Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Swedish Wikipedia's Village Pump
Information
[edit]What group or community is this source coming from?
| name of group | Swedish Wikipedia |
| virtual location (page-link) or physical location (city/state/country) | sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen |
| Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference) | local wiki |
| # of participants in this discussion (a rough count) | 15 |
Summary
[edit]Summary for the discussion:
| Line | Statement (summary sentence) | Diff | Keywords |
| 1 | I see no need for new common objectives. The encyclopaedia develops best when it is written spontaneously, through voluntary contributions. | [1] | voluntary, spontaneously, unnecessary |
| 2 | An encyclopedia that is reliable, complete in their topic selection and is shared by the power of all language versions. | [2] | reliability, broad coverage of topics |
| 3 | The word reliability is especially important. I think we should attach importance to the credibility of everything that we add to Wikipedia. When Wikipedia may be considered as a credible source in public context, we have come a long way. | [3] | reliability, credibility |
| 4 | Reliability has improved over the years, but there is still a long way to go. | [4] | reliability |
| 5 | We should focus on integration and cooperation between wikis (projects and languages), to improve the distribution of both information and perspectives. However, we should not focus too much effort on maintaining language projects with no speakers. | [5] | integration and cooperation between wikis, perspective between wikis, dying languages |
| 6 | Increasing the reliability of a consistently stable level must be the most important thing. A crucial difference between the Nationalencyklopedin (Q1165538) and Wikipedia is that NE is considered an acceptable source. | [6] | reliability, comparability with other encyclopedias, reputability |
| 7 | The language versions are independent and should be so even in the future. | languages, independence between projects | |
| 8 | A group of e.g. 50 000 core articles which should exists on in all langages is osmething which coule be focused on. | coverage, core articles, projects | |
| 9 | I do not see a general problem with the reliability of Wikipedia, and experience that in almost all cases you can consult Wikipedia without being ashamed. | reliability | |
| 10 | Coverage is one thing. We have more articles in more areas, and in areas such as sports, asteroids, entertainment and nobility in Sweden we are superior. But it is, after all, niches, it does not include the majority of basic articles. I would like to make sure that the base articles and the more comprehensive articles become significantly better and more comprehensive in the next 15 years. Then I think our readers can more easily see us as a substitute for NE. | coverage, reliability, comparability with other encyclopedias, core articles | |
| 11 | If there are weaknesses of coverage, then it is mainly biographies of people who became famous after 1930 and foreign people. | coverage | |
| 12 | Unidentifying users is probably not the right way to go today. It is important to focus on the content, not the history or the watchlists. The keyword here becomes how we define "free". Wikidata has already abolished the license. Is the next step to abolish the history? | editors, attribution, article history, license | |
| 13 | I'd like to remove the usernames from history attribution. Tetrahydrocannabinol is also often a self-chosen way of getting a kick, but it gives nothing more than a problem for society. | editors, attribution, article history | |
| 14 | It is of utmost importance to see who wrote what, it is one of the most important source-critical tools. | source-critic, editors, article history | |
| 15 | Is it even necessary to recruit in fifteen years? Content on the Internet is created all the time, you do not need to create an account on Wikimedia to do. Wikisource has questioned whether we need to create duplicates of existing ones on Runeberg and the like. What is it saying that Wikimedia (about 15 years) needs encyclopaedic articles in subjects if there are other options already available? | the need of Wikipedia in the future of the web, recruiting | |
| 16 | I perceive a Wikipedia that lacks articles found in other reference works as a dystopia. The important thing for me is to get the encyclopedia as comprehensive as possible so that we do not have internal red links | coverage, comprehensive | |
| 17 | I would like to see more lowered thresholds. Make it easier for people who have knowledge and would like to contribute but be scared because they think it should be so difficult. Technically (better tools), socially (if we learn to take better care of newcomers, or get tools to make it easier) and so on. A little more welcoming Wikipedia, without therefore lowering the walls of vandals and POV pushers. | ||
| 18 | Wikipedia is heading in the wrong direction and I feel that the trust is decreasing. Self-interest is getting stronger and more and more people are blinded to the guidelines to an increasing extent. | ||
| 19 | Many people talk about raising the quality. It sounds great, but can be defined very differently. In order to raise the overall quality, we need to raise our "lowest" level and get rid of prejudices. | ||
| 20 | |||
| 21 | |||
| 22 | |||
| 23 | |||
| 24 | |||
| 25 | |||
| 26 | |||
| 27 | |||
| 28 | |||
| 29 | |||
| 30 | |||
| 31 | |||
| 32 | |||
| 33 | |||
| 34 | |||
| 35 | |||
| 36 | |||
| 37 | |||
| 38 | |||
| 39 | |||
| 40 |
If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.
Detailed notes (Optional)
[edit]If you have detailed notes in addition to the summary, you may add them here. For example, the notes may come from an in-person discussion or workshop. If your discussion happened on a wiki or other online space, you do not need to copy the detailed notes here.