Last modified on 31 January 2010, at 00:36

Talk:Task force/Recommendations/Advocacy 2

Return to "Task force/Recommendations/Advocacy 2" page.

Why a contest and not just an open space? What's your thinking about this? Dweinberger 13:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at the possibilities of open space A contest would create incentives for students and a possibility to collaborate with established institutions. Further it would generate exposure and attract sponsors. But that it on a organizational level. An approach in which teams get involved in a contest creates a need to negotiate and discuss transactions, thereby making implicit insights of the Wikimedia community explicit. We have a general idea on what topics advocacy can be done. We perceive a need to have desciption of localised knowledge on state regulation and ways to influence the discussions about regulating the internet. We discussed the possibilities and limitations of asking voluntary help of lawyers. We are interested to search for allies in organisations with similar objectives. We look for an approach to make advocacy that is in line with the mission and at the same time fosters the diversity of motivations for people to get involved in Wikimedia projects. Can this be achieved by proclaiming an open space? Esther H 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant "open space" as simply an open space for posting ideas and essays, not an Open Space meeting (although I like those, too). When you say that it would "create a need to negotiate and discuss transactions," I assume you mean among the contest evaluators, since the contestants could simply write an essay. Choosing a winner seems to me to work against the idea that there are many ideas worth airing. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a contest. How do you see it working? How would it be judged? What would winning the contest mean? Dweinberger 16:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping us to think ahead on the recommendation of drafting an esay contest to involve students in law or political science in advocacy issues concerning Wikipedia. It is a good idea to also have an open space to elaborate approaches to advocacy.

Your book [Everything is miscellaneous http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/] made me understand that an essay contest goes against the second part of the strategy for going miscellaneous: include and postpone(p. 114). Indeed the contributions in the Wikimedia community are mainly re-active. The argument in favour to have a contest -next to an open space- would be that such a organization effort is needed to prepare to engage the community to take a stance when needed. Yet, I agree that it is important to have conversations to improve expertise ( p.145) in all stages of organizing this contest. The open space could be a forum.

I discussed your question on the criteria for winning the contest with some experienced members of the Dutch Wikipedia chapter. They mention that writing contests are now increasingly common to get featured articles in Wikipedia. We could built upon that experience.

Metrics on use relevance of the pages, can be used next to some authorative judgement. In the case that the first contest would adress a European topic than a provision for the multilingual character of communication in Europe would be needed.

To introduce students to the topic some preparatory reading must be arranged. Discussion with participating faculty is needed for that purpose. The [material on Wikipedia http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberlaw_winter10/Future_of_Wikipedia] used by students of Jonathan Zittrain in the course Difficult problems for cyberlaw can serve as an example. s Esther H 11:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, advocate free online libraries

I think Wikimedia should favor free online libraries of copyrighted works. Such libraries could work like regular libraries. They could licence a number of copies of a new book for example for that number of people to look at at a time. Like software has free trial periods, a copyrighted book or magazine could have a free reading period. Since poor people wouldn't buy those books anyway, letting them read those books would help in word-of-mouth advertising. If they were in PDF format, some pages could inlcude advertisements from corporate sponcers like some paperbacks do. The libraries could also make it easier for wealthy people to buy copies of the book. More ways to get around the Google lawsuit can probably be thought of. So, yes, Wikimedia should favor free online libraries of copyrighted works. --Chuck Marean 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor Misspelling

In the section "Why is it not already done?" there is a misspelling in the third sentence. The word should be "extent", not "extend."216.99.59.129

There are no threads on this page yet.