That's a good summary of the details Daniel. I think the operative word
for 'Wikilabs' is "recognition."
Put is this way: the problem with starting, say, [[Wikibuilder]] off as
a Wikibook is one, for technical reasons, but two, because there is no
natural base of editors who are builders and architects, etc (compared
to programmers and scientists, etc.). To have [[Wikibuilder]] being
developed in its early stages under "Wikilabs" would allow for 'instant
recognition of potential,' whereas under Wikibooks the potential isn't
so obvious (especially to designers and builders who just happen across
the site). A "Wikilabs" [[Wikibuilder]] project is a very easy concept
to grasp and would be something a lot of people would be willing to get
their teeth into. A [[Wikibuilder]] under Wikibooks is a nice idea...
hope it does well, kinda thing.
Christiaan
P.S. As a draughtsperson, the potential of [[Wikibuilder]] is obvious
to me. I spend my entire day referring to books and more experienced
people for the things I design and draw. To be able to refer to an
entire world would be amazing. I can only imagine what people who
really _need_ such knowledge would do with it.
On 21 Jan 2005, at 5:24 am, Sj wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:31 -0800 (PST), Daniel
Mayer
<maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs"
project for new potential
wikimedia projects?
Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki
idea and
Wikicities already exists to fill that role. Concentrating
development energy
into our existing projects and staying on mission are more important
than
budding-off new projects to the degree suggested,
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential
Wikimedia projects with recognised potential and good plans, which fit
well into our mission of providing a free reference source?
I see this as a way to reduce budding-off, not to increase it. This
would provide a place for the initial growth of new projects before
deciding certain difficult issues such as 1) how they are licensed, 2)
what standards they will use for naming, namespaces, and
classification, 3) how they will be internationalised. It would allow
for more structured discussion of the goals and viability of new
projects before they were stamped with a domain-level seal of
approval.
0) Disclaimers about the alpha/beta nature of the projects could be
explained once for the entire site.
1a) Wikilabs could be PD, containing only links to other CC/GFDL
content that would be in the project proper, making transition to a
different license easy.
1b) Discussions about how to license contributions, and how to comply
explicitly with licenses or related content, would be important for
each project. Reaching consensus on these matters could be expected
before a project forged off on its own (cf. Wikicommons, Wikispecies,
Wikinews). Legal scholars could visit this single site to weigh in on
these related discussions; discussions about copyright would not die
simply because those interested in a particular new project did not
have the right expertise.
2) Discussion of standardization, how to comply with / interact with /
reference existing standards, and citation, would also be important
for each project. Comparisons to existing reference works on related
subjects, existing projects with similar goals, and existing
classification methods, could likewise be expected before a project
took on its own domain (cf. Wikispecies, Wikipeople*, Wikibuilder*).
3) Wikilabs could be like meta, multilingual on a single wiki, with
unified discussion of which projects should be how multilingual when.
Initial interest in a new project is often focused in one or two
languages, and the first hundred people interested in the project are
not necessarily interested in such decisions (cf. Wikisource,
Wikispecies, 911-wiki)
Wikilabs
could also be a good initial test site for new software
patches
and upgrades, since everything on it will explicitly be in beta.
That is what
test.wikipedia.org and any number of other
MediaWiki-based sites
that the developers already use.
...but would soon be larger than any of these sites, and would
certainly have a larger active body of regular users whose use might
trigger sneaky new bugs.
could this be done within an existing Wikimedia
project?
I think it makes conceptual sense to have a separate wikilab for
promising new projects, inasmuch as it makes conceptual sense to
separate any of the Wikimedia projects from one another. However, in
the absence of a wikilab, Meta seems the best place to expand project
drafts and start creating initial policy and content.
--
+sj+
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l