Talk:Key questions/en

From Strategic Planning
Latest comment: 14 years ago by in topic Re editorial process - and quality.

Re Wave at this time

The Google Wave demonstrations showed how Google Wave can provide a proof of concept WYSIWYG editing interface to MediaWiki. Wikipedia content itself was still parsed by MediaWiki. More work needs to be done to make it universally usable. Thanks, GerardM 10:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

A better way?

Once we have a list of questions, is there a way we might create a Digg clone to try and filter these or at least rank them? A big wiki page list is a mess. Steven Walling 03:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Steven. We're exploring this. One option we're considering is Ubuntu Brainstorm. One of the problems with tools like this is that they don't handle multiple languages. Another thing we're exploring our MediaWiki extensions that give you this capability. If you have other ideas, please let us know! --Eekim 07:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if Pligg handles multiple languages? Steven Walling 07:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not certain if the ubiquitous "Share your ideas" conveys the current process, since the structure so far seems designed to find good questions. I suppose I'm saying it's not so easy to realize that answers can go on the link titled "[Call for Proposals]": Twocs 16:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

reach, participation, quality...

I'd like to see a different set of basic categories. Breadth, [New] Participation & Retention, [New] projects, [New] media ... empowerment, education, effectiveness. Sj

Feel free to create pages/sections/hashtags where appropriate. I personally have treated "new content / new media" as a subcomponent of quality, with quality meaning "making the existing content more useful, and making more content that's considered useful".--Eloquence 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've added the three E's to the key questions listed here -- those are drawn directly from the language of our mission, and seem to me to be more on-target than the cross-sections currently being explored in pursuit of P/Q/R. Sj 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


The code Special:PrefixIndex/Proposals should be changed into Special:AllPages/Proposal: --Goldzahn 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm open to it, but... why? Explain it to me like I'm a wiki-code idiot. (hush! I said HUSH!) -- Philippe 05:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think Special:PrefixIndex/Proposals shows not all the proposals. Actually it shows only the redirects that are not deleted after moving the proposals into the namespace proposal. --Goldzahn 05:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
You're entirely right, of course! I'm changing it now. -- Philippe 05:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

A Strategy discussion that does not discuss FUNDING ? What kind of strategy is that ?

Wikipedia (et al) have a great deal to offer the world, and this Strategy dicussion is very valuable. But...

The strategy discussion is useless if Wikpedia goes broke. WikiPedia is constantly asking for donations to stay alive.

We need a real strategy for funding, or much of the rest is really so much Hot air.

So strong do I feel that I will add Strategy for Funding at a high level to this Wiki. Sorry if that is stepping on some toes.--Richardb 00:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you think it's not being addressed... it falls under strategic priority 5, which is at Emerging_strategic_priorities#ESP_5._Optimize_Wikimedia.27s_operations -- Philippe 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re editorial process - and quality.

I suspect that the "editorial process" is much more important than just resolution of disputes. And may be central to the issue of quality. I have an essay on the edit function that may be of interest in this regard. - J. Johnson 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply