On 9/25/05, Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> > <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_languages>
> If you board guys could stamp your approval on that policy and
> explicitly state I have authority for new-language addition following
> those rules as Chief Technical Doohickey, I'd be happy to do it.
It's up to the community to approve it. I rewrote the policy, so it
obviously has my approval, but the rest of the Board don't see this as
something within their jurisdiction. If a developer thinks the policy
has consensus, they can abide by it and make new wikis. If they don't,
they can tell the people requesting new wikis to go and fix the policy
and get a consensus on it. I've responded to a lot of the concerns at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_policy_for_wikis_in_new_langua…>
but there are really too few people giving any opinion at all to
determine whether or not there is consensus for this yet.
Angela.
It is a fact that today we must improve our language skills and this not just in our native language but we can learn by internet other languages. The grammar of each language must be at anyone's hand nowadays not just if he/she buyes an expensive book or e-book. Even in our native languages we have something to learn all the
time.
That's why I propose a new project: Wikigrammar
More details can be seen here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikigrammar
Michael
>> That's why I propose a new project: Wikigrammar
>
>And why can't it be part of Wikibooks?
>
>--
>Ausir
>Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
>http://pl.wikipedia.org
Normaly, Wikibooks contains books or manuals as entire edition. This project is intended to be something different than normal language courses on Wikibooks.
First of all the accent is on the language in which is created. For example English Wikigrammar must have all informations about English grammar and more than that must have useful tools for this.
Other thing is the comparations. Wikigrammar should have comparations beetween languages in different articles. It is not something like a book. It's sepparatly, grammar. By comparation i see something like noun cases - for example - latin has six cases meanwhile romanian has just 5 and the article about noun case must provide informations about using and transforming theese.
Mike
Hello,
I'm a wikipedian. Like 3 or 2 years ago I opened a page that was from
your project, Wikipedia. Then the last 7 months I've been using this
page to increase my knowledge, informing me, etc. Just a month ago I
suscribe. And during that month I saw that you have a complete company
of wikis. And my project proposal is to make a wiki website of advisor,
counsillors from everyone's problems. Not like a forum of ordinary
websites, I mean by a wiki project and anonym persons searching for
help, and anonym advisors. Or as you wish! Please think about this
project and email me, if you don't understan it.
Rebk_rebelde_14otmail.com
Thanks
The Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License was the most supported
license in the recent poll at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Licensure_Poll>.
Many of the options had very few voters. Of the options with more than
12 voters, the GFDL had only 21% support, and the Wikinews License 0.2
had 60% support (or 64% from Wikinewsies). Fewer people voted on the
Wikinews License option than on the Creative Commons one, meaning 31
people in total supported CC-BY, compared to just 17 supporting WNL
2.0.
With over 87% support from Wikinewsies in the poll, and 82% support
overall, CC-BY has now been agreed upon by the Wikimedia Foundation to
be the new license for all existing and future versions of Wikinews.
Any edits made previously remain public domain - it is only new edits
that will need to be under this Creative Commons License.
The license can be read at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
(that page links to other language versions of the license, and the
full legal code).
Brion has changed the site settings, so the meta data of the wikis
should state they are now CC-BY. However, manually created pages such
as http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Copyright will need to be
updated. MediaWiki namespace pages may need changing if they had been
edited previously. Pages that might need changing include:
[[MediaWiki:Copyright]], [[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning]],
[[MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2]], [[MediaWiki:Copyrightpage]],
[[Project:Copyrights]].
I would appreciate it if you could translate this message into the
language of your Wikinews so that all members of the community are
aware of the change.
Angela
--
Angela Beesley
Wikimedia Foundation
Re Robins good comments, and the ongoing discussion of the purpose of Wikimedia.
I would say that if WikiMedia is going to host both projects such as Wikipedia and
Wikisource, it needs to make a clear distinction between the two, because they are
very different.
Wikipedia is meta data, in this instance encyclopedia-style analysis of entities such as
(to use my favorite example) the Magna Carta. As we learn more about the Magna
Carta (data), the Magna Carta *entry* (meta data) can be changed and improved.
Wikisource is data, in this instance exact copies of the text of historical artifacts. If we
have an accurate copy of the Magna Carta in Wikisource, it should not be edited. It can
only become less valuable as it is edited and moves further and further away from the
original source text.
