Frustration with WMF = WP

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Frustration with WMF = WP

Billinghurst
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/Technology_report
Wikimedia proposes Wikipedia Zero

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I know that it is the flagship, however, it becomes a
self-fulfilling philosophy that nothing else exists at WMF when _WMF_ cannot even seem to
present the whole package.

Think if we expanded our visions and our message
* Quick and easy dictionary (wiktionary)
* Read a classic, a history, from science geniuses (Wikisource),
** or even download the work! Well only if there were resources provided so we could
explore the Epub extension
* grab a free lecture (wikiversity)

Different sites, different scopes, different experiences ... synergism of knowledge.

Regards, Andrew <- crawling back into his hole, and pulling the rock back over the top


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Marcus Buck-2
Wait am moment... Wikipedia Zero is an extension to Wikipedia that  
filters out images? And not even some of them on a totally voluntary  
base but all of them for everybody? I guess I better shut down my  
e-mail account to prevent the flood of angry mailing list posts from  
the censorship theoreticists...

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

(To make a contribution to the issue Billinghurst raised: As I  
understand it, Wikipedia Zero is a offer to mobile providers who  
restrict web access to a select few websites to limit traffic. They  
only allow access to a limited set of "most popular" websites with low  
bandwidth requirements. The providers probably are just interested in  
Wikipedia and not in its less popular sister projects... It's a  
transitional solution anyways. In a few years even the Global South  
will have sweet mobile internet connectivity and everybody can enjoy  
Wikisource and Wikiversity on mobile with images!)


Zitat von Billinghurst <[hidden email]>:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/Technology_report
> Wikimedia proposes Wikipedia Zero
>
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I know that it is the flagship,  
> however, it becomes a
> self-fulfilling philosophy that nothing else exists at WMF when  
> _WMF_ cannot even seem to
> present the whole package.
>
> Think if we expanded our visions and our message
> * Quick and easy dictionary (wiktionary)
> * Read a classic, a history, from science geniuses (Wikisource),
> ** or even download the work! Well only if there were resources  
> provided so we could
> explore the Epub extension
> * grab a free lecture (wikiversity)
>
> Different sites, different scopes, different experiences ...  
> synergism of knowledge.
>
> Regards, Andrew <- crawling back into his hole, and pulling the rock  
> back over the top
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Marc-Andre
On 02/11/2011 6:36 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Wait am moment... Wikipedia Zero is an extension to Wikipedia that
> filters out images? And not even some of them on a totally voluntary
> base but all of them for everybody? I guess I better shut down my
> e-mail account to prevent the flood of angry mailing list posts from
> the censorship theoreticists...
>

Well, you'll hear no such thing from me (and I'm arguably one of the
more verbal opponents of the image filter as originally proposed).  This
neatly sidestep all of the fatal flaws with filters where moral
judgments are imposed, or our well-intended technology is misused to
readers' detriment.

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

David Gerard-2
On 2 November 2011 12:11, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, you'll hear no such thing from me (and I'm arguably one of the
> more verbal opponents of the image filter as originally proposed).  This
> neatly sidestep all of the fatal flaws with filters where moral
> judgments are imposed, or our well-intended technology is misused to
> readers' detriment.


https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32138 - feature request
for asynchronous image loading.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Dominic McDevitt-Parks
In reply to this post by Billinghurst
While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
once? :-) This is the blog post that the WMF published regarding the
development: <
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/26/wikipedia-seeks-global-operator-partners-to-enable-free-access/>.
I don't want to single out its author, but I do think you can see the
problem many have complained about for years encapsulated in its opening
lines:

Probably the most repeated words around the Wikimedia movement are Jimmy
> Wales’ “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in the sum of all knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” The Wikipedia
> community are the ones creating that world, and the ubiquity of mobile
> internet is what may actually enable it.
>

In fact, the Wikimedia community are doing that, by making free texts
available for all, by writing a dictionary, maintaining a repository of
free media, by writing an encyclopedia, and so on. (I'm not cherry-picking;
anyone who reads the whole post should come away with the idea that
Wikimedia's mobile strategy is really only about Wikipedia.) Wikimedia's
mission is quite clearly not encyclopedia-specific, and its broad scope
actually seems designed to encompass the other works in the Wikimedia
family, and yet when it comes to issues of participation, usability,
MediaWiki development, and the WMF's other top initiatives, only Wikipedia
is ever really treated as mission-critical.

