Talk:Strategic Plan/Background and Context/en
Think outside of the box
Again and again: This process suffers from a focus on Wikipedia and the other wikis. The WMF's mission is about knowledge, not about wikis. Wikis were just the first project. Unless we really, really start talking about activities beyond this "strategic process" will fizzle. My real questions are: should the WMF become an actor in international politics and get involved in education and copyright law at UNESCO and WIPO (or other organizations)? Should WMF work with think tanks or build its own think tank and develop paper based educational material? What else could the WMF do to bring "the sum of all human knowledge to all of the people" and to become the "red cross of knowledge"? That the WMF should do everything to keep the Wikipedia servers running is self explanatory. But if that is the only task, then any strategic thinking is void. --H-stt !? 11:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes - thanks for the thinking. Agree, need to tackle Wikimedia's role in the wider world and advocate for our core messages (probably need to define these too). Would be great to have your thinking on the questions for Task force/Advocacy Agenda Task Force --BarryN 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
why not Indonesia, the Philipines
A choice is made to do special things for India and China. I do understand the issue with China. I have problems with the singling out of India.. Languages like Bengali, Korean, Indonesian and Tagalog are as deserving because of their potential for growth. I have heard the argument made that India is of less relevance (re Indian languages) because of a preference for English. This is not an issue for the languages I indicated.
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Copyedits | 2 | 11:02, 7 July 2010 |
A bunch of minor tone stuff addressed. Outstanding points so far:
- Fig 1 needs to be retitled, not using the word "penetration".
- Need to settle on "9 years" or "nearly 10 years". Mentally it jars to say both.
- This sentence is unclear: "While it is not known how many active contributors are needed to maintain mature projects such as English or German Wikipedia, which now have over 3M and 1M articles respectively, nor how many are needed to build a project like Hindi Wikipedia which today has fewer than 55K articles, it is highly probable that the editor base as it stands may not be sufficient to build new projects, particularly those in non-European languages, or to replicate the success of existing large projects." (Note: needs checking, I had to edit it to guess at what was intended)
- So is this one: "Wikimedia has only recently engaged actively in raising funds to support the projects and enable investments to growth and sustain the projects."
- This bit needs eyeballs: "to mentor and support new editors and nurturing a strong personal connection with our vision, by encouraging their potential to help others" (I edited that one too)
- The "reliability" section should be accurate but has had considerable work done to reflect ther issue and bring it up to date, and needs eyeballs to check it's good and well worded. Tagged for that reason.
- No mention of commons? Of museum participation? Non text material?
- Added: The final report was not spared - this document itself was authored collaboratively to ensure "anyone can edit". Appropriate/well positioned and worded?
- Last, do any of the pages mention Wikimedia's increasing use as an early source of information on major events? And as a "first port of call" for research? Key points that need noting.
Added in 1st section:
- "Wikipedia's English version is one of over 700 free knowledge projects within the Wikimedia movement, covering content from popular culture, to media and historical documents, to textbooks, in over 270 languages and dialects. Their production..."
- (Alternatively: "Vast though Wikipedia's English version is, it is still just one of...")
As a Wikimedia report it starts discussing Wikipedia alone, then transitions to "Wikimedians" without explanation or context. Also by doing so, it doesn't explain full size of project. Also note that "Wikipedia" is all language wikipedias? What are the stats for - enwiki, all wp's or all projects? General concerns here needing to be fixed.
A review of this section and the mentions of Wikipedia/Wikimedia etc is needed, with cleanup. Some sensitive aspects here. Review needed of this edit
Numbers may not make sense to a reader:
More than 5,000 accounts were created... more than 1,000 people contributed... Nearly 2,000 people responded to the call for volunteers.
Presumably the 2000 "volunteers" contributed, and if there were only 1000 contributors who were the "5000 accounts"?
