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.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

$600,000 to create a five-year strategic plan ... WTF? Why didn't they just give the money to that starving girl in Africa who is going to save the world?

And they don't even ask one real critic what is wrong!?!

They should thrown a few thousand of that over here as a tip for WR.

Founder of Craigslist, Craig Newmark, describes Wikipedia's work to date as "a first draft of history" which probably explains all the focus on war, pornography and rape.

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

It seems that no critics were interview ... little bit of BS then ... which is convenient for them. Unless you include people like Andrew "HOW A BUNCH OF NOBODIES CREATED THE WORLD’S GREATEST ENCYCLOPEDIA" Lih as a "critic".

But there is a list of "External experts interviews". Do any of appear remotely "critical" to anyone?

On the other hand, it does give us a pretty useful 'hitlist' to start sending follow up letters of concern to, regarding the children administering hard core amateur porn, like Carolyn Miles, Executive Vice President at Save the Children US and other issues.

If they have not interview any critics then they have made a serious mistake.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[SB_Johnny]

Huh.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061488.html

A little birdy tells me that the folks on the "other projects" are not at all happy.

This post has been edited by SB_Johnny: