate in. It's the next logical evolution of Wikipedia's
principles.

WMF's mission is about giving free access to "the sum of all human knowledge."

Wikipedia is about condensing and curating knowledge.

Wikinews can be the force to go explore and acquire it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


kududot at gmail

Sep 13, 2011, 1:50 PM

Post #55 of 79 (1110 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

I guess it was time for a bold move.

~K

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Tempodivalse <r2d2.strauss [at] verizon> wrote:
>  On 12 September 2011 21:02, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Any comment from the Wikinews contributors who just posted to
>> foundation-l saying everything was fine and people saying it wasn't
>> were clueless?
>
> Several Wikinews regulars have made comments about the fork on wikinews-l, if
> anyone wants to see another viewpoint on OpenGlobe and the future of Wikinews:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2011-September/002034.html (and
> several posts following)
>
> Regards.
>
> -Tempodivalse
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


cimonavaro at gmail

Sep 13, 2011, 6:27 PM

Post #56 of 79 (1113 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash <phnash [at] blueyonder> wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geniice [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
>>>> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>>>
>>> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
>>> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
>>> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
>>> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
>>> field pretty much to itself when it started.
>>
>> Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
>> because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
>> look like.
>
> Practical experience on a day-to-day basis would suggest that this is unduly
> optimistic. We are failing to attract new editors who can be, or wish to be,
> educated into "what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like", and
> are discarding those experienced editors who do. Even those who remain but
> are becoming increasingly disillusioned with all the nonsense that goes on
> will eventually leave, or create a fork of Wikipedia, and to be honest, if I
> had the money right now, I'd do it myself, and cast ArbCom in its present
> form into the bottomless pit.
>
> I used to care about Wikipedia, as did others, but it's becoming
> increasingly difficult to do so.
>
>

If money is the problem, I can solve that. I recently came into an inheritance.



--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


keegan.wiki at gmail

Sep 13, 2011, 11:02 PM

Post #57 of 79 (1105 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas [at] googlemail
> wrote:

> >
> > 1) WikiLove has been enabled on Swedish, Malayalam, Hungarian, Hebrew,
> > Arabic, and Hindi Wikipedia, as well as Commons, all on request of the
> > respective project communities.
> >
> >
> Uh oh - criticism time...
>
> WikiLove was developed supposedly to address one of the major problems of
> English Wikipedia (a problem which also affects other Wiki's to a larger or
> lesser extent). It is an example of a solution being developed by those
> without a full understanding of the problem (which is no criticism of the
> devs involved; there is no reason they should understand the issues in
> depth).


Wikilove was produced by Ryan Kaldari, and active Wikimedian and participant
on this list as well as a staffer, pretty much on his own time (from what I
understood as he explained it to me). I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm off
point, there. I don't think he was out of touch with the issues in depth...


> It was ten deployed with minimal discussion, once again
> demonstrating the lack of links between the developers and the community
> (because just about anyone could have pointed out it would have been
> controversial).
>

It was deployed with minimal discussion, but I still wouldn't assign the
blame to devs not understanding the community. You're making some pretty
big assumptions.


--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phnash at blueyonder

Sep 14, 2011, 6:28 PM

Post #58 of 79 (1100 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash <phnash [at] blueyonder>
> wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geniice [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more
>>>>> useful? What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>>>>
>>>> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
>>>> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
>>>> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
>>>> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
>>>> field pretty much to itself when it started.
>>>
>>> Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
>>> because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
>>> look like.
>>
>> Practical experience on a day-to-day basis would suggest that this
>> is unduly optimistic. We are failing to attract new editors who can
>> be, or wish to be, educated into "what an encyclopedia article is
>> supposed to look like", and are discarding those experienced editors
>> who do. Even those who remain but are becoming increasingly
>> disillusioned with all the nonsense that goes on will eventually
>> leave, or create a fork of Wikipedia, and to be honest, if I had the
>> money right now, I'd do it myself, and cast ArbCom in its present
>> form into the bottomless pit.
>>
>> I used to care about Wikipedia, as did others, but it's becoming
>> increasingly difficult to do so.
>>
>>
>
> If money is the problem, I can solve that. I recently came into an
> inheritance.

