[Wikipedia-l] No new wikis

[Erik Moeller]

Daniel-
>> I am a bit concerned about the pace at
>> which new Wikipedia spinoff projects are
>> created.

> Isn't spin-offs the whole point of the Wikimedia idea?

No, it's not the *whole* point of the Wikimedia idea. Wikimedia has many  
different purposes:

- Have a non-profit in place that can accept donations
- Have an organization with a board that can make decisions
- Develop a common "brand" for our existing wiki projects
- Create a central entry point for all the Wikipedia projects (the  
Wikimedia homepage)
- Possibly (!) have a central place for depositing media files -- images,  
sounds etc.
- Have a nice webpage that Jimmy's mom can visit without reading anything  
at all about felching.

Yes, one raison d'etre for the Wikimedia project is to find new ways to  
successfully apply the wiki principles, and I'm all in favor of doing  
that. But not at the present pace.

>> But now we have a new "Textbook-Wiki" which
>> was started without much discussion -

> Not much discussion? There was so much discussion that we very quickly got
> our own mailing list.

The fundamentals of the project (what kind of material is to be placed  
there; do we need a textbook project or should it be part of a larger  
project) were not discussed much, the specifics (how to write textbooks  
NPOV etc.) were discussed in great detail. I don't remember a timetable or  
a deadline for suggestions ever being brought up.

>> possibly a good idea, but also possibly too
>> specific -

> Too specific? Have you browsed any online book seller for textbooks? There
> are thousands of different types - if anything it is a far more ambitious
> project that creating just one encyclopedia. We plan on writing hundreds of
> different textbooks. Specific indeed.

Maybe. But what about HOWTOs and manuals of all kinds? These are not  
textbooks. Yet, the two have similarities in style, and both are at least  
in part procedural knowledge. The name "textbook" usually implies use in  
an educational setting. Yet much of the material that is currently there  
is also of interest outside such use. IMHO "textbook" is too limited. It  
only encourages the creation of yet another spin-off project in the near  
future for other types of non-fictional works. What I would prefer is a  
structure like this:

        encyclopedia
        dictionary
        non-fictional works (books.wikipedia.org)
        fictional works     (tales.wikipedia.org)

See, I prefer generalized projects to specific ones. As you say, a tribute  
wiki is better than a specific September 11 wiki. An encyclopedia is  
better than just an encyclopedia of birds. A dictionary for every language  
is better than just a dictionary for English. And a place to write all  
types of non-fictional works may be better than just a place to write  
textbooks -- the procedures for writing textbooks are in part specific,  
but in large part also applicable to writing other non-fictional works.

I was hoping to be able to bring this up in a discussion, but the  
textbook-wiki was set up before I could even read through the existing  
postings.

>> This is all nice and good, but haven't we learned
>> anything from the Wiktionary experience? Wiktionary
>> was set up without much thought as to how the wiki
>> process could be applied to a dictionary; it took
>> months to formulate some kind of standard template,

> Huh? The template and the processes you speak of were worked out the WikiWay
> on live data.

The "wiki way" does not necessarily mean that you have to avoid any notion  
of planning or foresight :-)

> To work this stuff out you have to work with real data - mock-ups on meta
> are little help here

I disagree. Many templates we successfully use on the 'pedia were worked  
out that way. I have nothing against a little chaos, but Wiktionary had  
far too much of it for my taste. The chaos and ugliness on Wiktionary, the  
lack of any real leadership was what discouraged me from working on that  
project.

Wikiquote:
> Giving the source of the quotations and giving commentary about them  is
> wiki-like.

Maybe. Then again, such commentary will likely end up being very POV,  
whereas Wiktionary and Wikipedia try to follow NPOV, and Textbook-Wiki  
tries to follow DPOV.

>> Wiki-Quote was only very briefly discussed.

> I don't remember the discussion at all...

This was more or less done on Fonzy's private request to Brion.

>> 2) we formalize a process for starting such
>> projects, e.g. a planning period of at least 3
>> months on Meta with exact specifications as
>> to what is to be placed there.

> I wouldn't put such a time period on it since many ideas never are discussed
> much.

Can you name a single idea that would not benefit from prior discussion? I  
don't see this as a substantial hurdle for new ideas, as any proposal that  
has gone through the discussion stage *would* eventually be voted upon, so  
the good ideas would end up being implemented.

Regards,

Erik