strategy.wikimedia.org - slightly overwhelmed by discrepancy between "interactive" proposals and wikimedia goals

[lkcl-2]

i'm in need of some help.  there are a number of proposals which
recommend the use of java and flash, and, unfortunately, the java
applet advocates are alarmingly.... unreasonable and vocal.

the deployment of any programming language as a means to express
and/or extend wikimedia pages is so at odds with the principle of a
universally editable encyclopedia that i am having great difficulty
even comprehending why anyone would advocate them, in direct
contravention of the key strategic goals of wikipedia.

here's articles essentially calling for the same thing: a means to do
interactive / animated wikipedia.  the first three are great - the
second three are incomprehensibe:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Text_or_Syntax_driven_Charts,_Diagrams,_Graphs_and_more
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Inline_SVG_preference
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Foundations_for_Interactive_Articles

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Add_OpenLaszlo/Java_support_to_make_interactive_content_possible
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Java_applet_support
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Allow_upload_of_flash_animations

the reason why i'm asking for help is because i have a tendency to
shout and jump up and down when presented with things that are complex
(multi-faceted) but blindingly obvious to me.  i tend to find that
things that are blindingly obvious to me aren't so blindingly obvious
to others, and the "java applets" proposal is one such example.  i'm
finding that, like those kid's toys with the buttons on top, where you
press one button and the others go down, the advocates of the "java
applets" proposal cannot comprehend more than one idea at a time,
cannot take on board the "overview", and keep picking "individual
holes" whilst ignoring other negative aspects.  every time i tackle
one issue, in bite-size comprehensible chunks, they go "ahh, but!"
and i can't deal with this kind of approach.

so i would very much appreciate if other people could pitch in and
provide their views on the subject.  of course, if you think it's a
_good_ idea to make contributing to wikipedia be _more_ elitist than
it is already perceived to be, then i will simply be jumping up and
down with a larger audience to entertain.

overall: the goal is to open up wikipedia to a wider audience, and if
that can be achieved whilst at the same time taking advantage of what
technology has to offer (such as the new WikiReader), _great_.  i
trust that anyone reading this shares that same view and will help
weed out wikipedia proposals that are contrary to that goal.

l.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[phoebe ayers-3]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
<luke.leighton@...> wrote:

> i'm in need of some help.  there are a number of proposals which
> recommend the use of java and flash, and, unfortunately, the java
> applet advocates are alarmingly.... unreasonable and vocal.
>
> the deployment of any programming language as a means to express
> and/or extend wikimedia pages is so at odds with the principle of a
> universally editable encyclopedia that i am having great difficulty
> even comprehending why anyone would advocate them, in direct
> contravention of the key strategic goals of wikipedia.
>
> here's articles essentially calling for the same thing: a means to do
> interactive / animated wikipedia.  the first three are great - the
> second three are incomprehensibe:
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Text_or_Syntax_driven_Charts,_Diagrams,_Graphs_and_more
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Inline_SVG_preference
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Foundations_for_Interactive_Articles
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Add_OpenLaszlo/Java_support_to_make_interactive_content_possible
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Java_applet_support
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Allow_upload_of_flash_animations

<snip>

Hi,

It looks like you've added comments to the talk pages of these
proposals already, which is probably the most helpful and relevant
place to do so. The other thing that could be helpful would be
starting a separate page just to compare, contrast and discuss these
related proposals.

There could be a separate task force just for these issues (media
support), as suggested here:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities#Other_Task_Forces
and that might be a good place to discuss such things with other
interested parties. I think the page just needs to be started.

(note: for anyone interested in a general class of proposals like
this, the task force pages listed at
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities all
need to have links to the relevant proposals added to them, and new
task forces can be started).

Also, as a general gentle reminder, I don't think any of the proposals
you list were made in bad faith; someone clearly thought there were
benefits to be had as well, and maybe those benefits and (alternative)
ways to get them would be worth focusing on.

-- phoebe

--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Ray Saintonge]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> i'm in need of some help.  there are a number of proposals which
> recommend the use of java and flash, and, unfortunately, the java
> applet advocates are alarmingly.... unreasonable and vocal.
>  
<snip>
> overall: the goal is to open up wikipedia to a wider audience, and if
> that can be achieved whilst at the same time taking advantage of what
> technology has to offer (such as the new WikiReader), _great_.  i
> trust that anyone reading this shares that same view and will help
> weed out wikipedia proposals that are contrary to that goal.
>  

The making of these proposals represents the brainstorming level of the
discussion.  Effective brainstorming should not be limited to ideas that
have been pre-judged to be within the rules.  Proposals that are beyond
the rules likely have very little chance of succeeding, but occasionally
good ones will come along.  That's what  gives rise to innovation.  If
the analysis of a proposal shows the idea to be good we should be
prepared to change the rules accordingly.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[lkcl-2]

> It looks like you've added comments to the talk pages of these
> proposals already,

 yes - rather a lot, more than i normally would, and i feel i'm taking
on a bit too much.

> which is probably the most helpful and relevant
> place to do so.

 ok.

> The other thing that could be helpful would be
> starting a separate page just to compare, contrast and discuss these
> related proposals.

 ahh.... this?

 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Strategy_Observations

> There could be a separate task force just for these issues (media
> support), as suggested here:
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities#Other_Task_Forces
> and that might be a good place to discuss such things with other
> interested parties. I think the page just needs to be started.

 ok.  i added the page with a note "placeholder" and i've noted the
existence of http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technology_Infrastructure_Task_Force
so thank you for drawing my attention to that.

> (note: for anyone interested in a general class of proposals like
> this, the task force pages listed at
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emerging_strategic_priorities all
> need to have links to the relevant proposals added to them, and new
> task forces can be started).

 ahh..... waitwaitwait ... i've seen one of those... yep:
 http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Foundations_for_Interactive_Articles

 i'll see if i can find others.


> Also, as a general gentle reminder, I don't think any of the proposals
> you list were made in bad faith; someone clearly thought there were
> benefits to be had as well,

 yes, definitely.  the presentation of some kinds of scientific and
mathematical material can definitely benefit from an interactive or
complex display: it's just that the risks and costs of using flash,
java, silverlight or other browser plugin are just way too high to be
worth it.

> and maybe those benefits and (alternative)
> ways to get them would be worth focusing on.

 yes.  that's kinda ... yeh :)

 thanks phoebe.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l