On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy wiki.
<snip a lot of detail>
As some one who has proposed a new project for the WMF (which would really probably be an acquisition if it happened), some changes need to be made:
- Clear procedure for what happens step by step in making such a proposal.
Post proposal. Contact people who support your position to vote in favor of it using talk pages on Strategy wiki. After one hundred votes vast in favor with no more than half that total in opposition, project moves to development stages where WMF staff will be in contact with the person making the proposal. Something like that. 2) Clear timeline of what happens and when so that people can plan accordingly 3) Expectations regarding exclusivity of proposal to the WMF during the proposal process. Can people propose it elsewhere or seek acquisition by others while there is an open proposal on Strategy Wiki?
<snip>
Regardless of the merits of FanHistory itself -- and I agree with the criticisms others have brought forth for whether the project should join the WMF -- Laura's criticisms of process are legitimate. For all intents and purposes, there is no process for proposing new projects, whether home-grown or brought in from outside.
Yes, Wikiversity was created in 2006; it was also pushed through by some extraordinarily dedicated editors (especially user:Cormaggio) who were willing to take part in meta-discussions for *years*. It was also created under the aegis of the Special Projects Committee ([[meta:SPC]] for those who don't remember), which worked with the Wikiversity editors and brought forth a proposal to the Board after much back-and-forth.
The SPC doesn't exist anymore, and there's not really anything to take its place (such as it was) that I'm aware of. Even with an expanded Foundation staff, it's unclear what area such proposals would fall under: new projects aren't business development, and they're not really outreach either. High-level strategic development? But clearly not all proposals are created equal, and not all are of potential interest, and not all are fully developed. And it's not at all clear to me that this kind of discussion/decision should even go through the office or board, at least initially; it's really undefined what "the community" (whatever that means) wants in terms of WMF projects.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been a good discussion on the topic of new projects in the community in a long while; I don't know if there has been in board or staff discussions. Questions that I'd like to see discussed on a large scale are:
- Do we want any new projects? Right now? In the future? Ever?
- If so, do we only want projects that follow traditional reference
book models of organizing information? (e.g. Wikiquote, which follows the model of books of quotations)
- or perhaps only educational projects?
- do all projects have to follow NPOV? What about the other guidelines: NOR, V?
- do we only want projects we start ourselves, or would we consider
projects started by other organizations?
And yes, this could go on the strategy wiki -- but I don't know of a good, unstructured place to have a discussion about such things there (that isn't a specific proposal or strategic objective or whatever). To that end, I'd like to try and revive this meta page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects/process
which was started last summer then faded out.
I find myself very much in agreement with Phoebe's call for a renewed look at developing a process for new WMF projects.
I think that in considering future steps, one middle option that may be considered is the "virtual wiki", the namespace-specific subproject that may be hosted at a larger project while still developing its own specific norms.
Consider the Wikiversity and Wikijunior projects, both started as "virtual wikis" on Wikibooks. Wikiversity eventually took its own path, while Wikijunior after some discussion was still felt to be best as part of the mother wiki.
I feel that this Wikiversity/Wikijunior model could prove valuable again in the development of new types of WMF reference works, whether they may be also hosted as subprojects of Wikibooks or perhaps of another project.
Thanks, Pharos
And yes, Laura, to your specific question: if you want to see anything happen with your project anytime soon, I wouldn't pick the WMF. Whether this is a failing of a disorganized, bureaucratic system, or a benefit of a deliberative, community-based system, I leave as an exercise to the reader.
best, -- phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l