Proposal talk:Can Wikimedia Become A 300 Million People Movement By 2020?
|"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|
We could get libraries and schools to allow people to register and use their Wikipedia accounts on their Internet if they cannot afford it at home. There is more to research than just grabbing information; uploading information to Wikimedia could count as research for both the donor and the recipient. GVnayR 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
"our world-wide movement and our social impact". Sorry, I don´t think Wikimedia should become the next google, microsoft or ebay. --Goldzahn 08:00, 1 September 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 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think separating "Wikipedia/Wikimedia people" to "end-users" and "editors" is not good. Actually, we probably should not talk about "users", at all. Why not just "participants" or "people", of which some are editors and some just readers? I also think that this idea is already well formulated in the foundation mission statement: "... to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content..." () --Teemu 08:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- (+1) Yes Teemu - that divide goes against what Web 2.0 stands for. 126.96.36.199 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You mention Facebook. I don't think that Facebook, Twitter or the like have much in common with Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't collect users to talk about their latest adventures, it might collect users as long as it collects their knowledge. Maybe it will collect people's knowledge about fishing, that doesn't mean that they're gonna talk about fishing all day long.
I do think though, that Wikipedia is capable to collect the existing knowledge about fishing. If it does, it might attract readers who want to learn about fishing. Any other subject might be inserted.
Wikipedia might be there in five or ten years time, but it needs to do what it's designed to do, that is provide knowledge. It may be state-of-the-art knowledge, or popular knowledge, as long as it's controllable knowledge that can be rewritten by anyone who is better informed, Wikipedia should be able to grow. Wikipedia doesn't need to become a kiss-goodbye site. - Art Unbound 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the comparison to Facebook appears to be an unhappy one, as Facebook does not share the same goals, at all. - Brya 07:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)