On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Samuel Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
We had started a stub table about this: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.
Thanks for the reminder, Nemo. I was looking for this on Meta, but forgot to check the stratwiki. Embarrassing, since apparently I started the page... :) Liam: another reason to consider merging meta wikis.
Ziko:
what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest money in promoting it?
Good questions, subtle answers. Those are not the only options; we might help them merge with a similar project. For instance, wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus across two wikis.
Liam (paraphrased):
- "project review" : identify support each project expects from the WMF.
- "easy improvements with high value". Start with Wiktionary
- rename Commons to "WikiCommons"? merge WikiSpecies w/ WikiData?
- merge Outreach, Strategy and MetaWiki --> wikimedia.org
- lower barriers b/t wikis: global userpages, talk, watchlists
This whole class of brainstorming is important; making it less of a pain to travel between projects is good for all of them.
Yaroslav:
may be we could use the experience of langcom and appoint ten individuals who would recommend new proposals to the Board.
That's not a bad idea.
SJ
Indeed, perhaps a 'Sister Projects Committee' could start looking into some of Liam's type of questions.
(Of course, Wikipedia is a "sister project" too!)
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)