On 16 April 2012 10:30, Gordon Joly <gordon.j...@pobox.com> wrote: > On 16/04/12 10:26, Gordon Joly wrote: > > On 14/04/12 14:16, Roger Bamkin wrote: > > I am aware of the commons botload problem ... I did my share as well. > > I am aware than Commons is not fit for purpose. > > Gordo > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > Commons is not fit for purpose. Trying to get august bodies such a the > Geogolical Society to use it (as suggested in the workshop) is in my > opinion a non starters. Archives for All (Access to Archives) is much > better option for most collections. I have used "Chesire3" for a small > community archive. > > > http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/ > > Round pegs, square holes.... > > As for Geograph ....... words fail me! > > As I said there, institutions need to define their purposes, and then act accordingly. I don't see much percentage in us debating here what "fit for purpose" means as a generalised thing applied to Commons. It obviously does support WP and other WMF projects. I'm all for contrarian views rather than groupthink, but this thread is starting to ramble.
Charles
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