Thanks for your interest; it isn't the only expression of support to have
reached me. A *fresh* version of Wikipedia is obviously a major step to
take, and I have to consider and reconcile the various inputs I've received,
and am still receiving, and formulate a proposal document that is going to
address the issues, and of course, it will be open for discussion to those
who are interested.

My current preference is for a partnership-based model, yet one able to
generate revenue and still largely remain within the original objectives of
Wikipedia. Squaring the circle may not be possible in this case, and good
editors will be lost. Meanwhile, only time will tell whether it works, and
that depends on achieving the proper mechanism for moving forward, and
sticking to it.

I'm hopefully moving premises shortly, so will be unlikely to be able to
fully commit my efforts for about a month; but at least that gives time for
interested parties to comment, since this is not something that should be
rushed into. However, my spare time, such as it is, will be devoted to this
project.

Regards.




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


meta.sj at gmail

Sep 16, 2011, 11:39 PM

Post #59 of 79 (1100 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

Hello Andrew,

These are very fine ideas indeed. I have always found the 'breaking
news' stories on Wikinews to be among its least interesting content,
for all of the reasons you note.


On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hi all, reading this thread with much interest. Lots of ideas on this...

> Immediately, I saw how Wikinews could step up to this challenge. Oral
> Citations is fundamentally an act of journalism ... in essence, if People
> are Knowledge, create referenceable works and stories from those people.

<snip more interesting observations>

> And, in Wikipedia's crowdsourced way, potentially a re-oriented,
> mobilized Wikinews could produce in one week what National Geographic
> normally produces in one year. This could be a multimedia endeavor
> that could kick up the Wikimedia efforts in audio and video that seem
> to have stalled lately.

> WMF's mission is about giving free access to "the sum of all human knowledge."
>
> Wikipedia is about condensing and curating knowledge.
>
> Wikinews can be the force to go explore and acquire it.

My hat is off to you. I went and put one on just to reread this email.

This is an inspiring and powerful idea for what Wikinews can be, and I
hope we realize it -- and continue to capture oral history, for
citation and otherwise.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


saintonge at telus

Sep 18, 2011, 1:56 AM

Post #60 of 79 (1088 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On 09/12/11 3:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> The only other project in a similar situation is
> Wikispecies, where any data on species at least conceptually is
> welcome in a Wikipedia article on the topic.
>

This all makes Wikispecies the perfect fork. Its contents largely
overlap the relevant Wikipedia articles, and it is free to be as
different in its treatment of those subjects as it wants. It is rarely
the subject of controversy, but just keeps truckin' along. The most
frequent complaints are from those who would shut it down as redundant.

Wikipedias in other languages are not required to have content that is
the same as English Wikipedia, though I have occasionally heard in the
past that they should be better correlated. Ultimately it is this built
in diversity that will keep NPOV alive. Perhaps other well defined
subject areas should have forks too. Wikis are about diversity.

There is a pervasive fear that forks tend to divide an already tiny
community, but I doubt that that is an insurmountable problem. Those who
are content with the status quo will remain, and those who see the
status quo as stagnation will move. Hopefully they will both attract new
people with views in line with their separate missions. To paraphrase a
popular daytime TV personality: "It is better to be from a broken wiki
than in one."

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jamesmikedupont at googlemail

Sep 18, 2011, 8:51 AM

Post #61 of 79 (1087 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

>
> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
> go." Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
> Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
> abandoned. Perhaps with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, which is able
> to
> pull in grant money, so it continues to receive some level of technical
> support.
>

oh that is alarming. can you tell me more?
mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


gerard.meijssen at gmail

Sep 18, 2011, 9:18 AM

Post #62 of 79 (1088 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

Hoi,
With the strategic plan it is clear and obvious that the WMF intends to
expand. It is clear that India and Brazil get serious attention. With the
creation of the "localisation team" there is now substantial attention for
language issues and language technology. This will make the technological
gap between languages using the Latin script and languages that use other
scrips like Hindi substantially less.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 18 September 2011 17:51, Mike Dupont <jamesmikedupont [at] googlemail>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>
> >
> > From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred
> to
> > go." Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
> > Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types
> are
> > abandoned. Perhaps with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, which is able
> > to
> > pull in grant money, so it continues to receive some level of technical
> > support.
> >
>
> oh that is alarming. can you tell me more?
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


meta.sj at gmail

Sep 18, 2011, 9:25 AM

Post #63 of 79 (1091 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
<jamesmikedupont [at] googlemail> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>
>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to go."
>> Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English Wikipedia.
>> All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are abandoned.

