The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-02-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This proves that wikipedia is now going to serve as source of choice even for news sites.Jimmy Wales must be dancing is in his chair. Well done Wikipedians. :)--yousaf465 08:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the puzzle logo should be used as the main logo, as it is a lot more visually appealing than the other one, and it gives some sort of a connection to Wikipedia. It would also give the project a "fresh look". --Footyfanatic3000(talk ·contribs) 19:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It isn't an election without Mr. Kohs in it. bibliomaniac15 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think all wikimedia project logos should use a puzzle theme and the same font KlokkoVanDenBerg (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said in the vote, the winner here is pretty much unusable as a logo: it works well in big scale (like on this page), but doesn't work in small scale at all. Too much little details, too much scales of gray. The Scrabble piece logo concept would have worked much better in smaller scale and it's easier to localise. I'm also a bit annoyed that the final decision is still a loooong time in the future - but fortunately, on the other hand (with no offence to the fine designer intended) the somewhat unusable logo can still be caught between the cogs of the giant bureaucracy of ours and get torn to shreds. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
So use the single floating piece, or use a big W. My (minor) issue is that only some of the puzzle pieces have letters on them. HereToHelp(talk to me) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There are letters in the puzzle pieces? (goes look at the full-size image for the first time) Wow, I honestly couldn't tell - All through the voting, I could only see the logo in tiny size, or like in this page, where it's shown approximately in the size it would be shown in wiki top-left-corner logos. If I need to see the thing in full size to get the point, there are some problems to be dealt with. Perhaps the logo should be scaled down for different sizes so that the rest of the logo is scaled down while the puzzle page remains about the same size? As it is, the puzzle thing doesn't work in small sizes at all, not even in wiki-logo sizes, which is crucial. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This currently says "Google ... recently pulled its operations out of China". Has it actually done so, or have they just said that they "might have to"? Google China doesn't mention anything past their January 12 statement. The January 19 post at their official blog says that they are still there, and that rumours of their shutting-down are false.[1] -- Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the strategy participation is so miserable because it is still too difficult to contribute. I know you do a lot of efforts to make the strategy wiki accessible and simple, but maybe a wiki-style website is still not simple enouth for the majority of people. What I am personally missing is content rating - we should sort the proposals in as easy-readable pool like ideas.symbian.org or the IdeaStorm from Dell...--Kozuch (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Nishant Shah, Director of the Centre for Internet Research, recently put forth an interesting explanation for the fact that Wikipedia seems to have failed to mobilize a Chinese speaking user community as large as that of the government-censored Baidupedia. In this recent interview about the WikiWars conference which he organized in India (see also this week's News and notes), he said:
Because of how [Wikipedia] structures itself, a structure which for example says that it wants a neutral point of view, an NPOV, it excludes certain kinds of communities and people from writing and sharing their knowledge - it is not possible. So that in China, Wikipedia is not the most popular user generated content website - it is Baidupedia. [...] And it allowed for a certain Chinese sensibility, both in language and in culture, to produce certain kinds of knowledge systems which can be shared between the Chinese readers.
It is a bit surprising that an independent scholar aligns so well with the stance of the Chinese government (that concepts like freedom of speech etc. are "Western" values which do not apply to China), and in the interview it remains unclear why Chinese people should be culturally unable to write or read a NPOV article on one of the well-known sensitive topics like Falun Gong, but it is certainly a thought-provoking view.
Wikipedia is a do-ocracy and so are the other wikimedia projects. The direction it will go is wherever editors choose to contribute. "We" is therefore whoever happens to turn up.
Most of the strategy wiki proposals are about new tools or improved tools so we can do things better or to help us do new things that editors think would be cool and would like to do. filceolaire (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Remit?
"Remit" is used in an unfamiliar way. Jidanni (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a definite interest in sauropods and titanosaurs (really, I just have a fascination with allsorts of extremes, and sauropods were definitely extreme =) ), and when I become active on WP again, if I have the spare time, I'll definitely look into contributing some on those articles - it sounds like sourcing and expansion work is easy almost to the point of being trivial (it would help more if it *hadn't* been years since I kept up with dinosaur stuff, but I could probably get back into it fairly quickly). If I had any well-developed artistic skills, I'd also look at creating more size images for various species/genera, as well as maybe making range charts (I'm just anal like that =D ). --Dinoguy1000 (talk·contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do contribute, Dinoguy1000! :D Abyssal (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)