5 ms·

> I would stop very far from calling the work that was already done "terrible". You already declared you weren't going to debate me on this point, so I don't k

> I would stop very far from calling the work that was already done "terrible". You already declared you weren't going to debate me on this point, so I don't know why you're bringing it up again, especially since you're not saying anything substantive. > why exactly people who built a reference management software must be running Wikimedia Foundation? Because they are philanthropically funded non-profit who build great academic/research software on a small budget while responding rapidly to user feedback. If your objections center around the fact that WMF does a lot more than develop Wikipedia software, then you are missing the whole point of this thread: that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary. So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power.

smsm42 10y ago
> If your objections center around the fact that WMF does a lot more than develop Wikipedia software WMF does a lot more than develops one piece of software to manage citations, yes. Nothing wrong with the software, I'm sure people who made it are awesome. But it's like discovering US federal government didn't solve a problem with a faulty light on your street and proposing that an electrician that did should thus be the President of the USA. Nothing wrong with the electrician or fixing the light, and maybe he'd even be a great President, but that in no way follows from his ability to fix the light. That's just completely unrelated things. > that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary Not so for some time. Also, Wikipedia as a project is way bigger than just software. > So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. It is. I mean the value and improving it (again, if we correct from Wikipedia to "Wiki sites to gather and disseminate knowledge", which are more that just Wikipedia). But opinion on how to improve that value may not only be "improve this one particular feature". > Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power. Than who? And why? There are processes that decide which directions are prioritized and which are not. Right now two of them are happening as we speak - board elections and strategy consultation. Any decision that happens leaves somebody unsatisfied, because it's not possible to satisfy everyone. That doesn't mean everything is terrible, sorry.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > But it's like discovering US federal government didn't solve a problem with a faulty light on your street... I was really confused by this comment until I realized you thought I was suggesting Zotero run things because they power Citoid. In fact, as any of the people I eat lunch with can tell you, I have been singing the praises of Zotero for years. http://blog.jessriedel.com/2014/11/12/zotero-is-great-tex-should-be-better/ http://blog.jessriedel.com/2014/11/12/zotero-is-great-tex-sh... The fact that Citoid is very flawed but the part of it that actually works is made by Zotero was merely delicious coincidence. Your remaining comments then do a better job than I could possibly hope of illustrating exactly the pathological attitude that afflict non-profits. The whole point of my criticism, which is partially shared by the OP and many others in this thread, is that the proper focus of WMF is determined by the people who donate their money and, especially, their time. (That's a normative claim.) That fact that you responded to these points by sayings "No, actually, we at the WMF have expanded well beyond such trifling concerns as the base functionality of Wikipedia" perfectly captures this destructive mindset. > if we correct from Wikipedia to "Wiki sites to gather and disseminate knowledge", which are more that just Wikipedia Incorrect. For instance, I use and love Wikivoyage, but I do not pretend that the millions of people who donate to Wikipedia intend to subsidize it! Yes, if Wikivoyage ends up better off through Wikipedia-financed improvements on the general Wikimedia software, all the better. But my friends should not be made to feel like Wikipedia will shutdown if he doesn't donate yearly just so WMF can hold more conferences. > But opinion on how to improve that value may not only be "improve this one particular feature". Again, for the second time, the comment on the antiquated citation process was an illustrative example. I have resisted diving into the millions of issues with Wikipedia's software. >> Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power. > Than who? Well, not "less power than other people", but "less power than they did before", i.e., fewer resources and less influence. (WMF can simply get smaller, so that no one gets more power.) But for clarity, I'm happy to suggest that more institutional power within WMF should be given to technical people, to (say) Zotero staff or other people from software non-profits with a better track record, and to anyone who internalizes the idea that the non-profit exists to as a servant to the people who donate time and money. > There are processes that decide which directions are prioritized and which are not. Oh thank goodness! There are processes! Just like there are processes for new Wikipedians to dispute the deletion of content they write. I guess so long as a nation is nominally democratic we don't ever have to worry about it being badly run. And if anyone complains, we can just say they should vote and be satisfied. After, we can't make everyone happy, so if people are unhappy there's no reason to worry about it!
Arizhel 10y ago
>the whole point of this thread: that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary. So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. I have to agree. I keep seeing pleas for donations on Wikipedia when I browse it, but now that I'm reading that they're spending most of that money on other bullshit besides Wikipedia itself, that means I no longer feel any need or duty to donate. I don't use all that other stuff, nor do I care about it, I only care about Wikipedia itself. Surely I'm not the only person who feels this way; anyone reading this article is going to see all the largesse that WMF is spending on, and many are going to question these donation pleas, which likely means donations are going to fall.