The Foundation expends a lot of energy worrying about stagnating
participation at Wikipedia, which is in the top 10 of all sites for most of
its respective languages, but much less time concerned with whether the
other projects get off the ground at all. A lot of work seems to have been
put into trying to make Wikipedia more user-friendly, all while projects
like Wiktionary and Wikisource hobble along, with incredible technical
barriers to participation, trying to make do with software and an interface
that was never designed with their needs at all. Note that this isn't the
same as saying that Wikipedia gets too much attention. It's perfectly
reasonable that the largest and most well-known project gets a lot of the
attention. But the Foundation often fails to act as if the other projects
are actually essential in fulfilling its mission, and is notoriously bad at
ever characterizing them as essential or trying to make them feel that way.

Dominic

On 2 November 2011 05:19, Billinghurst <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/Technology_report
> Wikimedia proposes Wikipedia Zero
>
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I know that it is the flagship,
> however, it becomes a
> self-fulfilling philosophy that nothing else exists at WMF when _WMF_
> cannot even seem to
> present the whole package.
>
> Think if we expanded our visions and our message
> * Quick and easy dictionary (wiktionary)
> * Read a classic, a history, from science geniuses (Wikisource),
> ** or even download the work! Well only if there were resources provided
> so we could
> explore the Epub extension
> * grab a free lecture (wikiversity)
>
> Different sites, different scopes, different experiences ... synergism of
> knowledge.
>
> Regards, Andrew <- crawling back into his hole, and pulling the rock back
> over the top
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Marc-Andre
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 02/11/2011 6:36 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Wait am moment... Wikipedia Zero is an extension to Wikipedia that
>> filters out images? And not even some of them on a totally voluntary
>> base but all of them for everybody? I guess I better shut down my
>> e-mail account to prevent the flood of angry mailing list posts from
>> the censorship theoreticists...
>>
>
> Well, you'll hear no such thing from me (and I'm arguably one of the
> more verbal opponents of the image filter as originally proposed).  This
> neatly sidestep all of the fatal flaws with filters where moral
> judgments are imposed, or our well-intended technology is misused to
> readers' detriment.
>

Not to contradict you in any substantial way, this idea has been posited
in an immense variety of forms, all soundly rejected by the community.
For someone to claim paternity to to a particular variety of the filtering
scheme, beggars belief. Dudes. you are not the first to think this up,
There are loads of them strewn by the roadside, when Jimbo was still
on his meds!! (Sorry Jimbo, you know I appreciate all the hard work
you did to get wikipedia up...)

Telll you what. If somebody collects the whole list on perennial proposals
page, and publicly tells us all how many permutations there are of this
proposal, I will personally donate -- wait for it -- ten times that number
in dimes to their designated charity. And I say this with a straight face,
this might well bankrupt me.


--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Dominic McDevitt-Parks
Dominic McDevitt-Parks, 02/11/2011 16:30:
> But the Foundation often fails to act as if the other projects
> are actually essential in fulfilling its mission, and is notoriously bad at
> ever characterizing them as essential or trying to make them feel that way.

Unless that "as if" is a variation of the "etsi deus non daretur" trick,
I disagree: lately, the WMF has actually been quite honest in admitting
that sister projects are not essential etc. etc.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Stephen Bain
In reply to this post by Dominic McDevitt-Parks
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
> discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
> once? :-)

Yes, this is a WMF-killing-the-other-projects conspiracy thread, not
an image filter conspiracy thread :)

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Kul Wadhwa
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Bain <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
>> discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
>> once? :-)
>
> Yes, this is a WMF-killing-the-other-projects conspiracy thread, not
> an image filter conspiracy thread :)
>

I want to address what appears to be the two main concerns here with
the "Wikipedia Zero" Initiative:

1) Using this as a way to expand the reach of an "image filter"

and

2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects

In regards to #1, although I'm somewhat aware of the discussions
around the image filter, this is not affecting how we are approaching
this Initiative. Not at all. In fact, if operators are willing to
allow for a zero-rated (data usage free) version of Wikipedia that
includes images and all, that's what we ideally want. And I will
continue to push for that when partners are willing to do that.
Operators, in general, are worried about taxing their networks by
providing free data at all so we're trying to work with them so there
is at least some way that people that can't afford data access in
developing countries to be able to at least access some form of
Wikipedia to start out with. We're also trying ways to do this via SMS
& USSD, which also doesn't support images. The reality is that images
use up more bandwidth than text so we have to work within the
constraints of mobile operators.  A user that wants to pay for data
access can get access to full Wikipedia and the sister projects.
However, as I said, we're pushing to get as much as we can with these
zero-rated initiatives and if mobile carriers are willing to do a
version that includes images and all, and every project, we should
definitely do it. The more complete the experience, the better.

In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.

--Kul (mobile grunt worker)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Dominic McDevitt-Parks
On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>
>
> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
> back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
> strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
> into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
> projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
> from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
> interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
> initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
> limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
> well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
> operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
> countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
> that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
>

Hi,

Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories?
Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you
are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made?

