Talk:Wikimedia mission statement

Collecting the knowledge of humanity

We had on the german Wikipedia some hard discussions on "Wikipedia collects the knowledge of humanity" (please reword, its just fast-translated), some saying "This is totally absurd, you are crazy", other saying "Wow, this is something, where I really would like to be part of it"... you can probably imagine how this discussions go on...

I think, this can also be taken in consideration when speaking about Wikimedia. I am not proposing to put it in the mission statement! But I am proposing to think about it.

Just an Idea :-) Fantasy 10:19, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

PS: If on en/meta was already a big discussion on this, please let me know. Thanks!

Wiki or Media

We had also quite some disagreement on DE of Wikipedia beeing more Wiki or more Pedia. Maybe this could also the Missionstatement solve by stating in some way if Media or Wiki are more the central Idea. This could prevent future discussions on this. Again: Just an Idea :-) Fantasy 10:27, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wiki is a means to an end, not an end to itself. Thus we use wiki technology to create the media. The media is the goal, and wiki is a way to get there. --Maveric149 22:35, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just to make you understand what the problem in the discussion was:

• One person says "This is an Encyclopedia. Even if we have more possibilities by using the Wiki-System, only 100% Encyclopedia Articles are allowed"
• The other says: "But Wiki givs a lot of new possibilities, should we not allow also things, that are 90% Encycopediatric?. In the end, we are WIKI as well, not only Encyclopedia..."

For some people, the Term "Wiki" is not only the way, it also changes the meaning of the following word "pedia" or "media".

Example: Mail was used for hundred of years. Then there came the eMail. The Idea, sending information from a to b, is still nearly the same. But the e changed a lot. So you can not easily say "Wikipedia" = "Encyclopedia" as you can not say "Mail" = "eMail" or "Media" = "WikiMedia". Was there never a discussion on this in the english Wikipedia? Fantasy 09:47, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia; it is an encyclopedia of encyclopedias that has a great deal of supporting gazetteer and almanac-like information in it. When I say that it is an encyclopedia of encyclopedias I mean that it is not just a general encyclopedia, but a collection of different ones all in the same place (a biography encyclopedia, a science encyclopedia, a mathematics encyclopedia, etc.). The "wiki" part of our name makes that possible, and also means that we have to work together in a cooperative way (since anybody can rewrite what you wrote). That is a very important point that creates the atmosphere of our community. So yes, wiki does greatly modify the 'pedia part and is vitally important to who we are. However we are not a dictionary (a role for Wiktionary), a quotation compendium (a role for Wikiquote), a collection of textbooks and other school texts (a role for Wikibooks), or a travel guide (a role for Wikitravel - a project that may eventually join us). --mav

Just another way of saying the same question, as I understood: if there comes a day that many of us suspect that wiki is not bringing project closer to the best encyclopedia possible, should we stick to wiki and do what we can do through it? Or should we stick to the idea of the best encyclopedia possible, and take even non-wiki way? Well, obviously, some people have a strong belief that wiki is the way to go. But others have suggested otherwise at times, proposing changes here and there, or just leaving the project.. Tomos 03:32, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Mav, your words make it quite clear. Wikipedia atracted many Ideas, and when they did not fit in the pedia-Part, they split of and specialized. That is a very important point of Wikipedia. It Filters Ideas. Maybe, Wikimedia is then a "Filter", "Destiller" "Colletor of new Wiki Ideas"...?

One more thought, that just came to me: I guess, 90% of the population of earth will hear the word "Wiki" the first time they read something on Wikipedia. So, I guess, Wikipedia has also a great responsability in showing the world, what the word "Wiki" stands for. OK, just some thought ;-) Fantasy 08:41, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Examples

Okay, what is this example doing here ? What are the pecularities of it ? Why is it a good non-wikimedia example ? How are we supposed to put it in our mission statement if we have no idea what it is, and what its specificities are ? what are its specificities we would like *very very much* to adopt ourselves, so we can *explain* them here ? What do we do not want to adopt of this case ?

It is a well-written mission statement from an organization that has a similar focus as we do (international one too). It is just an example. I also used GNU and similar examples to create the Wikimedia Foundation homepage. Please add more examles so that we can use those ideas to make our own mission statement. --Maveric149 23:01, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

misunderstood the whole stuff yesterday. Apology. I still think the examples belong to the discussion page, not to the statement. This was why I moved it to discussion page (I did not want to delete it). Anthere

Apology accepted. I'm sorry I got mad... --Maveric149 05:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Never mind. It was all my fault, I understood it entirely another way (the link in question was mentionned in some other discussions french had recently), I was unpolite, and know you meant the best. I am just *very* nervous these days. Sorry again Mav.

One must allow for a natural transition of argument sometimes, only in the heat of the moment, humans tend to feel emotional but sometimes the more tension there is, the more potential for revelation or breakthrough by one or more of the parties involved. -Skylab