smsm42 10y ago

> If your objections center around the fact that WMF does a lot more than develop Wikipedia software WMF does a lot more than develops one piece of software to manage citations, yes. Nothing wrong with the software, I'm sure people who made it are awesome. But it's like discovering US federal government didn't solve a problem with a faulty light on your street and proposing that an electrician that did should thus be the President of the USA. Nothing wrong with the electrician or fixing the light, and maybe he'd even be a great President, but that in no way follows from his ability to fix the light. That's just completely unrelated things. > that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary Not so for some time. Also, Wikipedia as a project is way bigger than just software. > So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. It is. I mean the value and improving it (again, if we correct from Wikipedia to "Wiki sites to gather and disseminate knowledge", which are more that just Wikipedia). But opinion on how to improve that value may not only be "improve this one particular feature". > Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power. Than who? And why? There are processes that decide which directions are prioritized and which are not. Right now two of them are happening as we speak - board elections and strategy consultation. Any decision that happens leaves somebody unsatisfied, because it's not possible to satisfy everyone. That doesn't mean everything is terrible, sorry.

jessriedel 10y ago
> But it's like discovering US federal government didn't solve a problem with a faulty light on your street... I was really confused by this comment until I realized you thought I was suggesting Zotero run things because they power Citoid. In fact, as any of the people I eat lunch with can tell you, I have been singing the praises of Zotero for years. http://blog.jessriedel.com/2014/11/12/zotero-is-great-tex-should-be-better/ http://blog.jessriedel.com/2014/11/12/zotero-is-great-tex-sh... The fact that Citoid is very flawed but the part of it that actually works is made by Zotero was merely delicious coincidence. Your remaining comments then do a better job than I could possibly hope of illustrating exactly the pathological attitude that afflict non-profits. The whole point of my criticism, which is partially shared by the OP and many others in this thread, is that the proper focus of WMF is determined by the people who donate their money and, especially, their time. (That's a normative claim.) That fact that you responded to these points by sayings "No, actually, we at the WMF have expanded well beyond such trifling concerns as the base functionality of Wikipedia" perfectly captures this destructive mindset. > if we correct from Wikipedia to "Wiki sites to gather and disseminate knowledge", which are more that just Wikipedia Incorrect. For instance, I use and love Wikivoyage, but I do not pretend that the millions of people who donate to Wikipedia intend to subsidize it! Yes, if Wikivoyage ends up better off through Wikipedia-financed improvements on the general Wikimedia software, all the better. But my friends should not be made to feel like Wikipedia will shutdown if he doesn't donate yearly just so WMF can hold more conferences. > But opinion on how to improve that value may not only be "improve this one particular feature". Again, for the second time, the comment on the antiquated citation process was an illustrative example. I have resisted diving into the millions of issues with Wikipedia's software. >> Yes, that means the people running Wikipedia conferences and local meetups will have less power. > Than who? Well, not "less power than other people", but "less power than they did before", i.e., fewer resources and less influence. (WMF can simply get smaller, so that no one gets more power.) But for clarity, I'm happy to suggest that more institutional power within WMF should be given to technical people, to (say) Zotero staff or other people from software non-profits with a better track record, and to anyone who internalizes the idea that the non-profit exists to as a servant to the people who donate time and money. > There are processes that decide which directions are prioritized and which are not. Oh thank goodness! There are processes! Just like there are processes for new Wikipedians to dispute the deletion of content they write. I guess so long as a nation is nominally democratic we don't ever have to worry about it being badly run. And if anyone complains, we can just say they should vote and be satisfied. After, we can't make everyone happy, so if people are unhappy there's no reason to worry about it!

Arizhel 10y ago

>the whole point of this thread: that WMF's primary contribution is Wikipedia, and almost everything else is secondary. So long as it's being funded by private citizens because of the value they get from Wikipedia, then this should be the focus. I have to agree. I keep seeing pleas for donations on Wikipedia when I browse it, but now that I'm reading that they're spending most of that money on other bullshit besides Wikipedia itself, that means I no longer feel any need or duty to donate. I don't use all that other stuff, nor do I care about it, I only care about Wikipedia itself. Surely I'm not the only person who feels this way; anyone reading this article is going to see all the largesse that WMF is spending on, and many are going to question these donation pleas, which likely means donations are going to fall.