No, please keep it to the procedure we agreed upon just a couple of days
ago.
When I suggested that we added this requirement of "activity", there
were two reasons
* activity shows interest, so avoid missed launches such as the french
wikinews one
* past activity of at least 2 editors on a wikipedia (for example)
indicates that at least 2 editors are aware of our basic principles and
in particular NPOV requirement.
Again, the is a security measure. If 5 people, not even one oldby on one
of our project, decide to launch a wikinews with no experience at all,
there is rather high risk that some of our principles are not respected;
and since it is not in a language we necessarily manage, it might go on
for a long time.
You mentionned yourself that wikinews was a tricky project, with rather
serious liability issues. I agree with this. And this is just as much a
reason to avoid launching by people who just happened to visit a couple
of days sooner and found the concept great. We need at least 2
experienced people.
Anthere
Erik Moeller a écrit:
As per the procedure on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition
I'd like to launch three new editions later today or tomorrow:
Portuguese, Polish, and Romanian. For Portuguese, I count Carlosar as a
valid vote, because he has made 3000+ edits on the English Wikinews, and
he is a native speaker.
For future editions, I'd also like to suggest changing the language
procedure in the following way:
The "activity on existing Wikimedia projects" requirement can be
dropped if a few support pages (FAQ, Mission Statement, etc.) are
created on Meta for the project to be launched. These can be
translations or original creations.
Such an effort indicates a genuine interest in working on a Wikinews
edition in a language. It also reduces the dependency of new projects on
existing ones -- we already know that many key people working on
Wikinews have not done substantial work on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia
projects. There would still be a requirement of at least 5 signatures,
so it's not just one person playing an overarching role.
If this works out, perhaps we can substitute one procedure for another;
I prefer the translation procedure, because it also makes sure that
certain pages are in place before the wiki is set up (a problem on some
new editions which were essentially blank for several days).
I'd like to credit the Memory Alpha wiki for this procedure, which has
successfully used it for setting up new languages.
Regards,
Erik