> oh that is alarming. can you tell me more?

That is alarming because it is MZM's fear, but it does not represent
the views of the Foundation.

(MZM, would you mind finding a more accurate way to express your
observations, hopes and frustrations on this subject?)

Not speaking on behalf of the Foundation, but repeating what Erik said
earlier and pointing to our five-year plan, the WMF is prioritizing
community-driven innovation as one of its core targets for support.
There is a language barrier to overcome; as Gerard notes the
localisation team should help improve matters there.

And in my experience the WMF spends a great deal of time in public and
internally working with, researching, and discussing the smaller
projects and languages. Far more than "proportional to current size
or readership" -- maybe not as much as some would like. For anyone
who wishes to see more work on their favorite project : please suggest
a specific way to make that happen. :-)


MZMcBride writes:
>> Perhaps with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, which is able to
>> pull in grant money, so it continues to receive some level of technical support.

All sister projects are able to pull in grant money if it is pursued.
There are a variety of major foundations devoted to, or prioritizing,
curation and access to {primary source materials, language and
literacy materials, civic journalism, free textbooks, open
educational resources, biology and species data, oral histories, &c.}.
I would love to see us attract more of that sort of interest. Even
projects that we worry about and say "did not achieve critical mass"
are often significant successes by the standards of existing
grant-supported work elsewhere in the world.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Sep 18, 2011, 1:19 PM

Post #64 of 79 (1092 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

Samuel Klein wrote:
> Not speaking on behalf of the Foundation, but repeating what Erik said
> earlier and pointing to our five-year plan, the WMF is prioritizing
> community-driven innovation as one of its core targets for support.

Wikimedia has made the English Wikipedia its primary focus. The question
becomes whether that's fair to the other projects and whether it makes sense
for Wikimedia to continue "maintaining" them. Would it make more sense for
Wikimedia to limit its focus and maintain a few projects much better? It's a
question of what's fairest to the communities and a question of how long
either side is willing to wait.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail

Sep 21, 2011, 12:48 PM

Post #65 of 79 (1087 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

>
> Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost a
> source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on on
> various Web sites. The idea made the idea of Wikinews almost seem redeemable
> to me, though I'm not sure how much it falls within Wikimedia's scope.
> Perhaps he'll chime in here to elaborate, as I'm surely not doing the
> concept justice.
>
> If Wikinews had started as a site with news about the Internet and
> particularly online communities, I think it would've grown into a proper
> project over time.

That's basically the idea... until Wikinews is strong enough in one
particular area that it becomes worthwhile to readers (because they
get stories they are likely to care about that don't show up on the
rest of the news sites out there), it can't reach critical mass. (Sue
explains the problem concisely in her post.) The area Wikimedians have
the largest pool of common expertise in and access to is the internet
and online culture. Covering emerging memes and the 4chan and
Anonymous shenanigans and cool and terrible things happening all over
the internet... that's an area where there's still not a great go-to
source for, at least that has anything like an NPOV approach. Wikinews
could have been (and maybe could be still) "local news for people from
the internet". But I think the project has been too limited by trying
to be like a traditional news organization to take that kind of
reporting seriously or encourage it.

The other route to critical mass would be syndication. Even if volume
started out small, if high-quality pieces occasionally got syndicated
by mainstream news, that could gradually attract more attention and
contribution to Wikinews. That's what the CC-BY license is supposed to
encourage, but it seems that's not enough. A person (or several
people) devoted to outreach / business development who spent a lot of
time reaching out to traditional news orgs to let them know about
specific high-quality pieces that they could syndicate (for free!)
might set the stage for Wikinews (or the new fork) to really succeed.
Maybe that could make a good Wikimedia Fellowship project for an
ambitious Wikinewsie.