In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for
Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the
Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring
to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was
reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia
administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising
tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the
community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a
useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for
acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia
alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized.
This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as
relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.

Dominic
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

MZMcBride-2
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:

> On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>>
>>
>> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
>> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
>> back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
>> strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
>> into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
>> projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
>> from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
>> interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
>> initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
>> limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
>> well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
>> operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
>> countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
>> that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
>>
>
> Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories?
> Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you
> are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made?
>
> In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for
> Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the
> Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring
> to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was
> reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia
> administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising
> tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the
> community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a
> useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for
> acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia
> alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
> freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
> relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
> causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized.
> This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as
> relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.

I generally don't like "+1" posts, but wow, well said, Dominic.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Mateus Nobre
In reply to this post by Dominic McDevitt-Parks

"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge"
Of course it's for any Wikimedia project, Dominic. We are talking about free knowledge. And Wikimedia Foundation, in all activities, all, have one thing in common: free the knowledge. Make a world with every single human could acess and share all knowledge, may this is an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a text, a class even. Our objective, of wikipedians and any other wikimedia projects is just one: Share and make available free knowledge. Knowledge free the world's mind, so, knowledge have to stop being limited. Has to be FREE. Here's our objective, in my view.
_____________________
MateusNobre
MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects
(+55) 85 88393509
              30440865


> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:19:25 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP
>
> On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
> >
> >
> > In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
> > about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
> > back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
> > strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
> > into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
> > projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
> > from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
> > interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
> > initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
> > limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
> > well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
> > operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
> > countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
> > that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories?
> Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you
> are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made?
>
> In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for
> Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the
> Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring
> to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was
> reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia
> administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising
> tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the
> community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a
> useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for
> acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia
> alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
> freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
> relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
> causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized.
> This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as
> relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.
>
> Dominic
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Pedro Sanchez-2
In reply to this post by Kul Wadhwa
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Kul Wadhwa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>
> In regards to #1, although I'm somewhat aware of the discussions
> around the image filter, this is not affecting how we are approaching
> this Initiative. Not at all. In fact, if operators are willing to
> allow for a zero-rated (data usage free) version of Wikipedia that
> includes images and all, that's what we ideally want. And I will
> continue to push for that when partners are willing to do that.
> Operators, in general, are worried about taxing their networks by
> providing free data at all so we're trying to work with them so there
> is at least some way that people that can't afford data access in
> developing countries to be able to at least access some form of
> Wikipedia to start out with. We're also trying ways to do this via SMS
> & USSD, which also doesn't support images. The reality is that images
> use up more bandwidth than text so we have to work within the
> constraints of mobile operators.  A user that wants to pay for data
> access can get access to full Wikipedia and the sister projects.
> However, as I said, we're pushing to get as much as we can with these
> zero-rated initiatives and if mobile carriers are willing to do a
> version that includes images and all, and every project, we should
> definitely do it. The more complete the experience, the better.
>
> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
> back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
> strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
> into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
> projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
> from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
> interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
> initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
> limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
> well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
> operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
> countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
> that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
>
> --Kul (mobile grunt worker)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I think the concept of "wikipedia zero" is a great one.

But there are 2 issues here
1. An interface for offering Wikipedia for low speed connections
2. A project that involves phone companies

Now I think the idea is worth pursuing by its own merits, without
needing to have some deal with a phone company.
Even if no company steps up, we should be offering a text only
version, and that's why the initiative is a good one.

But.. we should be offering a text version of all our projects, not
just wikipedia.
It makes a lot more sense to offer a text-only version of Wikisource,
Wikiquote, to say something than Wikipedia (since those wikis are
almost text-only already, user-experience should not differ much ).

That's what I believe is what people here is pointing: even if
Wikipedia Zero is neat, it would also be good to have wikibooks Zero
and the rest. And the idea should be pursued  even if no company wants
a deal, since the idea aligns and helps us to reach our goal to
provide free knowledge (not free wikipedia).

And that's why people are wondering why other projects are not even
considered or mentioned in Wikimedia annoucements (it does indeed lend
to the perception that only wikipedia matters and only because phone
companies will be interested)
--
Pedro Sánchez
http://drini.mx
@combinatorica

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Stephen Bain
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Stephen Bain <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
>> discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
>> once? :-)
>
> Yes, this is a WMF-killing-the-other-projects conspiracy thread, not
> an image filter conspiracy thread :)
>

To quote from the movie "The Right Stuff" (perhaps misquote, so sue me)
"The issue here isn't pussy, it's monkey."

The administration and the tech folk are still treating the folks who are going
to ride the rocket as not in charge, and that has to change. A fork or
whatever, but this simply cannot be allowed to stand. *We* edit wikipedia.
Not Sue or Erik or Jimbo, or the Board (least of all).We do it.