Wikipedia is an analytic project; Wikisource (and Wikiquote, Wikionary, and
Wikibooks) are all descriptive projects. Fully open read/write wikis are appropriate for
analytic projectsthey improve by amendment; Fully open read/write wikis are not
appropriate for descriptive projectsthey decline in value by amendment (assuming we
have an accurate copy).
The descriptive sites obviously need to limit access, particularly to artifacts deemed by
the community to be accurate. Why allow people to edit a perfectly good transcription of
the Magna Carta? If there is an error, users can bring it to the attention of the community
and the community can decide; if there is an error in transcription, the edit can proceed.
If not, then not.
I think it makes good sense to allow any user to *add* a descriptive entry, but that there
needs to be some vetting procedure for *edits*. Now, you might say that such sites are not
really wikis. Fine, lets configure Wikimedia software to allow additions of data entries by
anyone and editing of data entries by some reasonable vetting process. Well call it
something different, and launch a separte entity to host descriptive projects.
How about Diki, where dis for data or description? Dikimedia?
(And "diki" means "wild in Russian!)
Best, Marshall
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org on behalf of Robin Shannon
Sent: Sat 9/24/2005 8:40 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Proposing New Projects (was Proposal for anewproject: Wikisomething--repost)
I think one of the reasons that new proposals have trouble getting up
is because most of the new proposal ideas just aren't suitable for
wikis. Wikis are not the be all and end all of user driven websites.
There are many, many different paradigms (forums, blogs etc), wikis
are just one of those paradigms. Just because wikis worked well for
the 'pedia doesn't mean they are going to work well for other things.
I have said it before and i will porbably say it again: we need a
discussion about the future of wikimedia. Are we in the 'buisness' of
wikis, or are we in the 'buisness' of making the sum of human
knowledge avaliable to everyone? If it is the former, we need more
info on the "propose a new project page" about the limitations of
wikis. If it is the latter, then we need some more software tools than
just mediawiki.
paz y amor,
-rjs.
ps. Marshall, best of luck with memoirbank.com
On 9/25/05, Poe, Marshall <MPoe(a)theatlantic.com> wrote:
> (Sorry, I reposted this because the formatting was a
> mess; should be easier to read now. MP
>
>
> Thanks very much, Robert, for your good comments. They
> are very apt.
>
> I was the proposer of Wikimemory, and you are right
> about my experience, and I suspect those of other
> proposers. While I would not say that comments on
> Foundation-l were exactly hostile, they were not for
> the most part friendly, supportive, encouraging,
> numerous, or helpful. A one line reply like "I think
> this project should be on wikicities" is really not
> very satisfying. I, for one, would like an explanation
> of the various POVs shared. I tried to offer such
> explanations, at length, and with a certain amount of
> reflection and thought. With one or two exceptions, I
> rec'd nothing of a similar character. I'm new to
> Wikimedia, but my experience has made me wonder just
> how serious the "new projects" initiative is. This is
> a shame, because, as you say, well-meaning people with
> possibly good ideas are being neglected or even
> frightened away. In the end, if you want to attract
> serious people, you have to be serious.
>
> The fashion in which new projects are vetted at
> Wikimeida is unprofessional. I mean this with no
> disrespect. Perhaps it is impossible for an
> organization such as Wikimedia to be held to such a
> high standard. Wikimedia does many things very well
> (I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia). But professionalism
> just might not be in the cards, and perhaps it
> shouldn't be. Critics (and I guess I'm one of them)
> will say that Wikimedia's new proposals initiative
> fails exactly because it lacks the standard incentives
> and disincentives built into any real business, that
> is, a strong devotion to the mission, strong incentives
> to pursue said mission, and stong dissincentives
> against unprofessional behavior. In a successful
> enterprise, if you don't do your job well, there are
> consequences. In this aspect of Wikimedia, there seem
> to be none. And perhaps there can be none, because we
> are all uncompensated volunteers. Again, critics will
> say that this once again demonstrates that
> undisciplined organizations just don't perform very
> well. When everybody is responsible, nobody is
> responsible.
>
> The question, I guess, is this: can people act
> professionally when they have no motivation other than
> that they should? My experience suggests the answer is
> no, at least in this narrow instance.
>
> I'm withdrawing Wikimemory from consideration as a new
> project, and am pursuing othere means of realizing it
> (see memoirbank.com). I believe in it, and hope I can
> find others who do to. Perhaps someday we can begin
> discussion of something like Wikimemory again, after
> the idea has matured. I would welcome that.
