Talk:Main Page/en/archive 2

Featured WIkimedia-pedia + News

I'd love to see more dynamic content on this page. We already have featured proposals. I'd also like to see featured Wikimedia-pedia pages and a News section. Thoughts? --Eekim 17:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a news section is that there's nothing worse than a dead news section (OK - one thing - a dead blog). If we do it, we have to be sure that we, you know, have news and stuff. That takes manual interface. Serving a featured wikimedia-pedia page is easy. No manual intervention required. :) ~Philippe 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So two obvious questions: 1. How would we serve an automated featured Wikimedia-pedia page? 2. Are there people interested in helping report on news? I'd like to do something in conjunction with Wikipedia signpost, as has been discussed on Village Pump --Eekim 18:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could set up Wikimedia-pedia pages to serve in the same way that we do Featured Proposals (it's just a matter of adding the ones that we want to serve to a list). As for news, hopefully there are people here who wanna do it. :-) ~Philippe 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to include random featured proposals too?--Kozuch 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template Backstage projects

Does anyone think there is no place for it at the redesigned page? I think we could easily include it at the bottom...--Kozuch 07:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about having it on the Main Page at all. Is it really necessary? Wouldn't a link suffice? --Eekim 21:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you fear it is too big, maybe I can make a smaller "pocket" version that would not take up that much space.--Kozuch 07:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly opposed to the size; I wonder what the demonstrated need for it is? Mainpage space is at a premium - what value does it add? If someone can make a case for it, I'm happy to defer, but I'm not sure what it brings to the table. ~Philippe 00:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you are not completely ignorant, you wont mind the template there, because it really can be useful for a newbie to get oriented in Wikimedia. Sure, might that the one or other visitor away from strategy wiki, but I think we are humans developed enought to acknowledge the importance of this value even if it may directly hurt our own project? Guys, this is what I do every day, I give and dont feel to recieve that much, but I do it because I am passionate about what comes out of it... There have been tons of coinsidently followed links like these that educated me to my current status, I feel this is just a sign of "good behaviour" to do inclued such a template. Maybe comparable to "ubuntu" philosophy? Is that a reason for somebody actually? I hope it is... --Kozuch 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons use of photo of MIchelangelo's Last Judgment

Can I legally dowload a photograph of Michelangelo's Last Judgment for use in a novel from Wikipedia or any other website or book that that I own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.68.123 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki is for issues dealing with Wikimedia's Strategic Planning process; we're the wrong place to ask about this. You should really check on Wikimedia Commons, at http://commons.wikimedia.org. :-) ~Philippe (WMF) 04:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may use any of the works in Commons:Category:Michelangelo Buonarroti and its subcategories. For works by authors who still have a claim of copyright, please abide by the licenses on the specific file description pages. Of course, acknowledgement would be nice. Thanks for asking! — Jeff G. ツ 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An independent evaluation of the strategic planning process

I have been participating according to instructions on the strategy wiki for the better part of the past year, and have been encouraged to continue to do so. However, I am unconvinced that this forum is more effective than, for example, Meta, foundation-l, blogging, Twitter, Google Buzz, or other fora. So I have decided to perform an independent evaluation of the utility of participation in the strategic planning process.

I will begin by asking Eric and Philippe to list here all of the concrete accomplishments of the strategic planning process over the past year. Gentlemen? 71.198.176.22 02:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I go by Eugene actually. I'd encourage you to ask this question on Village Pump, as you'll get more visibility that way. To answer your question, the biggest accomplishment of the strategic planning process is this wiki itself. You'll see that there has been a ton of in-depth research (all available at Wikimedia-pedia) to help inform the discussion. We had almost a hundred volunteers deeply engaged in the task force process, which resulted in a number of recommendations. There have been almost a thousand proposals made, many of which have been thoroughly discussed, merged, and so forth. Finally, the work is currently being synthesized into a set of concrete movement priorities.

