Alright, then... why the proposal to close projects? If, after all, people are already proposing to close them on their own. What is wrong with the existing system?
I think we should just say that as long as a Wiki has over 1000 non-bot generated articles, it may *not* be closed by a simple vote; a Wiki may not be re-proposed after it has failed to be closed; and beyond that let the existing system work its magic.
Mark
On 11/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, My time is better spend supporting OmegaWiki and Betawiki. The way I try to accomplish things is different from you. My time is better spend doing the things that I do. The things that I understand. I said it before, we want by and large the same thing but we go about it in a different way. You way of doing things does not work for me. And yes, I do support particular languages .. to do that I exchanged for instance e-mails with a professor today. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
At the same time there is an increasing group of people that object to
all
the projects that are for intends and purposes dead. The creation of
the
Incubator, the policies of the language committee and now the proposed criteria for the closure of projects are all intended to make sure that there are some minimal criteria that intend to ensure that as many
projects
as possible will do well.
Let them object. Their criteria seem to be far less stringent than yours -- the vote to close the Chamorro Wikipedia ended at a standstill with no clear consensus either way. If people want to vote to close the Kanuri Wikipedia, as they already did, then why can't we let them?
I am not God, and you are not a boy putting his finger in the dyke. We
both
cannot prevent people to object to moribund projects. What we can do is
stem
the flow and provide objective criteria that will streamline the flow
and in
that way we can prevent damage.
Damage, of what type? Any time somebody has made a seemingly frivolous proposal (although both proposals had good reasons: Lombard and Yiddish), it was soundly defeated in a poll. And if anyone ever voted to close a Wikipedia that should obviously remain open by any sane criteria (say, Catalan or Venetian), I am confident that someone would intervene.
Jimmy has his contacts, the WMF has its contacts, I have mine and so do
you.
When we want to have more languages supported with a Wikipedia we can
tell
them about it, we can be enthusiastic about it but in the final
analysis it
is the people that have to do the work. You can lead a horse to water,
you
cannot make it drink.
The problem is that we are not leading enough "horses" right now. When is the last time you have e-mailed a Guamanian guy to let him know that the Chamorro Wikipedia exists? Or asked for help from some organization that aims to promote the culture of the Marshall Islands? These people and organizations do exist, and I (and others) have solicited similar help before for other projects, with some success. It's been a while since I sent such an e-mail, but I have found they helped with: Malagasy, Maltese, Sicilian, Friulian, and several others.
Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l