>
> I will, of course, continue to be a huge fan of
> Wikimedia, and will participate in this and other
> discussions of its future. Wikimedia can become
> something truely great, and I'd like to help. It's up
> to us.
>
> Good luck with everything.
>
> Best, Marshall Poe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org on behalf of Robert Scott Horning
> Sent: Fri 9/23/2005 6:43 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Proposing New Projects (was Proposal for a
> newproject: Wikisomething)
>
> Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>
> > I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething.
> > Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual somethings of all
> > different sorts, therefore it spares us the need to found any new
> > different projects for speficic things. Moreover, we could also
> > integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
> >
> > cordially,
> > Elian
>
> I know this was in jest, but I would like to know if people on this
> mailing are fed up with all of these sort of proposals or if they need
> to be encouraged more. I've been vocal about this in the past, but my
> impression is that no new major project will ever be started. Period.
> If you take a look at the "No" votes for Wikiversity, for example
>
> (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote )
>
> the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some technical issues
> that seem to be preventing new projects from being started. What are
> those incredible technical issues that are going to force any new
> project from starting for more than a year from now? Is there any
> reason at all to even encourage anybody to start a new project of any
> kind? Is a general concensus that new proposals should not even be
> brought up on Foundation-l?
>
> I do believe that at the very least there needs to be a few more steps
> in the development process of a new project proposal before it gets to
> Foundation-l. I've been a regular contributor to this mailing list now
> for close to a year, and I've seen a dozen or so new project proposals
> get posted, most by very well-meaning people and some of them are very
> well thought out. There are some proposals that are "not ready for
> prime-time" and perhaps they should be more thought out before they come
> up here. For most new project ideas, Foundation-l is the very last
> place that anything will be heard about the idea, not the first.
>
> Another related issue is more along the lines of how to publicize the
> kernel of an idea that may be useful but needs a bit more work, such as
> the Wikimemory proposal that has been debated recently. Requesting help
> for such proposals on this mailing list is throwing the idea before a
> very hostile audience, perhaps unwittingly and certainly without the
> knowledge of new Wikimedia users who happen to come across this mailing
> list as suggested by the New Project Policy. Perhaps instead of
> announcing the formal new project proposal here, there should be some
> development effort at some Wikiproject or some other sub-community of
> Wikimedia users that are much more receptive of the idea, and can give
> some depth to the idea before it comes here.
>
> At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister
> projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and
> perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well. On the other hand, if
> the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they
> are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there
> should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in
> a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they
> are not board members).
>
> If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that
> starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I
> would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be
> screaming about. Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if
> possible give hard examples. If the concern is purely social and
> getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate
> concern. I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to
> believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people
> than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't
> think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers. This is
> also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
--
Show me the way to go 127.0.0.1, i'm tired and i want to go to bed...
Hit me: <robin.shannon.id.au>
Jab me: <robin.shannon(a)jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to ubuntu linux: <http://www.spreadubuntu.org/>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Good morning!
Now all the requirements on meta for the creation of the Neapolitan
Wikipedia have been fulfilled. At this stage I am asking for the opening of
http://nap.wikipedia.org
I already received the first bits of the User Interface that are going
to be integrated in the table that is online in my user profile on the
Italian wiktionary.
Thank you for creating it asap.
Have a great Sunday!
Ciao, Sabine
*****
Sabine Cretella
Public Relations - Translations
s.cretella(a)wordsandmore.it
skype: sabinecretella
Meetingplace for translators
http://www.wesolveitnet.com
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
(Sorry, I reposted this because the formatting was a
mess; should be easier to read now. MP
Thanks very much, Robert, for your good comments. They
are very apt.
I was the proposer of Wikimemory, and you are right
about my experience, and I suspect those of other
proposers. While I would not say that comments on
Foundation-l were exactly hostile, they were not for
the most part friendly, supportive, encouraging,
numerous, or helpful. A one line reply like "I think
this project should be on wikicities" is really not
very satisfying. I, for one, would like an explanation
of the various POVs shared. I tried to offer such
explanations, at length, and with a certain amount of
reflection and thought. With one or two exceptions, I
rec'd nothing of a similar character. I'm new to
Wikimedia, but my experience has made me wonder just
how serious the "new projects" initiative is. This is
a shame, because, as you say, well-meaning people with
possibly good ideas are being neglected or even
frightened away. In the end, if you want to attract
serious people, you have to be serious.
