221:
117:
107:
33:
127:
87:
137:
97:
355:"Investing specifically in the "smaller projects." The Wikimedia Foundation generally focuses on investments that have the largest possible net impact. Some of these investments may benefit smaller projects, but the Wikimedia Foundation will not make investments that are likely to have a disproportionately small impact."
187:, the Wikipedias are the flagship projects and will continue to get the greatest share of Foundation attention and resources—making the outcome of the strategy project especially important for Wikipedians. Gardner also noted one important aspect of the "Wikimedia movement" in which the Foundation will
160:
this week, the
Wikimedia strategic planning process is developing a five-year plan for where the Wikimedia Foundation will try to take the projects and where the communities might try to take the projects beyond the remit of the Foundation. But at the same time the strategy project suffers the same
333:
Actually, a more nuanced explanation of Sue
Gardner's proposed emphasis would be (1) on the technology which keeps the websites of the projects running; (2) building the community thru recruitment, training & retraining, supporting & rewarding its volunteers who "need to be incentivized ,
362:
The implication I take from that is that resources will continue to go to the larger projects that have proven the possibility of a high impact, and obviously the
Wikipedias are among them. The point I was trying to make is that strategy is important for Wikipedians to pay attention to, not that
489:
I'm glad the foundation is confirming their place as one part of the
Wikimedia movement with a particular role - support of the editors who actually create the content and share it. The strategic planning is not about deciding where the foundation us going to lead us. It is about choosing which
191:
get involved: public policy. Advocacy for free culture and free software, open access to knowledge and cultural resources, copyright reform, web standards, and other issues important to much of the
Wikimedia community will be left, as they have been, to local Wikimedia chapters and individual
296:
465:
Whatever the case, I appreciate the extra coverage. Sometimes people won't participate in these discussions, regardless -- I don't do it as often as I probably should -- but I don't think anybody would claim that increasing awareness of the topic is a bad idea. Thanks. –
212:
welcomes new (or returning) writers for other areas as well. The greatest needs are for more help with "News and notes", "In the news", the "Sister projects" report, as well as the "Discussion report"—or just ask and we can put you to work on something that suits you.
90:
403:... After seeing the link a hundred times, I finally took a quick skim of the strategic planning information — and yes, very important ideas: Ideas that "the community" doesn't much think about discussing. If they don't think about it, will they read about it in
110:
446:
s role? I'm not sure, but I think it could a useful one, in terms of giving people an easy way to find out if something at
Strategy wiki is currently going on that they are interested in. A lot of the issues being discussed actually
130:
383:
in the US that could also shut down
Knowledge and parts of the Internet in general. This could be the biggest threat to Knowledge. Look at what happen to Google (who supports Net Neutrality) in China over Internet censorship.
100:
140:
363:
other projects will be or should be ignored. (Actually, I personally think more investment in some of the smaller projects, especially
Wikinews, would be a good longer term strategy, but that's neither here nor there.)--
334:
monitored and recognized"; & (3) encourage the development of an "on-the-ground" presence. Nothing there which could be read that they will prefer the
Wikipedias while leaving the other projects to benign neglect. --
196:
could be a useful venue to keep
Wikimedians in the loop on significant developments in the broader free culture movement and the information policy arena; if you are interested in covering this regularly for the
431:(As I said, a drive by comment — ending with praise for the solicitation for writers in this area — and, of course, volunteering to do so ... in rhetorical sonnet form ... to fulfill expectations. ;-)
451:
things Wikimedians have been thinking about for a long while, just in different contexts. So regular coverage would give editors more opportunities to find something that they can connect to.--
504:
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this task force. I look forward to good discussion about the pressing issue's that we all face going forward. Let the knowldge flow.
184:
73:
460:
436:
311:
479:
393:
275:
280:
265:
250:
157:
372:
285:
120:
270:
255:
172:. This will require a writer familiar with the Strategic Planning wiki (or willing to become so). If you are interested in covering a strategy beat for the
499:
260:
238:
343:
538:
202:
514:
232:
52:
41:
591:
348:
You're right, I put it badly. The part I was referring to was this, from the "Areas the Wikimedia Foundation will not prioritize" section:
67:
316:
490:
technical and social tools are likely to be most useful to the community in whatever direction we decide to go in the next few years.
