Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote: > On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <kwad...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects >> >> >> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open >> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes >> back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats" >> strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate >> into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other >> projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away >> from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more >> interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia >> initiative is focused on developing countries where people have >> limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't >> well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where >> operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing >> countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping >> that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects. >> > > Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories? > Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you > are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made? > > In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for > Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the > Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring > to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was > reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia > administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising > tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the > community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a > useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for > acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia > alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can > freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no > relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual > causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized. > This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as > relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.
I generally don't like "+1" posts, but wow, well said, Dominic. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
