GerardM wrote:
On 1/27/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
On an other level, when a project can only be considered properly discussed when it has been discussed in the same way as the Wikiversity project, it denies that it is a different proposal. The arguments for these projects are different. Comparing these two proposals in such a way serves no purpose.
I did copy the people who indicated their support as voting in favour of this proposal. I did this because these people do not frequent the Wikimedia projects as a favour. I promissed Oscar that when someone of this list would remove all of them. I will.
Thanks, GerardM
I have been a critic of how bureaucratic the process of becoming a new project has become, so in some ways I see what you are doing as a sort of breath of fresh air. It is nice to see that this proposal has been moving forward and a serious attempt is being made to get the whole idea working.
As far as Wikiversity is concerned, I was just using it as a comparison to how perhaps a successful project should be done. Another very good example and the true standard that most new projects are put up against is Wikinews and the whole proposal process that got that project going. There was some serious discussion that happened over the course of several months including the development of the [[m:Wikinews]] project.
Here is a comparison to the level of discussion I think should be for a new project at a similar stage to where Wikistandards should be at. Compare these two pages on Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews&oldid=72346
and the corrisponding talk page
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikinews&oldid=73381
There is a reason why Wikinews was developed relatively quickly from when the proposal was put together and the vote started. And even that wasn't without any hangups or rough spots once it got going.
Ultimately, what you need to do as well is somehow convince the mainstream Wikimedia users that this new project is going to be developed and can be considered an equal to the rest of the Wikimedia sister projects. Two projects that were started earlier and have been struggling since are the 9/11 Memorial Wiki and Wikispecies. Most of the opposition votes on both Wikiversity and Wikinews were to never see projects like that started again. I think it is reasonable to offer a comparison to Wikispecies and potentially what Wikistandards may offer, even if it is just in contrast in suggesting that a fairly large group of individuals is going to get the project going, and that you have a reasonable plan to not only deal with potential objections but that you also have an idea of where the project will be in a couple of years and what the ultimate vision of this project will be.
As for the votes, I was suprised that my name was listed when I know that I didn't vote on that page as a vote of support. Yes, I support the idea of Wikistandards, but I know of no other user interest poll that started with a bunch of votes already seeded when the survey was started. If you genuinely have the support of these individuals, it wouldn't matter if the poll was brand new or not, they would take the time and do the voting themselves after they see what their name is attached to. Having organized the Wikiversity vote, I made extra steps to make sure that there could not be any objections to any one of the votes that were cast in support, and indeed a good number of supporting votes were culled before the final count was made.
One other issue that needs to be dealt with immediately is the opposition vote by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board. This proposal is already starting out on the wrong foot if you can't at least keep the board members neutral on the idea in a "let's wait and see what the community will come up with" attitude. I would highly recommend trying to overcome Angela's objections as this whole thing is going to have to end up in formal discussions with the Foundation Board anyway. It would be far better to have a supporter than an opponent on the board before the voting ends.