Talk:Knowledge Integrity

Comment from Marcus Cyron

OK. It's better than the most initiatives from the WMF. But - now comes the but (and this is what I say since years every time, but you will not hear, so again): you can't plan the future with and/or for volunteers. We do this in our spare time. You can't send us to do this or that. Every project does their own things. So let the communities work. They - we - do it. We fix it - or not. But for both situations we don't need programms funded by the WMF. You don't know about us. You don't know, what we need. Once more the moment to say, that it was a big mistake not to support the growing of regional chapters. Only those can really support us in a way we need it. But it was more important for the WMF to sit on all the money. For spending it for such programms, you can't handle. And for the big staff, that can't handle these problems. Once more - this all is good for headlines in the press. But not for practical work. So sad. The money could be spend so much better. But I can see the bitter end: the same ideology driven campaign as dependung the gender gap. So everything will go ones more in the false direction instead it will really fix problems. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

i agree that WMF should fund more chapter activity to improve quality content. but Jake (for one) is capable of leading the community in quality improvement. the leaders know us and can provide some direction. other non-profits do mission with a mix of volunteers and paid staff - it is not rocket science. important to include integrity knowledge production in the strategic plan. now comes the action plan for implementation. Slowking4 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)