This has been the de facto place to find people who care about Wikimedia strategy. Engagement overall has been excellent, and we've had about a thousand people contribute to this wiki. Obviously, people's experiences will differ, as people have engaged at different levels in the process. If you can point me to a comparable level of deep and broad engagement and synthesis on Meta, foundation-l, blogs, Twitter, Google Buzz, and other forums, I'd invite you to point us there. --Eekim 06:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eugene, I've already learned an important fact that I wouldn't otherwise have had the opportunity to. My next question is: How do you believe the strategic planning process can address the deleterious effects of human hierarchical behavior (as described by Bugental (2000))? The choice of fora, from a contributors viewpoint, does not depend so much on the depth and breadth of content, as the ability to effect positive change, which means visibility and reach to those with decision-making authority.

Honestly, the Bugental paper is large and dense, and I simply don't have the time to read through it. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your question. --Eekim 21:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get at the time-effectiveness of participating in the Strategy Wiki, as opposed to other fora: what are the advantages in terms of being able to present issues and choices to decision-makers high in the hierarchy? 71.198.176.22 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's wrong to view the Wikimedia movement as a hierarchy. There's certainly hierarchy within the Wikimedia Foundation, but many of the decisions and actions within the movement happen outside of the Foundation. That said, if you read through this wiki, I think it's clear that the discussion that happened here had a direct impact on the Foundation's current business planning process. Moreover, there is an engaged group of volunteers who are aligning around a shared set of priorities, which will have a huge impact on the movement as a whole. Can you point to an alternative fora that can say as much? --Eekim 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other fora I mentioned have certainly, as have the village pumps on various projects. 71.198.176.22 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third set of questions: One of the specific things I was hoping to see from the Foundation was support for moving new feature proposals in to Bugzilla. Have any Foundation staff worked on any of those merges? Do any Foundation staff want to work on them? Do any Foundation staff think it would be a good idea to hire someone to do that? 71.198.176.22 15:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Foundation's role, it's the community's role. I'd encourage you and others to develop friendly, constructive ways to encourage people who make these proposals to post them to Bugzilla. I suspect that many of these people didn't even know that Bugzilla existed. --Eekim 21:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, people who don't know that Bugzilla exists are the least prepared to move feature requests into Bugzilla, because doing so requires specialist knowledge of software categories and subcategories. I am forced to conclude that I can not in good conscience participate in or recommend the Strategy Wiki until the Foundation's stance on moving feature requests into Bugzilla changes. Also, it has been several days since you told me that you would address the "Done" marker just above "Proposals" on the front page. That is the kind of change which I would have thought would have taken seconds, not days or weeks. 71.198.176.22 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Done" marker, if it were a matter of simply removing it, it would have happened (and frankly, I would have hoped that you would have done it. This is a wiki, after all, and I know you are well-versed in wikis.) In fact, it's more complex than that. The Done marker refers to the Phase, not the proposal process. This page can definitely be clarified, and I've been drafting a replacement, but it will take a while, and it will require some community feedback.

As for your decision not to participate in or recommend the strategy wiki, I'm sorry to hear that, and I wish you the best. --Eekim 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to imagine why you would have hoped that I removed the done mark, which you say you would have disagreed with. If there is an ongoing process as part of a phase which is marked done, then the phase is either not done or the process is not strictly a part of the phase. I don't want to risk getting into any further disagreements here. I'm unhappy with the protected proposal categorizations listing "ending anonymity" under "improving content" because that makes it all that much more difficult to explain the Foundation's position on anonymous editing and multiple empirical studies, which is that anonymous editing in aggregate improves content. I spent several hours on that without progress. I hope I will be able to return some day to a strategy wiki which doesn't protect such views opposed to the Foundation on widely recognized foundational issues. Finally, I don't think [1] is currently returning the results from actual reader ratings. Reader ratings of proposals have been available for a long time, but if the results from that search say anything, they probably say the reader ratings aren't being attended to. 71.198.176.22 22:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]