Jump to navigation Jump to search
សំនួរសាមញ្ញមួយចំនួន៖ សូមកុំធ្វើការពិភាក្សានៅលើទំព័រនេះ។ បើសិនអ្នកចង់ពិភាក្សាលើចម្លើយដែលនរណាម្នាក់បានឆ្លើយ សូមប្រើទំព័រពិភាក្សា។
- 1 តើអ្វីជាសេចក្តីសង្ឃឹមនិងការព្រួយបារម្ភរបស់អ្នកចំពោះចលនា Wikimedia?
- 2 តើអ្វីនឹងក្លាយជាកិច្ចការចាំបាច់ចម្បងទីមួយរបស់អ្នកសម្រាប់ Wikimedia នៅ៥ឆ្នាំខាងមុខទៀត?
- 3 តើអ្វីជាសេចក្តីសង្ឃឹមនិងការព្រួយបារម្ភរបស់អ្នកចំពោះដំណើរការនៃផែនការយុទ្ធសាស្រ្ត?
- 4 តើអ្នកមានសំនួរដទៃផ្សេងៗទៀតដែរឬទេ?
- My hope is that we discover & articulate consensus in some areas about what the movement is and develop a way to talk about what it is to others who would join and/or support us.Jennifer Riggs 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I hope that Wikipedia continues to gain credibility as a Free Encyclopedia and as Wikimedia's flagship project. I also hope that the other projects, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikinews, etc... develop better inter-project communications and stronger identities. CQ 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia evolving into world heritage, and recognized as such. Dedalus 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Continued stagnation, continued uncertainty about in which growth phase the WMF is, i.e. which organizational crisis the WMF currently is experiencing, failing to recognize which kind of organizational crises the WMF has already grown over. Dedalus 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
តើអ្វីនឹងក្លាយជាកិច្ចការចាំបាច់ចម្បងទីមួយរបស់អ្នកសម្រាប់ Wikimedia នៅ៥ឆ្នាំខាងមុខទៀត?
- Maintain what we have. Progress would be great, but the most important thing is not to go backwards. --Tango 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Spread our content. We've gathered quite a bunch of text and media content, go tell the world! Ask newspapers to re-use it, offer it to TV stations, publishers, advertising companies and make them spread the word of free information. --ChrisiPK 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ensure that we will be around for the next 100 years.
- we need to find some way to infuse new life into wikis that are coming to the end of the WikiLifeCycle. Wiki-communities can, do and will blow up, and we need to learn how to prevent it, or have plans on what to do and how to pick up the pieces.
- --Kim Bruning 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Improve the quality of our content. --Frank Schulenburg 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Improve the public opinion of the Wikimedia projects. Take Wikipedia for example: as far as I've seen, most people think it's a really useful place to get information, but otherwise do not grasp the idea that it's a community collaboration to spread knowledge - all they know is that they can mess around with it (meaning vandalism) however they want. This needs remediation. When people understand what's behind that door known as the login page, and realize that Wikipedia is more than a website deranged students mess with on their lunch break, then Wikimedia can continue. Until then, the Wikimedia projects remain this mysterious and untrustworthy object in the public's eye. We need the public to know what we are and what we exist for. Without the public support and understanding, we risk stagnation and equilibrium in the projects. Calvin 1998 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support our dedicated volunteers. To do the work that keeps any of our projects going -- contributing content, handling administrative tasks, keeping the processes flowing -- requires dedication. In some of the projects (okay, the English Wikipedia specifically, but I'm sure this problem will raise its head in other projects sooner or later) lack of recognition, lack of proper support them in difficult circumstances, lack of professional avenues to use the skills they have developed in volunteering, all of that leads to disenchantment, burn out, & the needless loss of people. Based on my years of experience on not only en.wikipedia but similar community-based projects, I am convinced this is the primary risk to any or all of the Wikimedia projects. -- Llywrch 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Improve the quality and the reliability of our content. Misibacsi 07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let people know there exist a non-profit organization that hosts Wikipedia and other projects that relies on charitable donations, and secondary help people locate the edit button reassuring them they can contribute something valuable as well as we do appreciate their contributions. Dedalus 19:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- a) Engagement and involvement of all stakeholders in the process, leading to acceptance and support for the decision procedure and of all major findings and conclusions.
- b) Ability of people to see the difference between the Wikimedia Foundation on the one side, and Wikipedia and other projects on the other side, i.e. Wikimedia (or Wikimedia movement) strategy isn't the same as Wikipedia or other project specific strategy. Dedalus 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reactions on the strategy documents at the end of the process by people who didn't engage or involve themselves in the process. Dedalus 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- All kinds of project specific issues - which board or office can't or won't influence - flooding the strategic planning process. Dedalus 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just worried that forking the project off onto another wiki might discourage/hamper participation from the global community. Anonymous Dissident 06:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)