where did "supporting reference content" mandate go?

where did "supporting reference content" mandate go?

I notice that "supporting reference content" (WikiQuote, WikTionary, WikiSource, and Commons) has been removed[1] from the task force mandate to explore the potential for Wikimedia to play a role in providing content in areas where it already has established projects. Has this subject area been reassigned to a different task force and, if so, which one? Or has it been determined that such content lies outside the purview of strategic planning and, if so, what is the consequence of this finding?

Ningauble13:31, 28 October 2009

It wasn't removed, just rewritten. I think supporting reference content outside of Wikipedia is extremely important, and it falls under the purview of the Expanding Content Task Force. Hope you'll take some time to explore some of those questions and have your opinions heard.

Eekim04:45, 29 October 2009
 

Thanks for the invitation. I have already been offering opinions at Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions#Supporting Reference Content (and elsewhere), where I have suggested answers to some questions, sought clarification of the purport of others. Perhaps the loose coupling between ESP questions and questions in task force mandates is a source of confusion. Anyway:
Given that prior analysis of the encompassing ESP raises the question whether Wikimedia should support this specific type of content, and includes a finding (non-finding?) that there is no data showing the relevance of this specific type of project to Wikimedia's mission, there may be a need for more explicit resolution than simply taking it off the table.

Ningauble18:25, 29 October 2009

You're right about the loose coupling. It's a constant challenge to try not to let content diverge too much on this wiki. The transition to LiquidThreads has made this kind of thing a bit more difficult, because LiquidThreads does not support importing pre-existing Talk threads. Thoughts on how to improve this?

You make some excellent points about framing. I responded at Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions#Supporting Reference Content, but I'll repeat the point here. Expansion is probably the wrong framing. Moreover, one of the key questions we should think seriously about is reduction.

Eekim16:41, 30 October 2009
 
  • Re. Divergence – I posted some thoughts at the Village Pump.
  • Re. LiquidThreads – It also does not support structured discussion very well. This has been raised at LiquidThreads Feedback a couple times (e.g. [1]) but I don't think the development team sees the value in it yet.
  • Re. Framing – The questions in the task force mandate are better framed than the ESP questions (some of which look like leading questions with ulterior purpose) but could probably be better still. I have some opinions on this that I will add to the ESP questions, but it may make an even greater muddle of what is already there.
Ningauble23:40, 30 October 2009

I followed up to your thread on Village Pump about Divergence. I'm very concerned about this, and I want to move to a solution quickly.

Regarding LiquidThreads: You can still edit Talk pages, and so structuring can happen that way. In other words, people can create subheaders and point to specific threads. I do get your overall point, though. The great potential for LiquidThreads (different from traditional forums) is the integration between wiki and forum capabilities. The ability to refactor a conversation is one of those.

Eekim00:49, 18 November 2009