Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
I think it is time to have a serious meta-discussion regarding what it going to take in order for the Wikimedia Foundation to accept a whole new project, and what guidelines should be in place, as well as a roadmap for what would have to be accomplished in order for such a project to move from a "gee, this would be a cool idea" to "here is the server space, let's roll!"
[snipped good suggestions]
Sorry to say this, but in my opinion we shouldn't accept any new projects at all for the next two years but instead work on improving the existing ones. There's enough work to do and even the time we discuss new projects would be better invested in discussing and solving our current problems.
greetings, elian
I would have to, for the most part, agree. The point I was trying to make is that the new project proposal page is getting filled, and either it gets shut down entirely with a note (no more new proposals are going to be accepted, period), or that those new proposals be given a chance to move forward. It is at least possible for a new idea to come up that might grab the attention of the board.
So should there be a moritorium on new projects? Should that kill the whole new project proposal page entirely? Are the people proposing these new project simply wasting their time?
From what you are suggesting, elian, is that yes, they are wasting their time in futility because none of those projects are ever going to be accepted. And projects that have been on that page for more than a few months are being culled, so most of those are really brand-new project proposals. From my brief time of watching that page on Meta, the number of proposals has substantially increased, somewhat proportional to the overall growth of the Wikimedia projects in general.
I am suggesting that perhaps there are some good ideas out there, but the people who have a germ of an idea they want to come forward with should have to put some effort into getting that idea made into a full project. Mind you, this is an idea killing proposal, not a project generator engine. At each stage of the process I outlined, there would be a way to get rid of weak ideas for new projects, or things that simply don't fit in with the larger community. Each stage is a way to politely say "no" to somebody and try to discourage them from going forward with a new project, but give some little bit of encouragement if the idea does seem to be remarkable. Also to try and keep what is often new members of the wikimedia community involved and hopefully join with existing projects, redirecting their energy and at least letting them know that they are welcome to share their ideas, no matter how different they may be from the rest of the community.
At the moment, there are only two levels to creating a project: 1) The project proposal page and 2) When the server is turned on and people are adding content.
This creates problems and is sending a message that nobody, particularly the board, is really going to take anything on that project proposal page seriously. It also creates a disconnect between the board and the community at large that IMHO shouldn't be there. It should also be bold and blunt that new project ideas are not likly going to happen, while from reading everything on the new project proposal page seems to suggest the exact opposite. At least a slightly discouraging "look at wikicities" note is in the talk page, but there could be more.
And perhaps even this mailing list isn't exactly the appropriate place to announce a new project idea, at least in the initial stages. You are correct that often it is a waste of time and bandwidth to have to deal with new project proposals, where most of them will be shot down anyway. Again, this is usually by people new to Wikipedia, or relatively so and have begun to branch out a little bit, discovering Meta, the new project page, and this mailing list. I would argue that these are exactly the kind of people we need to encourage, and try to get them involved with the other existing projects as much as possible. These also tend to be somewhat creative, and people who the word "no" doesn't discourage. A formal process will actually cut down on the number of postings to this mailing list, and will be only for projects that pass the first few "roadblocks".
There must be some point between absolutely nothing new will be created and every crazy proposal will be accepted with server space. If it is going to take a couple of years for a proposal to meander from initial concept to final green light, perhaps that would be better. I do believe that new project ideas that are sent through a formal process are going to be healthier projects in the long term, and have a larger support community to maintain and add content. Wikispecies is one of those that could have greatly benefited from a process like this, where the basic ideas on how it would have been put together could have been refined before it was turned loose. Ditto with the 9/11 memorial site. Perhaps even with Wikibooks, although I personally like that project.