fre. 23. aug. 2019 kl. 15:06 skrev Steven White <koala19890(a)hotmail.com>om>:
MF-Warburg wrote: "Let's not forget that the
creation of new wikis is
stalled at the moment for technical reasons. My motivation to advance
approvals is not very high due to it, since I dislike approving projects
which are active at a time, but might not still be active later when the
technical issues are resolved but are then created nevertheless."
Is that still not resolved? I thought creation of Neapolitan Wikisource
showed we were moving past that. (Of course, I thought that about Western
Armenian Wikipedia, too.)
The creation of napwikisource was done mostly to get an idea of exactly
the script to add new wikis is. Turns out it's a lot -- when you
run it, there are several bugs that pop up and need manual intervention to
fix. So the developer who ran the script this time said that it still needs
a lot of work before it's ready to be used. We really need a better way of
doing that, hoping Amir has some clever solutions for it.
Also: It's a very bad problem when the projects
become inactive expressly
because their communities see us as incapable of creating their wikis, so
the communities throw up their hands and go home. It's not because they
don't care about this, but because they feel that if they will never get
anywhere, they might as well not waste more time. And it's our fault, not
theirs. As Marcos Williamson says, we need to find a middle ground between
protecting against hoax and empowering these communities. My original
proposal here was intended to give us time to do due diligence, but not
unlimited time. Time is fair; unlimited time is not. And to those who
complained that I was setting arbitrary time limits, I would respond that I
was setting time limits. Any time limit is arbitrary at one level, but
there needs to be something compelling LangCom to act instead of to sit on
its hands, which has happened a lot recently.
MF-W, once the technical issues are resolved, I plan
to allow the
communities closest to "ready", if they have gone inactive, to be
considered active again as soon as they have a single month with three
active users at 10+ edits. Making them wait another three months is just
rubbing salt in the wound.
Sounds fair IMO.
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
Langcom mailing list
Jon Harald Søby