(Sorry, I'm a bit late to this thread.)

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayvdb at gmail

Sep 21, 2011, 5:04 PM

Post #66 of 79 (1086 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike  Dupont
> <jamesmikedupont [at] googlemail> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>>
>>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to go."
>>> Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English Wikipedia.
>>> All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are abandoned.
>
>> oh that is alarming. can you tell me more?
>
> That is alarming because it is MZM's fear, but it does not represent
> the views of the Foundation.
>
> (MZM, would you mind finding a more accurate way to express your
> observations, hopes and frustrations on this subject?)
> ...
> All sister projects are able to pull in grant money if it is pursued.
> There are a variety of major foundations devoted to, or prioritizing,
> curation and access to {primary source materials, language and
> literacy materials, civic journalism,  free textbooks, open
> educational resources, biology and species data, oral histories, &c.}.
>  I would love to see us attract more of that sort of interest.  Even
> projects that we worry about and say "did not achieve critical mass"
> are often significant successes by the standards of existing
> grant-supported work elsewhere in the world.

Sam,

While it is nice to say that the other projects can request grants
from other organisations, MZM's point is that the WMF is focusing on
English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

The strategic plan mentions Wikipedia an awful lot, and the WMF does
appear to be focusing on English Wikipedia and Commons. Of course
WMF's investment in the mediawiki platform and innovation helps the
sister projects, but the sister projects continue to struggle because
they haven't had the same amount of support as Wikipedia over the
years. The sun does not shine directly on them. Have I told you
about the time that the WMF told a journo that it was OK to use
"Wikipedia" instead of "Wikisource" in an magazine article about a
Wikisource project?

I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe the
WMF can have _one_ "sister projects support officer" (think how many
dedicated _English_Wikipedia_ support staff the WMF has).

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


zanni.andrea84 at gmail

Sep 22, 2011, 1:12 AM

Post #67 of 79 (1085 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

2011/9/22 John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail>

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
> > <jamesmikedupont [at] googlemail> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several
> hundred to go."
> >>> Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
> Wikipedia.
> >>> All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
> abandoned.
> >
> >> oh that is alarming. can you tell me more?
> >
> > That is alarming because it is MZM's fear, but it does not represent
> > the views of the Foundation.
> >
> > (MZM, would you mind finding a more accurate way to express your
> > observations, hopes and frustrations on this subject?)
> > ...
> > All sister projects are able to pull in grant money if it is pursued.
> > There are a variety of major foundations devoted to, or prioritizing,
> > curation and access to {primary source materials, language and
> > literacy materials, civic journalism, free textbooks, open
> > educational resources, biology and species data, oral histories, &c.}.
> > I would love to see us attract more of that sort of interest. Even
> > projects that we worry about and say "did not achieve critical mass"
> > are often significant successes by the standards of existing
> > grant-supported work elsewhere in the world.
>
> Sam,
>
> While it is nice to say that the other projects can request grants
> from other organisations, MZM's point is that the WMF is focusing on
> English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.
>
> The strategic plan mentions Wikipedia an awful lot, and the WMF does
> appear to be focusing on English Wikipedia and Commons. Of course
> WMF's investment in the mediawiki platform and innovation helps the
> sister projects, but the sister projects continue to struggle because
> they haven't had the same amount of support as Wikipedia over the
> years. The sun does not shine directly on them. Have I told you
> about the time that the WMF told a journo that it was OK to use
> "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikisource" in an magazine article about a
> Wikisource project?
>
> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
> be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe the
> WMF can have _one_ "sister projects support officer" (think how many
> dedicated _English_Wikipedia_ support staff the WMF has).
>

Indeed.
I remember saying that loudly in Gdansk,
when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
pages,
but none of the sister projects.
Many of our sister projects has developed a proper identity and direction
(sure Wikisource has)
but a major support wiuld be very much appreciated.
Some of the requests in bugzilla (even simple ones) lay down there for
years,
and communities are just left alone with their technical issues.
I think sister project communities would be enthusiastic if the Foundation
had staff dedicated to them and their problems.
Even a fellow as proposed by Amir (a guy who examine communities and their
tools, collecting knowledge and requests for tools, gadgets and extensions)
would be awesome.


