On the foundation-L list, Floflo announces that there is a <drum roll> Vision statement for WMF : which turns out to be the old chestnut



She calls this a nearly impossible pipedream....Been there, done that....

Then she shares the mission statement, which she states is "more practical and down to earth". This turns out to be another old chestnut :



I like the "in perpetuity" part myself. Anyway, more "been there, done that"....

She then announces that they are now taking the <drum roll, followed by cymbal crash> next step, which is to define WMF's "values". Interestingly, the WMF links to this article hosted by a NY based not-for profit consulting firm...(check out their board for more chills and thrills....).



...hardly ground breaking, but the advisory board has managed to come up with three shortlists of WMF values here....


They are :


This is all very nice and cozy in a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm sort of way, but I can't really see any of this in the reality of what happens on WP. This is simply laughable.

Are they that stupid or is this just window-dressing for the tax shelter and psy-ops? Something tells me that with all of Floflo's "not-for-profit"Speak going on, that this is tied into their fund-raising strategy....

Just when you think it can't get any worse.....

Where is that 2 fingers down the throat emeticon when you really need it ???

Been There, Barf That

Jonny

Good thread! I spotted this last night on foundation-l and thought I'd make a post about it if no one else did. I did miss this list of values though. Here are the ones I think are entirely bullshit:



If we try to examine the list as a whole liberally, some of these may apply. Personally, they lose me at Openness / Transparency--as I don't think that most of the battle cries below that one necessarily apply, practically anyway. I'll let the reader discern why.

The mission statement disturbs me as well. It actually reads to me like the mission statement a science fiction writer would make up for the evil group seeking world domination!

Snippet:


Those of us focusing our critique on WP-en forget about The Goal of Global Reach™. I may rattle on a bit here, so please excuse me. Sure, I do have my political leanings, but more often than not I choose not to discuss them or push them. I often get along best with people that are somewhat "political opposites" and bringing politics into that sometimes sours a relationship before it can start.

I personally find that editing politics on wikipedia (and by relation, some history articles) is perhaps the most ugly activity on the internet. The hate and venom that I only witness there is enough for me to throw out any optimism I am inclined to have about Wikipedia. Considering this and the fact that an organization's stated goal is to disseminate history changing information globally alarms me and really focuses the Wikipedia problem.

An outrageous phrase that kept popping into my head while reading all of this is "dangerous revolutionary tool". Here's to hoping they stick with the Pokemon articles.

What a load of bollocks.

I think that an examination of the vision, of the mission statement and of the values should be the subject of a blog post. I think that English WP (at least) has violated all of these at various points. I think that part of what we should be doing is turning their mirrors back at them and letting thme know how things look for the outside.

Shall we try to analyze these together?

Ouikipedia 2.0 — the Ouikiplanchette that anyone can manipulate

J'accuse my French …

Jonny