- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Currently, a new iteration of discussions is taking place.
- Most likely, new comments will not be taken into account by Working Group members in their work of developing the Recommendations. You are free however to continue discussing in the spirit of "discussing about Wikipedia is a work in progress". :)
The recommendation asserts that advocacy can be done with few resources. I’m not sure that’s really true. It doesn’t usually take money but it takes a lot of time - usually in the form of concentrated and well-planned campaigns, to be effective.
Even if this assumption is true, it’s not clear to me what this recommendation is. It describes what a future advocacy hub would be like, without actually proposing a form, a process or a structure. By analogy I was looking for a design sketch for a new family car, rather than a statement that ‘A vehicle will be created enabling all family members to travel together.’
- We also agree that advocacy needs resources. The sentence should underline that you can start advocating without any infrastructure and needs some polish. Thanks for the analogy, which I really like. And I agree that we need some more substance here to get a better picture of this idea. In our recent steps we tried to remain quite on an abstract level for at least two reasons: a) We wanted to avoid going into operational questions and limit ourselves and b) We wanted to check overlappings with other groups before we go into detail. For the latter it becomes quite clear that communication/information/learning as well as subsisiarity seem to be a common interest of all working groups. This is something which we need to discuss during the harmonization. Alice Wiegand (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Alice. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan SalonEdit
Based in our experience in European copyright, agree. Likes the idea of that things can be done without resources (but support is always needed) (...)