Aubrey



> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


smolensk at eunet

Sep 22, 2011, 1:31 AM

Post #68 of 79 (1087 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
> pages,
> but none of the sister projects.

I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
focus on Wikipedia in outreach activities.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


tom at tommorris

Sep 22, 2011, 2:02 AM

Post #69 of 79 (1079 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, Sage Ross wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost
> a
> > source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on
> on
> > various Web sites. The idea made the idea of Wikinews almost seem
> redeemable
> > to me, though I'm not sure how much it falls within Wikimedia's scope.
> > Perhaps he'll chime in here to elaborate, as I'm surely not doing the
> > concept justice.
> >
> > If Wikinews had started as a site with news about the Internet and
> > particularly online communities, I think it would've grown into a proper
> > project over time.
>
> That's basically the idea... until Wikinews is strong enough in one
> particular area that it becomes worthwhile to readers (because they
> get stories they are likely to care about that don't show up on the
> rest of the news sites out there), it can't reach critical mass.
>

I'm not sure this analysis is correct. A lot of people now don't get news by
going directly to the site but on social media platforms like Twitter and
Facebook. Of course, for that to work, we need to publish stories quickly.

When stories hit those sites, they have the potential to start rolling very
quickly as people retweet them.

For instance, last night when the Troy Davis execution was going on, the
@en_wikinews feed had damn near live updates from the televised stream from
Democracy Now and other sources. I had a wiki story written up specifically
to try and get it published at the time of execution. It's now still
languishing in the review pile.

Another thing Wikinews could be doing better is original, data-based
journalism. Governments around the world are now publishing more and more
data and releasing it under CC licenses. The British government publish data
under the Open Government License which is basically CC BY. US data is
public domain. Hungary recently announced they would publish government data
as CC BY. Local governments in Britain and Ireland have started publishing
open data. This is somewhere where we could create some valuable stories and
reuse of the data: software hacker types to pore through the data and make
it usable and presentable and Wikimedians to write up stories around it.

Producing original news stories might be slightly more interesting than 'Yet
Another Google Maps Mashup' hacks which is usually what is done with the
data. It would also produce stories that would be unavailable elsewhere,
and, you never know, we might even break a big story and bring down a
government or something. ;-)

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>


--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


zanni.andrea84 at gmail

Sep 22, 2011, 2:11 AM

Post #70 of 79 (1084 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

2011/9/22 Nikola Smolenski <smolensk [at] eunet>

> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> > when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
> > pages, but none of the sister projects.
>
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
> focus on Wikipedia in outreach activities.
>


Well, I understand that, but there is a lot of space for development,
and for example a project like Wikisource can be extremely interesting for
GLAMs
(i.e. look at the BnF project with French Wikisource).

Aubrey





> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


email at mikepeel

Sep 22, 2011, 5:53 AM

Post #71 of 79 (1078 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

> From: Nikola Smolenski <smolensk [at] eunet>
> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>> pages,
>> but none of the sister projects.
>
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
> focus on Wikipedia in outreach activities.

Um… no. That means it really makes sense to talk about the sister projects more than just mentioning them, as they are clearly in more need of outreach than Wikipedia with that audience…

I often briefly describe the sister projects when I'm doing Wikipedia outreach - and quite often see people making comments on twitter etc. as a result about how they didn't know about a particular project, and were going to take a look at it (and hopefully go on to contribute to it…)

Mike


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


smolensk at eunet

Sep 22, 2011, 6:34 AM

Post #72 of 79 (1074 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On 22/09/11 14:53, Michael Peel wrote:
>
>> From: Nikola Smolenski<smolensk [at] eunet>
>> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>>> pages,
>>> but none of the sister projects.
>>
>> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
>> sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
>> focus on Wikipedia in outreach activities.
>
> Um… no. That means it really makes sense to talk about the sister projects more than just mentioning them, as they are clearly in more need of outreach than Wikipedia with that audience…

Of course I haven't meant that I just list them; I say a couple of
sentences about every one of them.

