Delirium wrote:
Dovi Jacobs wrote:
But it does seem that the vast majority of needs are covered by the existing projects. So I agree with the general sentiment that most of the effort should be going into bettering the existing projects, though this does not mean there cannot be new projects. We should indeed guide people as to how they can build their ideas within the existing projects.
I agree with this, and think a lot of what people want in new projects could be taken care of by new views on the same data, which is more a matter of coding, software architecture, and user-interface design than a new project per se. For example, Wikispecies has a strong overlap with Wikipedia---it's generally accepted (at least in en:) that any recognized species about which any data is available is an appropriate candidate for an article, and many people agree that it would be nice if we had some sort of structured data in Wikipedia that would allow querying/etc. (essentially the sort of standard information that ends up in various info boxes, like elevation for a mountain peak). Given that, it should be possible for a database of species and Wikipedia to share the same information, just present and query it in different ways. So in both this case and others, I'd lean more towards a long-term solution along these lines, rather than starting more projects with duplicate information that needs to be kept in sync. An issue with user-interface or software can be fixed, but if we end up with multiple projects duplicating information, merging them at a later date is much harder.
-Mark
I don't think there is anybody on this list that considers Wikispecies to be a run-away success. There were some serious mistakes made in the beginning, and that is obvious even on the discussion pages within Wikispecies (I've taken a look at it and even made a <<few>> modifications). Yes, much of what was there could have been accomodated by Wikipedia, and most of what Wikispecies offered was a taxonomy for how to access the information for various species of living things.
I'm just pointing out that there is more out there, and it is precisely a project like Wikispecies that I would like to prevent from happening in the future... at least until it can get proper leadership and figure out (in the case of Wikispecies) exactly how they are going to organize the information rather than tyring to restart the project all over again midstream with a whole new structure (IMHO the real reason why Wikispecies is a dead project).
Also, don't try to convince me that anything and everything will be accomodated on current set of projects being run by Wikimedia. I have seen too many people told to yank stuff off of various project servers that had nothing to do with the GFDL, copyleft, NPOV, spamming, or even good taste. It just wasn't "appropriate" for the given project and hence was removed and the content deleted. If you want specific details, I will provide them, but most people on this list should know what I'm talking about here.
If it appears that I am digging my heels in here, I am. I know that Wikispecies has given quite a few people some very bad taste in their mouth about new project startups, but that shouldn't stop new ideas from coming up. I also understand that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a catch-all for every crazy Wiki project that comes along, and certainly the MediaWiki software is available for anybody to use if they care to grab it. I have a friend who has just started a fiction colaboration website using MediaWiki software (Wikibooks for fiction...which Wikibooks is not). I appreciate the design to date for the MediaWiki software, and it is neat to see that it can be used for other purposes, even pure commercial (like this one is... and closed membership... by choice of the participants). That certainly can be an option as well for people who have a cool idea for a project that perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to get involved with, and something perhaps some of the participants in the new project proposal area should be directed to. Under ideal circumstances, suggestions for funding or grants could also be made by the Wikimedia community in general to help get an independent project going....again, something that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have to take direct responsibility for or dillute efforts to concentrate on existing projects. If we can keep good relations with people that "leave", the goodwill is going to come back to the Wikimedia Foundation with interest, and possibly $$$ as well.