The fashion in which new projects are vetted at
Wikimeida is unprofessional. I mean this with no
disrespect. Perhaps it is impossible for an
organization such as Wikimedia to be held to such a
high standard. Wikimedia does many things very well
(I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia). But professionalism
just might not be in the cards, and perhaps it
shouldn't be. Critics (and I guess I'm one of them)
will say that Wikimedia's new proposals initiative
fails exactly because it lacks the standard incentives
and disincentives built into any real business, that
is, a strong devotion to the mission, strong incentives
to pursue said mission, and stong dissincentives
against unprofessional behavior. In a successful
enterprise, if you don't do your job well, there are
consequences. In this aspect of Wikimedia, there seem
to be none. And perhaps there can be none, because we
are all uncompensated volunteers. Again, critics will
say that this once again demonstrates that
undisciplined organizations just don't perform very
well. When everybody is responsible, nobody is
responsible.
The question, I guess, is this: can people act
professionally when they have no motivation other than
that they should? My experience suggests the answer is
no, at least in this narrow instance.
I'm withdrawing Wikimemory from consideration as a new
project, and am pursuing othere means of realizing it
(see memoirbank.com). I believe in it, and hope I can
find others who do to. Perhaps someday we can begin
discussion of something like Wikimemory again, after
the idea has matured. I would welcome that.
I will, of course, continue to be a huge fan of
Wikimedia, and will participate in this and other
discussions of its future. Wikimedia can become
something truely great, and I'd like to help. It's up
to us.
Good luck with everything.
Best, Marshall Poe
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org on behalf of Robert Scott Horning
Sent: Fri 9/23/2005 6:43 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Proposing New Projects (was Proposal for a newproject: Wikisomething)
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething.
> Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual somethings of all
> different sorts, therefore it spares us the need to found any new
> different projects for speficic things. Moreover, we could also
> integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
>
> cordially,
> Elian
I know this was in jest, but I would like to know if people on this
mailing are fed up with all of these sort of proposals or if they need
to be encouraged more. I've been vocal about this in the past, but my
impression is that no new major project will ever be started. Period.
If you take a look at the "No" votes for Wikiversity, for example
(see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote )
the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some technical issues
that seem to be preventing new projects from being started. What are
those incredible technical issues that are going to force any new
project from starting for more than a year from now? Is there any
reason at all to even encourage anybody to start a new project of any
kind? Is a general concensus that new proposals should not even be
brought up on Foundation-l?
I do believe that at the very least there needs to be a few more steps
in the development process of a new project proposal before it gets to
Foundation-l. I've been a regular contributor to this mailing list now
for close to a year, and I've seen a dozen or so new project proposals
get posted, most by very well-meaning people and some of them are very
well thought out. There are some proposals that are "not ready for
prime-time" and perhaps they should be more thought out before they come
up here. For most new project ideas, Foundation-l is the very last
place that anything will be heard about the idea, not the first.
Another related issue is more along the lines of how to publicize the
kernel of an idea that may be useful but needs a bit more work, such as
the Wikimemory proposal that has been debated recently. Requesting help
for such proposals on this mailing list is throwing the idea before a
very hostile audience, perhaps unwittingly and certainly without the
knowledge of new Wikimedia users who happen to come across this mailing
list as suggested by the New Project Policy. Perhaps instead of
announcing the formal new project proposal here, there should be some
development effort at some Wikiproject or some other sub-community of
Wikimedia users that are much more receptive of the idea, and can give
some depth to the idea before it comes here.
At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister
projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia
Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and
perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well. On the other hand, if
the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they
are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there
should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in
a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they
are not board members).
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that
starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I
would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be
screaming about. Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if
possible give hard examples. If the concern is purely social and
getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate
concern. I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to
believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people
than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't
think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers. This is
also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
--
Robert Scott Horning
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks very much, Robert, for your good comments. They are very apt.
I was the proposer of Wikimemory, and you are right about my experience, and I suspect those of other proposers. While I would not say that comments on Foundation-l were exactly hostile, they were not for the most part friendly, supportive, encouraging, numerous, or helpful. A one line reply like "I think this project should be on wikicities" is really not very satisfying. I, for one, would like an explanation of the various POVs shared. I tried to offer such explanations, at length, and with a certain amount of reflection and thought. With one or two exceptions, I rec'd nothing of a similar character. I'm new to Wikimedia, but my experience has made me wonder just how serious the "new projects" initiative is. This is a shame, because, as you say, well-meaning people with possibly good ideas are being neglected or even frightened away. In the end, if you want to attract serious people, you have to be serious.
