Sue's five-year plan, strategery in motion Options

[thekohser]

Sue Gardner has posted the new Five-Year Plan.

BayNewser sums it up as follows:

Wikimedia Not Going to Invest in China, Africa, Paid Editors

And my comment there:

In other words, the WMF will continue to geek out on hard drives, bandwidth, and marveling at how many page views they garner. But, they will do nothing to work responsibly and ethically toward building a higher-quality, reliable compendium of human knowledge. Thus driving home the truth that Wikipedia is a massive online role-playing game, not an educational charity project. In a word, fraudulent.

[thekohser]

Sue Gardner said:

We've interviewed 65 people, including Board and Advisory Board members, staff, editors, onlookers, critics, supporters, and external subject-matter-experts...

I looked over the list of people interviewed, and I failed to see one "critic" of the Wikimedia Foundation. (Could someone help me if you do see one?)

So, I asked on the Discussion page, if someone could enlighten us as to which "critics" were interviewed.

Philippe's two-step response:

18:03, 20 January 2010 Critics? Which one(s)? Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) Deleted (content was: 'The letter says that "critics" were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation strategy project. I'd like to know which one(s) in particular. Considering ho...' (and the only contributor was 'Thekohser2'))

(link)

17:40, 20 January 2010 Philippe (WMF) (Talk | contribs) blocked Thekohser2 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎

(link)

Someone needs to slap that little man-boy Philippe across the face.

Has it really come to the point that simply asking which critic(s) were engaged or interviewed by the Foundation strategy project is a censored and blockable offense?

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to go to that Discussion page, and ask the same question, until it is answered.

[thekohser]

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to go to that Discussion page, and ask the same question, until it is answered.

I guess this is the part where WR ignores me, too.

[Jon Awbrey]

I hereby call on every Wikimedian in good standing to go to that Discussion page, and ask the same question, until it is answered.

I guess this is the part where WR ignores me, too.

It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[thekohser]

It's their board, Greg.

The more you act like it might have been legit, the more credibility you lend it.

Your time were better spent writing another exposé on Akahele.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

Yeah, in a way, you're right, Jonny.

Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day... though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.

Anyway, it looks like someone has my back here. Thanks, "whoever you are".

[Kelly Martin]

Akahele's still getting, oh, a good 15 page views a day... though that's down from our glory days of 65 or 70 per day.

Wow, dude, that's lame: my cheesy, sporadically updated blog about one of the most boring topics in the known universe gets an average 50 page views a day. What are you doing wrong? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)