Talk:Keywords

Scope

A few keywords have been added to this page that I've just removed:

• transparency
• openness
• accountability
• Wikimedia movement (if linked with the previous word)
• to payment process

I don't believe (most of) these keywords follow the general pattern of the page. For example, "to payment process" is very new and hasn't been used nearly to the same extent as a term such as "gender gap" or "usability." Some of these terms are bastardizations of the English language to be sure, but perhaps those belong at Bastardizations? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the removal of last one in the list, definitely. I think a page like Bastardizations might be useful. Perhaps a navbox can be created that link all of these separate but related pages: Keywords, Bastardizations, Writing clearly, and User:Tom Morris/WMFers Say The Darndest Things. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about the first four. The term "Wikimedia movement" has been hijacked; and I do think that transparency, openness and accountability have lost their meanings, as they're usually followed by "to the Wikimedia movement", which doesn't mean anything: in particular, you can't be held accountable to something which doesn't exist as an entity, so claiming to be "accountable to the movement" is largely resembling the claim to be "Lieutenant de Dieu sur Terre". --Nemo 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Essay tag

Hi. In this edit I removed the essay tag citing my concerns. I should have said "if people can't tell this is an opinion piece they have far larger concerns". I'm undecided if a page of this length and style would qualify as an essay. Regards, Killiondude (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

leaders?

Ok, 'leaders' as a keyword? I have hardly ever heard the term from WMF. It might have had some limited usage in some context, but I just don't recall it being as used as all the others. I agree there is some push to replace consensus driven decisions, but 'leaders' is not the keyword that comes to my mind. Please correct me if I'm wrong, preferably with diffs. Also, hi. Theo10011 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Any search finds too many results on Meta or our mailing lists to choose the most relevant ones. The WMF has often insisted about the supposed need for the projects to grow more "leaders", for more "leadership" to emerge etc. Random usages of the term (not quite showing what I mean, sorry): [1], interpretation of a paper, leadership role, stable leadership. --Nemo 15:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And here you are: Leading Wikipedia. Note how all the questions are wrong (especially the first two). --Nemo 20:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And more, «Support community leadership to solve community issues».[2] --Nemo 17:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

«Support for Individuals - community leadership». --Nemo 18:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

«serving as liaison with various community leaders and groups (such as ArbCom and Ombudsmen Commission)».[3] [4] --Nemo 20:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedian

It's possible that the WMF is trying to change the meaning of the word wikimedian, restricting the number of people who can claim to be one: from the Community Advocate | Languages job posting, «The Community Advocate will assist in building relationships with Wikimedians, i.e. key community members, in their languages, especially non-English speaking members» (emphasis added). Let's get ready to the sad death of another word, and the one I liked most this time. --Nemo 13:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Instrument

I also dislike the usage of "instrument" to mean "measure", see for instance phabricator:T144331. --Nemo 11:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)