The fashion in which new projects are vetted at Wikimeida is unprofessional. I mean this with no disrespect. Perhaps it is impossible for an organization such as Wikimedia to be held to such a high standard. Wikimedia does many things very well (I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia). But professionalism just might not be in the cards, and perhaps it shouldn't be. Critics (and I guess I'm one of them) will say that Wikimedia's new proposals initiative fails exactly because it lacks the standard incentives and disincentives built into any real business, that is, a strong devotion to the mission, strong incentives to pursue said mission, and stong dissincentives against unprofessional behavior. In a successful enterprise, if you don't do your job well, there are consequences. In this aspect of Wikimedia, there seem to be none. And perhaps there can be none, because we are all uncompensated volunteers. Again, critics will say that this once again demonstrates that undisciplined organizations just don't perform very well. When everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible.
The question, I guess, is this: can people act professionally when they have no motivation other than that they should? My experience suggests the answer is no, at least in this narrow instance.
I'm withdrawing Wikimemory from consideration as a new project, and am pursuing othere means of realizing it (see memoirbank.com). I believe in it, and hope I can find others who do to. Perhaps someday we can begin discussion of something like Wikimemory again, after the idea has matured. I would welcome that.
I will, of course, continue to be a huge fan of Wikimedia, and will participate in this and other discussions of its future. Wikimedia can become something truely great, and I'd like to help. It's up to us.
Good luck with everything.
Best, Marshall Poe
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org on behalf of Robert Scott Horning
Sent: Fri 9/23/2005 6:43 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Proposing New Projects (was Proposal for a newproject: Wikisomething)
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething.
> Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual somethings of all
> different sorts, therefore it spares us the need to found any new
> different projects for speficic things. Moreover, we could also
> integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
>
> cordially,
> Elian
I know this was in jest, but I would like to know if people on this
mailing are fed up with all of these sort of proposals or if they need
to be encouraged more. I've been vocal about this in the past, but my
impression is that no new major project will ever be started. Period.
If you take a look at the "No" votes for Wikiversity, for example
(see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote )
the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some technical issues
that seem to be preventing new projects from being started. What are
those incredible technical issues that are going to force any new
project from starting for more than a year from now? Is there any
reason at all to even encourage anybody to start a new project of any
kind? Is a general concensus that new proposals should not even be
brought up on Foundation-l?
I do believe that at the very least there needs to be a few more steps
in the development process of a new project proposal before it gets to
Foundation-l. I've been a regular contributor to this mailing list now
for close to a year, and I've seen a dozen or so new project proposals
get posted, most by very well-meaning people and some of them are very
well thought out. There are some proposals that are "not ready for
prime-time" and perhaps they should be more thought out before they come
up here. For most new project ideas, Foundation-l is the very last
place that anything will be heard about the idea, not the first.
Another related issue is more along the lines of how to publicize the
kernel of an idea that may be useful but needs a bit more work, such as
the Wikimemory proposal that has been debated recently. Requesting help
for such proposals on this mailing list is throwing the idea before a
very hostile audience, perhaps unwittingly and certainly without the
knowledge of new Wikimedia users who happen to come across this mailing
list as suggested by the New Project Policy. Perhaps instead of
announcing the formal new project proposal here, there should be some
development effort at some Wikiproject or some other sub-community of
Wikimedia users that are much more receptive of the idea, and can give
some depth to the idea before it comes here.
At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister
projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia
Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and
perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well. On the other hand, if
the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they
are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there
should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in
a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they
are not board members).
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that
starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I
would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be
screaming about. Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if
possible give hard examples. If the concern is purely social and
getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate
concern. I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to
believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people
than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't
think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers. This is
also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
--
Robert Scott Horning
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikitrade
I have proposed a new Wiki site called Wikitrade, Wikicommerce, Wikimoney,
or WIkibusiness. A while ago, a number of proposals were made (Wikiproducts,
Wikineur, and Trade Standard) that had a similar notion. Then I had an idea:
why don't we have a Wiki (NPOV, of course) devoted to all aspects of trade
and commerce? This could incorporate issues related to globalisation and
serve as a source of information about consumer products, stock markets, and
commodity prices, etc. It could also serve as a source of information about
investment conditions in a given country.
Good idea, no?
Ce_garcon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ce_garcon