Proposal talk:Stay the same
|"Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users?". The level of discussion of this proposal is: 2|
While there certainly are punctual issues that are getting a good airing through this whole process, and many suggestions for improvements ought to be rescued and implemented asap, (a REAL universal log in and a UNIVERSAL user page in my limited experience here come to mind) I think this proposal ought at least to be given serious consideration. Common sense oblige. The least that can be said is that it clearly isn't fueled by vanity...
Thamus 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, there are plenty of added software features I'd be in favor of developing. However I was under the impression that this was more a call for over-arcing visions for the organization, rather than little feature suggestions. Universal user pages sound good, for example, but we have plenty of other places to discuss those kinds of feature suggestions. PS. There are no comments yet because I just posted this proposal an hour ago. :) Equazcion 04:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, this area should be thought of as a blank slate. You can put in over-arching bold visions, or you can suggest small feature enhancements. Whatever you'd like! We'll sort them into groups for the Task forces to go through. -- Philippe 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I Agree, Although we should improve, the basic fundamentals should stay the same, Wikimedia is already one of the best resources available on the internet, why change this?22.214.171.124 14:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree too - there are minor issues, but the goals we already have set - like a wikipedia-article for every taxon - are enought work for hundret years and more. As a whole I would say - stay the same. Kersti Nebelsiek 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
After a little more wandering across Wikipedia and more serious thinking, I'd say it might prove impossible to stay the same - that is, not to make some fundamental changes. I am actually saying that the premise "it ain't broken" might be doubted. One sign of worry is the statistics developed by user Melancholie,. I'll add the link in a minute.126.96.36.199 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC) http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Integrate_Melancholie%27s_statistics Thamus 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree... though this proposal is tempting... honestly, while most of the ideas I've seen here, I start with "hmm, that's interesting, gotta think about that," but a few of them are pretty scary to me and make me want to run away alltogether. Like the ones which ask for an end to anonymity and the introduction of stringent editing requirements. Pushing would-be editors away is the last of what we need right now. --Lyc. cooperi 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Talk from Proposal talk:Don't Change- Keep it as-is
And my humble opinion: While there is obviously ample room for a variety of improvements, I agree with this proposal at least to the point that the main course ought to stay the same, and any improvements should avoid being traumatica to that orientation. And yes, Wikipedia is great as it is already. More on this later. Thamus 19:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We should change,what should be changed! We must improve,what we can improve for greater good. That's what I think! We must tolerate changes, as it will break the monotony.We must take use of this chance to improve OUR WIKIPEDIA. 188.8.131.52 13:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Support Merger They are very similar. Jason Quinn 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. I've seen some negative stories in the media about there being fewer and fewer articles created. How is that a failure ? It's the number of edits that should be looked at anyway. Looking at WP as a static entity .. "now the job is done" is also erroneous as, just like dictionary definitions facts drift and articles go out of date. Yes, keep WP doing what it does does best ... being it's own peculiar self that continues to be misunderstood in a few quarters (always amusing). There's always plenty to do like reducing the complexity of guideline articles, or adding 3D model support (Collada on Wiki Media Commons) and, well, the list goes on... ( DJBarney24 on WP)
A dinosaur strategy would work if the rest of the world wasn't changing, but it will and wikipedia needs to be willing to adapt and also willing to change to accommodate its own growth and maturity. Today most access is via the internet, in the future it could be by mobile phone. Today we have no editors with even ten years experience here, a strategy of no change could leave us in twenty years bemoaning our total lack of editors with less than ten years here. Consensus already makes change difficult to achieve here, lets not rule it out altogether. WereSpielChequers 16:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Touche, Machiavelli. What shall I say to this? "No, my dinosaur strategy is good"? By asserting your own opinion of the proposal as fact from the get-go, you leave your opponent with the choice of either ignoring the remark, which could be viewed by others as acceptance of it, or going on the defensive, which could be viewed as weakness. This isn't high school debate team, and you don't get points for winning. Furthermore, if an argument is weak, you should be able to counter it and influence public opinion against it without resorting to name-calling.
- In response to the more constructive portion of your argument, I don't think of the present iteration of Wikipedia as being anchored in a time period. The changing world doesn't have much to do with how one runs an encyclopedia, in my mind. Saying Wikipedia has to change to keep up with the times sounds to me like saying Britannica needs to do the same. Of course our content needs to be supplemented and updated continually, but in terms of how it's run, I don't see a pressing need to come up with some type of over-arcing strategy for the future. Though there are small problems that may need to be dealt with.
- This is a very abstract discussion though, without specific examples of change on the table. You could be thinking of some specific change that you feel is warranted, while all types I can think of are not. Equazcion 00:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to have a look at the community opinion of Wikipedia/media before considering this proposal I believe there are some fundamental problems with Wikipedia.
Have a look at any article on Slashdot about Wikipedia.
VoltageX 11:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- I took your suggestion and looked at this article  and there is some discussion about Wikipedia search function -"but I'm a little cautious of Wikipedia's search engine."- but generally he comments are balanced about Wikipedia as it currently stands, a randomish selection- "Huge compendium of human knowledge." "...authoritative sounding misinformation." "Wikipedia generally is as good as or better than encyclopedica brittannica. Dont knock the wikis." "Most people I can think of who'd like this, or have some other form of access to The Great Wiki in their pocket don't see it as unconditionally gospel. It's like the rest of the internet - about right, most of the time. I don't recall ever having been wrongly informed through getting information from wikipedia - it can be (and more often than not is) ambiguous, over-complicated or over-simplified, lacking in detail, but it's very rarely wrong - there's too many anally retentive pedants on it." So I am not sure what you mean by fundemental problems, could you clarify what you mean?--Alchemist Jack 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)