Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-01/From the editor

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


From the editor

Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Sage Ross

As Eugene Eric Kim explains in his column 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 problem as many of Wikipedia's sister projects: strategy.wikimedia.org feels much farther than one click away.

One possibility for keeping the Wikipedia community more closely connected to the strategy process is to cover it regularly in the Signpost. 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 Signpost, please drop by the newsroom and let us know.

As Sue Gardner noted in her recent strategy letter to the Wikimedia trustees, 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 not 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 Wikimedians. The Signpost 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 Signpost, let us know, or share your ideas on the suggestions page.

And as always, the Signpost 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.

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • 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 [why couldn't she just say "encouraged"?], 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. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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:

"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."

    • 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 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.)--ragesoss (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us also not forget that the FCC is trying to pass Net Neutrality in the US that could also shut down Wikipedia and parts of the Internet in general. This could be the biggest threat to Wikipedia. Look at what happen to Google (who supports Net Neutrality) in China over Internet censorship. Chris (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (A drive-by comment) ... 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 Signpost (rather than, say, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal etc.)? Excuse my (usual) banked-shot commentary, but the bottom line is that YES we are at an important (pivotal?) moment in Wikipedia history ... and some design thinking (structural contemplation) is vital. What is Signpost's role in that?

    (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. ;-) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • What is the Signpost'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 are 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.--ragesoss (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. filceolaire (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--〜〜〜〜 02:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synergy44 (talk • contribs)
Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.