168:
One possibility for keeping the Knowledge community more closely connected to the strategy process is to cover it regularly in the
323:
21:
566:
300:
561:
556:
177:
551:
418:
commentary, but the bottom line is that YES we are at an important (pivotal?) moment in Knowledge history ... and some
522:
546:
220:
46:
32:
17:
389:
161:
problem as many of Knowledge's sister projects: strategy.wikimedia.org feels much farther than
495:
474:
572:
510:
8:
518:
456:
433:
368:
162:
385:
339:
307:
491:
468:
380:
585:
452:
364:
150:
335:
379:
Let us also not forget that the FCC is trying to pass
321:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
583:
68:Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy
424:(structural contemplation) is vital. What is
148:
201:, let us know, or share your ideas on the
185:strategy letter to the Wikimedia trustees
324:
14:
584:
506:--〜〜〜〜 02:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
51:
592:Knowledge Signpost archives 2010-02
183:As Sue Gardner noted in her recent
27:
219:
53:
31:
28:
603:
306:These comments are automatically
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
156:As Eugene Eric Kim explains in
317:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
500:21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
480:00:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
461:23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
437:22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
394:22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
373:23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
344:21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
292:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
10:
608:
414:etc.)? Excuse my (usual)
357:
314:. To follow comments,
224:
36:
353:
223:
176:, please drop by the
35:
401:(A drive-by comment)
310:from this article's
192:Wikimedians. The
412:Wall Street Journal
409:The New York Times,
407:(rather than, say,
276:Features and admins
208:And as always, the
301:Discuss this story
281:Arbitration report
266:WikiProject report
251:Strategic planning
225:
42:← Back to Contents
37:
527:
513:comment added by
478:
325:purging the cache
286:Technology report
180:and let us know.
47:View Latest Issue
599:
575:
526:
507:
471:
467:
428:s role in that?
328:
326:
320:
299:
243:
235:
228:
203:suggestions page
153:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
598:
597:
596:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
571:
569:
564:
559:
554:
549:
542:
530:
529:
508:
469:
421:design thinking
330:
322:
315:
304:
303:
297:+ Add a comment
295:
291:
290:
289:
271:Sister projects
246:From the editor
236:
233:1 February 2010
231:
229:
226:
154:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
65:From the editor
62:
60:
54:1 February 2010
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
605:
595:
594:
570:
565:
560:
555:
550:
545:
544:
543:
532:
531:
528:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
397:
396:
381:Net Neutrality
377:
376:
375:
352:
351:
350:
349:
305:
302:
294:
293:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
263:
258:
256:News and notes
253:
248:
242:
230:
218:
217:
216:
215:
163:one click away
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
604:
593:
590:
589:
587:
574:
568:
563:
558:
553:
548:
540:
536:
524:
520:
516:
512:
505:
502:
501:
497:
493:
481:
476:
472:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
434:Proofreader77
432:
427:
423:
422:
417:
413:
410:
406:
402:
399:
398:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
359:
358:
356:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
332:
331:
327:
318:
313:
309:
298:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
240:
234:
227:In this issue
222:
214:
211:
206:
204:
200:
195:
190:
186:
181:
179:
175:
171:
166:
164:
159:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
534:
503:
488:
448:
443:
442:What is the
430:
429:
425:
420:
419:
415:
411:
408:
404:
400:
354:
245:
239:all comments
209:
207:
198:
193:
188:
182:
173:
169:
167:
155:
573:Suggestions
509:—Preceding
492:filceolaire
470:Luna Santin
416:banked-shot
308:transcluded
261:In the news
537:. You can
533:It's your
158:his column
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2010-02-01
567:Subscribe
515:Synergy44
444:Signpost'
426:Signpost'
312:talk page
151:Sage Ross
586:Category
562:Newsroom
557:Archives
535:Signpost
523:contribs
511:unsigned
453:ragesoss
405:Signpost
365:ragesoss
210:Signpost
199:Signpost
194:Signpost
178:newsroom
174:Signpost
170:Signpost
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
539:help us
336:llywrch
111:Twitter
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
552:About
386:Chris
16:<
547:Home
519:talk
496:talk
475:talk
457:talk
390:talk
369:talk
340:talk
141:Digg
449:are
189:not
149:By
76:—
588::
525:)
521:•
498:)
459:)
392:)
371:)
342:)
205:.
165:.
541:.
517:(
494:(
477:)
473:(
455:(
388:(
367:(
338:(
329:.
319:.
241:)
237:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