> I often briefly describe the sister projects when I'm doing Wikipedia outreach - and quite often see people making comments on twitter etc. as a result about how they didn't know about a particular project, and were going to take a look at it (and hopefully go on to contribute to it…)

Apparently we had different audiences.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail

Sep 22, 2011, 7:43 AM

Post #73 of 79 (1080 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Tom Morris <tom [at] tommorris> wrote:

> I'm not sure this analysis is correct. A lot of people now don't get news by
> going directly to the site but on social media platforms like Twitter and
> Facebook. Of course, for that to work, we need to publish stories quickly.
>
> When stories hit those sites, they have the potential to start rolling very
> quickly as people retweet them.

I don't see that as much of a way forward for Wikinews, without a
niche that will really draw people. What makes @en_wikinews worth
following as a news source, as opposed to the many other feeds that do
similar things? To be an attractive Twitter / Facebook general news
source, the feed would need to publish at a much higher volume than it
does, with more consistency in terms of what should be pushed out and
what shouldn't.

> For instance, last night when the Troy Davis execution was going on, the
> @en_wikinews feed had damn near live updates from the televised stream from
> Democracy Now and other sources. I had a wiki story written up specifically
> to try and get it published at the time of execution. It's now still
> languishing in the review pile.

As a volunteer project, I think Wikinews has an inherent tension
between being timely and having a solid review process. Volunteers
work at their own pace. Professionals have both writers and editors
working on deadline, and are always going to be able to be more
immediate. Live updates and even a quick publication of a full
write-up of a big news story that everyone is reading and writing and
talking about already... I don't see that as an area where a wiki
journalism project has a lot of value to add to the news ecosystem.

> Another thing Wikinews could be doing better is original, data-based
> journalism.

Definitely. This is an area that plays to the strengths of our
community: the sources are online and deep, and under-utilized by
traditional media, and there's a lot of potential for collaboration on
sifting through data in teams looking for interesting nuggets.

I don't think there's much potential for reaching critical mass with
Wikinews except through original reporting on areas that provide
common ground to a large set of Wikimedians -- both in terms of
interest, and in terms of access to sources.

-Sage

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


steven.walling at gmail

Sep 22, 2011, 8:40 AM

Post #74 of 79 (1080 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> wrote:

> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
> be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe the
> WMF can have _one_ "sister projects support officer" (think how many
> dedicated _English_Wikipedia_ support staff the WMF has).
>

There is an entire department -- Global Development -- whose current job is
to support the growth of the many Indic language projects, Portuguese
Wikipedia, and Arabic Wikipedia (they call that Middle East, North Africa)?


Or how about the hundreds of hours spent in Tech on the new Commons
UploadWizard?

Those are just two examples, but more importantly: there are actually *no
people at all* at the Foundation whose job description is "dedicated"
English Wikipedia support. There are some people (like myself) who do not
speak other languages, but that is a problem rather than an advantage in my
work.

Steven
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Sep 22, 2011, 8:47 PM

Post #75 of 79 (1081 views)
Permalink
Re: A Wikimedia project has forked [In reply to]

Steven Walling wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb [at] gmail> wrote:
>> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
>> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
>> be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe the
>> WMF can have _one_ "sister projects support officer" (think how many
>> dedicated _English_Wikipedia_ support staff the WMF has).
>
> There is an entire department -- Global Development -- whose current job is
> to support the growth of the many Indic language projects, Portuguese
> Wikipedia, and Arabic Wikipedia (they call that Middle East, North Africa)?
>
> Or how about the hundreds of hours spent in Tech on the new Commons
> UploadWizard?

Steven, you seem to have completely missed the mark.

John was responding to my comment(s) about the focus of Wikimedia being
Wikipedia (mostly the English-language version) and occasionally Wikimedia
Commons. John said "I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a
project that had a primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister
project." By this, he meant a project like Wikinews, Wikisource, Wikiversity
or any of the other sister projects of Wikipedia:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikipedia%27s_sister_projects>.

The examples you gave were a few other Wikipedias and Wikimedia Commons. Is
there an entire department working on Wikisource? What about Wikiversity?
Wikinews? Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
are there any Wikimedia initiatives to specifically (or "primarily") improve
any of these sister projects? I also don't know of any.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.