Proposal talk:Focus primarily on content

From Strategic Planning

Whilst I agree that content should be the most important part of the project, there is a danger that if it is centralised to the extent that all other areas of the project are excluded, then problems may arise. Some "fun" aspects, such as userboxes, jokes/games in userspace, etc, should be retained to some extent. If all users are allowed to do is edit content pages, then it may result in morale or boredom-related issues. --GW 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to argue with the sentiment of this proposal. It is of course correct. But I guess I would view this as rather too big a proposal... I'd like to see proposals that give us a specific means by which retaining focus is to be achieved. What would this proposal look like in practice? I think things like Wikimania are great. They get reported in the press. They serve as ambassadorial missions. I think outreach is important. And I say that as someone who is rather agoraphobic and unlikely to attend many meetings/events. --Bodnotbod 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats good for the goose…

So, what happens if we apply the "how will this improve our content?" test to Proposal:Focus primarily on content? Many people believe that increased foundation intervention in content would be a net negative— That the foundation has no where near the resources required to exert any meaningfully beneficial influence on the content, and this line of reasoning has been invoked in many discussions about foundation involvement. Arguably the foundation should be spending its resources on non-content things, thereby handling the things which the editing community is unable to or inefficient at handling. If "staying the heck out of the way" can be reasonably argued to be a fair way of ensuring project content— can a maxim like the one proposed in this proposal carry any meaning at all? --Gmaxwell 22:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point and you've given me a new question to ask myself when reviewing other proposals. I suppose it is possible for very few people at the top to make big changes to how the entire community behaves, though. Here's a bad example: "instituting (and building into the software) the rule that every editor must make 5 edits to an article before they can make one to policy/talk pages." It's a silly idea, of course. But I'm just attempting to show that you could change the software or handling of user accounts to force a specific behaviour in the entire community. --Bodnotbod 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about they put a limit on non-mainspace edits? That would help make people focus on the content. 71.155.241.31 04:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about Foundation intervention in content. It's about ensuring that what the Foundation spends donor money on is ultimately improving content, rather than trying to meet other motives. --MZMcBride 01:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of perspective: This is a reasonable proposal for members of the Foundation who see volunteer editors as also part of the foundation (the most important part by person-hours of effort expended, by far.) It is not a reasonable proposal for those in the foundation who do not see volunteer editors as part of the foundation, except to the extent that it can be accomplished through volunteer support activities. Also, it makes sense for those those in the Office who deal primarily with content issues such as BLP, but they're doing it anyway. --Polofrfr 15:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly

WMF needs to focus on the editors so that they focus on the content. Create a more content-centric atmosphere instead of social community-centric. 71.155.241.31 04:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers for portals, please

I QUITE agree w/ this proposal.

As already written in my today proposal (in French), to prevent most WP articles, regarding popular music portals, from being so disparate/unachieved, i.e. to make their contents accurate, reliable and... attractive, here are two proposals :

1. Set up a minimum of coordination / harmonization for all related portals, thru a coopted team amongst volunteers having duly shown their ability w/ publishers taking turns ;

2. Set up a much more realistic / precise guideline for any artist / band / topic and... put it into practice.

Regarding their feasibility for both, it mainly depends on WM managers' decisions --Polofrfr 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Polofrfr 05:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)To make myself perfectly clear, as a researcher in the history of rock/pop music (and French songs also) since more than 25 years, and having recently retired, I could (am ready to) spend thousands of hours in updating and amending both discographies and bibliographies for most related artists/bands and topics.[reply]

But I just refuse to do it as long as better (clearer) rules and coordination will not be set up inside music portals for such a mammoth job.

Attention WM Foundation : please do not discourage volunteers/goodwills, okay ? --Polofrfr 05:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it differently, and agree.

I took this as a call for attention (not really a proposal, is it?) meant for the whole community, not just management or the foundation. And I just rated it "very high" on all accounts. Again, I have no right to make this comment, but then allow me to say this: I have read quite a few proposals by now, and in my understanding the same feelings give origin, or otherwise permeate a good number of those proposals, even when those proposals seem to be very different among them. My impression is that the prevailing feelings are:

too many talkers (like myself) and too few doers.
too many doers are doing meta things instead of good old content.
sore lack of recognition (and/or rewards) for good work, and too many barriers.
a feeling of being overwelmed by the complexity of this babel tower, and a desire of "unification"

Thamus 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?

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 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J’ai vraiment du mal à comprendre comment les personnes qui ont pourtant 'cadré' et organisé depuis la hiérarchie ainsi que la division par portails musicaux (et à l’intérieur de chacun) jusqu'aux règles de structure et de rédaction des articles etc... puissent être butées au point de ne pas réaliser (…refuser de réaliser ?) les carences et l'à-peu-près croissant, dans toute cette ‘belle’ organisation (usine à gaz ?), quant au contenu documentaire des articles.

Il me semble évident/incontournable qu’il va falloir, à la fois :

- Demander aux contributeurs de travailler mieux sur le côté documentaire ;

- Faire appel à des spécialistes ou, au moins, à des gens compétents.

Aurais-je émis des suggestions 'tabou', interdites, dans mes deux derniers ‘appels’, aussi clairs qu’il sont …restés sans la moindre réponse ? Il y a deux sortes de sources placé le 4 octobre dans Discussion:Michael_Jackson et Y a-t-il toujours un pilote dans l'avion ? placé le 5 dans Discussion:Rock 'n' roll‎ Discussion:Histoire du rock‎ et dans Discussion Projet:Rock‎

Y aurait-il qq chose d’aberrant à demander davantage de coordination/harmonisation et davantage d’instructions de rédaction plus claires et pratiques concernant les aspects documentaires des articles sur les musiques actuelles ?

Plus je pose de questions (depuis 6 mois) et… moins j’obtiens de réponses ! Est-ce que tout le monde s’en fiche ?

Si le but des responsables est d’augmenter la médiocrité, le côté bâclé et hétéroclite de la doc dans la majorité de ces articles, j’affirme qu’on y va droit, tout droit !

Qu’on ne compte pas sur moi pour collaborer dans ce cadre-là… Il y quelque chose d'aberrant (nonsense) à s’arrêter en cours de route qui aboutit à décourager les (rares) bonnes volontés :-( Heureusement, j’ai largement de quoi m’occuper ailleurs !

Bon courage à ceux qui restent...

--82.123.39.54 13:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]