It is not entirely a matter of recruitment.
To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to
the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in
turn relates to the value system and cognitive and social biases of those
who control the projects.
As we
Here is the response :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: slavakileev
Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 14:03
Subject: Re: Meadow Mari Wikipedia
To: Millosh
Cc: Сай
10.07.09, 12:32, "Millosh" :
> I see that you are not coming too often on Meta Wikimedia. So, just to inform
> you tha
2009/7/26 effe iets anders :
> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
> Thanks.
>
> Lodewijk
>
Doesn't appear to be.
--
geni
___
foundation-l
on 7/27/09 8:32 AM, Dennis During at dcdur...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is not entirely a matter of recruitment.
>
> To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to
> the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in
> turn relates to the value system
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was
> described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from
> reaching its full potential. This issue has been brought up many times in
> the past, but each time
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Marc Riddell
> wrote:
>> And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was
>> described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from
>> reaching its full potential. This issu
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Marc Riddell
>> wrote:
>>> And it is this control group, this "consolidation of power" which was
>>> described earlier in this discussion, that is keeping the Project from
>>> reaching its full potential. T
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 7/27/09 1:36 PM, Milos Rancic at mill...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hm. Mail hasn't been finished. I wanted to save it and consider
>> finishing it later (probably, I wouldn't send it). So, probably, you
>> should forget for this email :)
>>
> N
As part of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Initiative, a new wiki
(http://strategy.wikimedia.org
) is being soft-launched today. This soft-launch is being announced
only to foundation-l and a few other places, but is not at all secret
- consider this an open-beta test.
When you have a f
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> As part of the Foundation's Strategic Planning Initiative, a new wiki (
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org
> ) is being soft-launched today. This soft-launch is being announced
> only to foundation-l and a few o
2009/7/27 geni :
> 2009/7/26 effe iets anders :
>> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
>> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>
> Doesn't appear to be.
>
> --
> geni
>
> __
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brian wrote:
> I recall convincing arguments on this list that meta was the appropriate
> place for this, rather than fragmenting into a new wiki. This is because
> previously created wikis succumb to wiki rot and eventually link spam. Why
> were those arguments rej
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brian wrote:
> > I recall convincing arguments on this list that meta was the appropriate
> > place for this, rather than fragmenting into a new wiki. This is because
> > previously created wikis succumb to wik
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning
> Schlottmann wrote:
>> And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding
>> on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find
>> the project on their own. We don't need to recruit these prodigy childs.
>
Milos Rancic wrote:
> The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
> started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
> that (Strategy plan).
"Long term" planning for the Foundation is not planning with
contributors who will write on Wikipedia for several d
Hi Brian,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Brian wrote:
> No I hadn't, thank you.
See also my response:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-July/053355.html
> It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
> actually are! A new wiki is not a magic r
Probably a separate wiki will isolate the content from the community and
make it less accessible for for other users.
John
Brian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> I recall convincing arguments on this list that m
2009/7/27 Brian :
> It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
> actually are!
Strategy.wikimedia.org is part of SUL, moving from one space to the
other is trivial. To reach a very large group of people (much larger
than the group of people currently editing on Meta)
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/7/27 Brian :
> > It doesn't cover the most important case in my mind: meta is where people
> > actually are!
>
> Strategy.wikimedia.org is part of SUL, moving from one space to the
> other is trivial. To reach a very large group of peopl
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Brian wrote:
> Oh, great. That basically covers it, assuming it is what I think it is (a
> site notice on all SUL wikis).
Yes, we've been using it since the 2009 Fundraiser for items ranging
from donation drives to Wikimania announcements to the current Board
elect
I hope those procedures are fixed with a high priority. Because privacy is a
serious issue, and users are referred to the ombudsmen committee often,
assuming that is fully functional if necessary. If it is not, that means a
lot more responsibility for the WMF, the stewards etc. Are the current
memb
This is strange - in times past, we have had only 3 ombudsmen at a time, and
now we have five. Are they all fairly active? Do they want to continue this
role? Have they all been contacted? I notice, for example, that the enwiki
based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think f
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> I notice, for example, that the enwiki
> based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
> role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
>
I wouldn't necessarily define "active" by edits in this role, but
2009/7/28 Casey Brown :
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally wrote:
>> I notice, for example, that the enwiki
>> based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
>> role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
>>
>
> I wouldn't necessarily define "a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally
> wrote:
> > I notice, for example, that the enwiki
> > based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for
> a
> > role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
>
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> Young people have the most to gain from participating, because the
>> skills that they acquire on wikimedia will stay with them, helping
>> them in their many years to come.
>
> And what does Wikipedia get from those young people? We don't ha
26 matches
Mail list logo
