We can do it right.
We can do it free of advertising. We can do it verified. We can do it
multi-national. We can do it in a single large open community. We can
do it without the uncertainty of city wikis, with their small
contributor base.
We can use it not just for additional material, but to relieve some of
the disputes on Wikipedia about the inclusion of local information
such as bus routes and local dignitaries. It can satisfy the
inclusionists, because the material will be included. it will satisfy
the deletionists, because it won't be included in the primary layer.
It will help newcomers, because it will give them easy things to write
about.
There is a considerable hostility among many Wikipedia people with
respect to Wikia, partly for historical/interpersonal reasons, and
partly because of their extreme contamination with advertisements, and
the almost total lack of standards of verifiability.
I agree it will take some planning: one basic question which you
allude to is whether it is meant as Wikipedia Local, or to include
hobbyist material as well.
And perhaps it will be more used than some of the other splits.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Steven Walling
<steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David, there are many projects covering some or all of
those ideas. There's
Wikia for "hobbyist" and popular culture content, the many city wikis
(attempts at creating a central repository of civic wikis has thus far
failed), AboutUs for domain-centric content, and the list goes on and on. As
SJ pointed to,
WikiIndex.org gives one an idea of just how much there is
already outside Wikimedia.
While I think we're on to something good, I also think that a crystal clear
scope is necessary for a project like this, whether it's part of Wikimedia
or not. Overlap with other projects isn't necessarily a barrier to success,
but it requires more clarity of vision than what I'm getting from the
discussion so far.
Just my two cents.
Steven Walling
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This works for the notable things that are in
Wikipedia. The point of
a project like this would be to go one step further, and have a open
content directory, not based on advertising , that would cover the
local and hobbyist material that either does not make it into
Wikipedia or that is frequently challenged there. Names that i think
indicate the purpose would be Wikipedia2 or Wikilocal. Whether the
Wikimedia foundation is open to the possibilities of an additional
project would be another matter, but there could be another home for
it. I hope that they would consider doing it themselves, for it would
benefit greatly from their sponsorship, their established procedures,
and their commitment to both free copyright and freedom from
advertising.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
I have just seen a list of the Wikimedia projects
and noticed that the
last one was created in 2006, is that right?
In spite of all sympathy for a Wiki-directory I am afraid that
partially Wikipedia already has taken over that part. When I am
looking for the web site of a museum I tend to go to the Wikipedia
article about that museum and look there under "Weblinks".
Kind regards
Ziko
2009/10/27 Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif(a)iglu.org.il>
wrote:
>> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
>> directory" section of:
>>
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
One workaround I've found is to add a "resources" section to the
/talk/ page and list sites there. I've been responsible for a few
rather long 'external links' sections and have been disappointed to
see them trimmed because I felt all of the links I provided were valid
(in that they provided substantial information not easily included in
the article [for example, on an article about an author including
links to articles written by them] or hosted images that we couldn't
use [particularly useful for modern artists]).
With the section on the talk page I added my recommendation that the
section should not be archived when the talk page grew large as I felt
the section would remain of value to editors and ought to remain
relatively prominent.
It's not an ideal solution because there's not much you can do with
the section other than edit/add to it. But I felt it was a good
compromise for those times when I was in disagreement with another
editor over the external links section.
I tend towards the "argh, no, not another project" view on things. I
think because, and perhaps this is unfair, I dislike that they may
drain talent and resources away from the encyclopedias.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l