Talk:Towards a five year plan 2013-18/Draft Goals vs 2

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks to everyone who has brought this so far. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made a few minor tweaks, but it looks really good. Happy to sign up to it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm not from WMUK, but from WMIL. First - nice one! looks like your priorities are in order and in place, I wish that you succeed. One thing I would like to note is that technology itself is rarely a means to an end, and I would advise you to rephrase and use what you actually wrote beneath the title - "leverage open access and open source tools for greater impact", or something like that NLIGuy (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Some suggested tweaks[edit source]

The "Technology" section would more naturally be "Provide technical support, especially online". Doing things online is the normal interpretation these days of "accessible to all" as in point #2, though of course we know how qualified "to all" really is.

The existing formulation is somewhat redundant (i.e duplicative).

  • In point #1, "We will seek to support the creation of new tools": better as "We will support the creation of tools"?
  • Still in point #1, "innovative" parrots the previous sentence. " that enable content creation, with an eye to scalability, maintenance and access"?
  • Replace "accessible to all" by "accessible" tout court? Accessibility is really an aspiration.

More like:

  1. We will support the creation of tools that promote content creation, and bring large tasks within reach.
  2. We will ensure that the tools that we host are well maintained, are kept up to date with features, and are generally accessible.

The slant in #1 that drudgery should be at least semi-automated, and in #2 that the software gets TLC, are I think what volunteers would particularly welcome. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I always seek and strive to remove redundancy and duplication wherever one, or other, or either, or both, may be found. So I've adopted much of this, and also tweaked the 3rd point which on second reading seemed over-broad. So many thanks for your comments, Charles! The Land (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)