Hi,
First, I never said I was speaking in the name of Wikimedia Foundation
on irc yesterday night. I would never do so without consulting with
Angela and Jimbo, in particular since I know they are both very
interested in Wikiversity issues and may not share my opinion (on the
naming issue at least :-)).
Second, it is my fault, because I did not write clearly what I meant,
and had to interrupt myself in the middle of a discussion to save
cookies from burning. When i say "protect the information", I never
meant "protect the page", but "protect the information"... Yesterday,
Aya indicated on irc he absolutely did not want wikiversity content to
be hosted on wikibooks and announced his intention to delete all related
pages. Which I absolutely do not agree with.
A week ago, he asked for the creation of the english version of
wikiversity, which I opposed, as wikiversity is not a recognised
wikimedia foundation project and still under discussion (in spite of the
existence of german wikiversity). Aya other option was to move all
wikiversity content to meta. I only said
1) content should be protected (ie, deleting it would be vandalism)
2) the community should be asked its opinion before changing deletion rules
3) wikiversity is still under discussion.
There is NO way this will (should) change overnight, and any new project
(if started) will be done slowly and carefully. Threats of deleting
content are not correct.
That goes for ANY changes to do on Wikibooks. They should be done
slowly, only after reaching community consensus, and certainly not
imposed. There is no hierarchy and no one has more rights than others.
I'll add that many editors are currently very busy at Wikimania and not
able to answer requests for speedy decisions.
And though it was my fault I was not clear with my words, please do not
mix a personal opinion with a Foundation decision.
Anthere
Angela a écrit:
Despite claims to the contrary,
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity was certainly _not_ protected
at the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Perhaps it was advised by one member of that foundation, but other
Board members were not consulted. I am disgusted this approach would
be taken with no consensus from the community.
Wikiversity has been running for a long time on Wikibooks and I see no
agreement whatsoever for it to be suddenly shut down like this.
Protection is a defense against vandalism, not a way of expressing one
person's point of view on whether or not a sub-project of Wikibooks
should exist. Please remove the misleading statements about protection
and explain why you ever thought the Foundation would propose such an
awful measure on a popular set of pages like Wikiversity.
Angela.