I would submit that wikipedia choose its alliances carefully. The greater the extent to which wikipedia et al can maintain a credible level of neutrality the better. Especially where politics is concerned, the wrong alliance or even perceived alliance can introduce all manner of counterproductive, mind-closing unpleasantness. While partnerships bring people together, they can also create serious divisions.
Partnering with the public
I’m sorry, but since at least April 2006 Wikipedia’s most publicized mission statement has been “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” This may be why a great many people -- including those patrolling “Recent changes” -- seem to consider the purpose of Wikipedia to be: editing the encyclopedia. If the mission is really to help increase free-of-charge educational content available to the public, then I think thousands of edits per article is something gone wrong. Perhaps the mission statement on the main page should be something like, “A free encyclopedia written by many of its readers.” --Chuck Marean 02:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Chuck, and welcome! This is strategic planning for Wikimedia, which includes but is not limited to Wikipedia. The vision stated on the home page was articulated many years ago by Jimmy Wales and has been refined since, but the essence has always been the same. Besides, I don't think the vision conflicts with people editing Wikipedia because they simply want to edit an encyclopedia. --Eekim 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I do think that. It would be different if instead of "people editing Wikipedia because they simply want to edit" they did so because they "want to edit an encyclopedia", presupposing they know about encyclopedias and about the skills that go into editing an encyclopedia. - Brya 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)