[Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP

Fri Nov 4 12:55:27 UTC 2011

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 <kwadhwa at wikimedia.org> 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
> 
> 