When the stakeholders are "the readers" or "the editors" it is quite clear that this assumes that all the readers are the same and have the same requirements. It is impossible to support this. The readers of the English language Wikipedia have a completely different experience then the readers of the Lingala Wikipedia. The first has almost three million articles just about everything while the Lingala Wikipedia is technically broken; you can not even use all the Lingala characters in edit mode and consequently there are hardly any articles. When you are an editor of the English language Wikipedia, things like "blame" and Flagged Revisions make eminent sense, there is nothing to blame on the Lingala Wikipedia to blame or flag... Obviously there are other languages where the situation is less extreme but essentially it is not helpful to put all editors and readers on one heap.
By simplifying our stakeholders in this way you move the existing language issues under the carpet. Commons provides another great example why this is a fallacy; as we do not support languages in finding images, Commons is useless as a resource to everyone who does not speak English. This means that all the readers and editors who do not speak English cannot build their stake in Commons. GerardM 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don´t know if readers in the future (in 5 years? 20 years?) are also our stakeholders. A sign in this direction could be, that we don´t use words like now or this year. --Goldzahn 15:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Any numbers or weights behind all the stakeholders... in terms of usage, $, political capital, etc? --jsonin 12.Aug.09
If the vision is the Sum of All knowledge to reach Every single human being - then aren't the non readers our audience too? Jennifer Riggs 17:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ghting
- good point. added. Sj
They are third on the current list, but there at the top. Elsewhere this group - the most significant group contributing directly to the realization of the mission - has been listed last and as 'independent volunteers' when enumerating type of participation; it deserves recognition as the heart of the current movement and the projects we know today. Sj 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the list is in rough order of decreasing total numbers. If that's true, we should reorder it a bit. Nemo 13:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)