There is another famous movie quote. "Build it and they will come."

Welll there is an obverse side to that coin. "Tear it down, and they won't
come anymore."




--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Risker
On 2 November 2011 21:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Stephen Bain <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
> >> discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
> >> once? :-)
> >
> > Yes, this is a WMF-killing-the-other-projects conspiracy thread, not
> > an image filter conspiracy thread :)
> >
>
> To quote from the movie "The Right Stuff" (perhaps misquote, so sue me)
> "The issue here isn't pussy, it's monkey."
>
> The administration and the tech folk are still treating the folks who are
> going
> to ride the rocket as not in charge, and that has to change. A fork or
> whatever, but this simply cannot be allowed to stand. *We* edit wikipedia.
> Not Sue or Erik or Jimbo, or the Board (least of all).We do it.
>
> There is another famous movie quote. "Build it and they will come."
>
> Welll there is an obverse side to that coin. "Tear it down, and they won't
> come anymore."
>


Jussi-Ville, I'm having a really hard time following your logic here.  My
understanding is that this is targeted at sharing knowledge with the people
who can't afford to pay ridiculous data access fees and who *aren't coming
now* because it is too expensive or too slow for them to make use of our
projects.  In what way is opposing the sharing of knowledge in line with
the core objectives of every single project?  Has not every single edit
ever made to any of the projects been done under licenses that permit
anyone or any organization (including the WMF) "to copy, distribute,
transmit...[or]... adapt" [1] the content, provided that appropriate
attribution is given and the resulting information is released under the
same license?


Risker/Anne



[1] Excerpt from text of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
Unported license (full text in English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License)
A version of the applicable license is linked to from every page in every
WMF project.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Frustration with WMF = WP

Billinghurst
In reply to this post by Dominic McDevitt-Parks
Can I start with my disappointment of those who like to hijack/corrupt the conversation
for their pet whinge?  This was in no way bagging WP, absolutely not.  This was not
bagging WMF; this was my concern and frustration that WMF conflates to become Wikipedia,
and that the organisation does it itself. There was ZERO mention of conspiracy, there was
actually no blame whatsoever, and such comments in that regard were either careless or
callous, and to me disrespectful and somewhat dismissive of my actual concerns. :-(

When the conflation continues on nearly every occasion, what reflection can those who
volunteer their time on the smaller projects have to the consideration of their efforts?  
What actions and reflections of our action do we undertake to modify our behaviours to
think and act globally?

Thanks to Dominic for actually reading the email, and being significantly more eloquent
than I.

To the WPians around the world, yes the site is important, it is the flagship and the
gateway to many parts of WMF.  That said, it is an encyclopaedia, it is not a dictionary,
it is not a library, it is not a source of quotes; and the site most distinctly states and
discourages such extensions.  To me, the usefulness of Wikisource is as a resource to be
used to present works of previous centuries that can be used as further resources; as
works that are contemporary to their times, and reflect the BLP/recentlyLP/their celebrity
of THEIR time; without our bias or disregard of people of their time.

You don't see us screaming and shouting for resources, we ask, and we understand that we
don't get top billing. However, it would be nice to see some billing, or even to see some
flicker of interest.  If there are not to be any resources and if we are just poo under
the boots of the downtrodden, then do us the courtesy of letting us know that our efforts
are not valued.

Regards, Andrew


On 2 Nov 2011 at 17:19, Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:

> On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
> >
> >
> > In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
> > about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
> > back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
> > strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
> > into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
> > projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
> > from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
> > interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
> > initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
> > limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
> > well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
> > operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
> > countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
> > that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Can we not refer to people's reasoned complaints as conspiracy theories?
> Or, better yet, let's actually respond to the complaints in question if you
> are going to post, rather than just replying to the joke someone made?
>
> In general, editors of non-Wikipedia projects have an appreciation for
> Wikipedia and its special role within the Wikimedia community and the
> Wikimedia Foundation's strategy. This is reflected by Andrew even referring
> to is as the "flagship" in his opening post, and I also stated that it was
> reasonable that Wikipedia gets extra attention. I mean, we're Wikipedia
> administrators; we're not anti-Wikipedia. I don't understand how "A rising
> tide lifts all boats" has anything to do with the real concerns within the
> community. Does developing things for Wikipedia magically make MediaWiki a
> useful platform for building a dictionary? Does it somehow make up for
> acting as if those other projects don't exist, like referring to Wikipedia
> alone as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
> freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
> relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
> causes of frustration, not merely the fact that Wikipedia gets emphasized.
> This criticism is not specific to the mobile team, or even necessarily as
> relevant there as it is to some of the WMF's other activities.
>
> Dominic
>
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l