On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:05:43PM +0800, H wrote:
Brian, It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the community. I am very surprised that no one did.
They notified the simple community but did not mention that you had to "prove" yourslef before commenting.
Very early on I have asked the proposer to join the community and help fix the problems, and later again asked them to go back to the beginning to the original proposal of wikipedia:simple:
I noticed that. Very sensible.
However you cannot talk when everybody has already got er finger on er trigger ready to shoot their {{support}} or {{oppose}}.
It may be an interesting idea requiring a discussion on the local project to close it. However, meta is useful as a cross-wiki platform, and most closures requests are about inactive wikis, which are much less contraversial, and in which case "discussion on the local project" wouldn't work.
I agree. This discussion is quite different from a discussion on a small wp that never got off the ground. It matters.
I think the a lot of pro-closure commenters in current discussion on wikipedia:simple: has not bothered to think of the ideas of the other side, and can only think of problems abstractly and rather not to deal with them actually and locally. Maybe we can combine the ideas, that if there is substantial objection, the discussion of closure should be moved on the local project.
I agree. The discussion is not very deep. That was one of the things that worried me.
Still, I would say that meta, being open and multilingual, is not worse as a forum than this mailing list. ~~~~
Of course. That is why I want the very widest discussion and the final decision to close something like htis to be taken at the most authoritive level.
Brian.
2009/2/23 Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 09:36:52PM -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.com.au wrote:
Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing in the community? I think this is just another example of how remote Meta is for the average editor on other projects.
Most of them time, it's noted in the SiteNotice, the main page, and/or the main discussion page. (This is what's normally/should be done for the smaller wikis, at least.)
Well in this case I'm missing it. Also, I do not know whether I am odd, but I hardly ever look at the main page, the community portal, etc on any of the projects I work on.
Now on simple at:-
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal
there is:-
Proposal for closure A proposal to close Simple English Wikipedia has been made.
The first line is a link to the discussion on meta.
I have not come across any other mention of this discussion on simple and no mention of having to have 100 edits on other projects to participate in the discussion on meta. How is the poor editor on simple to know this, if s/he does not visit meta normally?
What am I missing?
Brian.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] is single user account with en:Wikipedia main account. Also on Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity, fr:Wikipedia and others. Treasurer, Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go Wikimedia Australia Inc, Go!
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l