Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
If we use MediaWiki, do you think we can almost let the revision and update process for "position papers" be run on automatic? In other words, with MediaWiki, is it likely that we won't even have to task individuals or teams explicitly to draft and polish these articles? In practice, could we rely on those passionate and knowledgeable enough about the topics concerned to "get it right", with only intermittent and minor editorial and/or community intervention/judgement calls?
I'd envisage locked "final" versions of documents in some cases, together with supporting documentation and so on.
The notion of using mediawiki as a participative self-empowering community knowledge management tool really excites me.
Isn't that what MediaWiki was written for in the first place?
However I'm still struggling with how we would present ETmedia to a wider audience. We're not an encyclopedia, we're not a political or campaigning organisation although we do do politics and sometimes campaign, we strive to be evidence and fact based but from a "progressive" perspective, we're not an on-line newspaper or current affairs e-zine, we're not just a blog or a group of nerds with no friends and lots of time to spend on-line. So what are we -in simple terms that simple journalists can understand and communicate - and why should they give any especial importance to what we have to day? "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Also, we're the people we have been waiting for. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
we're the people we have been waiting for.
And if what we want is to change the conventional wisdom, is greatly increasing the number of our readership/membership the primary concern? It's just as effective to be read by a smaller number of influential people (measured by how many people read them). When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I know this sounds horribly commercial, but you do have an established brand which you are not leveraging very much. I see someone else has now taken up the Eurotribune.eu and .net domains and styles themselves as "The European Tribune: Independent Journal - and is sometimes ranked above Eurotrib in google rankings. You stand still in this game, and you could lose prominence very quickly.
How many of the Eurotrib.* domains do we not own? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Note that they have funding from some sort of EU media programme.
Any reason why we can't apply for similar support, especially as we are far more pan european in membership and with a significant input/influence beyond yurp? "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
is development on ET 2.0 already in process, or are there decisions still pending? i guess i am just curious if the incorporation of the MediaWiki thing is already something to be expected, or something that still needs to be greenlighted and that may or may not actually happen.
from Migeru's phrase "kicking about", i am guessing everything is still very much up in the air, but i just wanted to find out for sure. A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
Two things are immediately clear:
Related to that, I am assuming that Wikipedia's Contents and List of Topics are completely manually created (i.e. not dynamically/programmatically generated), is that correct? A language is a dialect with an army and navy.
