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. This isn't as coherent as I would like.
To give some back story that might not have been as obvious in our initial proposal, we were interested in joining the WMF for several primary reasons:
1) Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization where we fundamentally believe in the objectives of the organization. 2) Wikimedia Foundation has credibility that could be extended to our project, helping us accomplish our mission. 3) Fan History and I feel like we have positive relationships with Wikimedia Foundation staff, based on our interactions at RecentChangesCamp and in various chat rooms like #wiki and #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net.
We have certain things that we want to accomplish that have been detailed elsewhere. We're in the process of looking for and determining if we should partner with some one to accomplish these goals, what we're looking for in partnering or being acquired by some one. Our general criteria have been:
1) Non-profit, no-profit or for profit business where the emphasis would be on helping us to succeed with our mission. Monetization of the project is fine so long as major content focus and creation is focused around monetizing. We see our project as fundamentally for a greater good, to preserve and document the history of fan communities, and we don't want that made secondary to commercial interests. 2) Financial issues. In an ideal world, we would want one or two or three of our staffers to get some form of compensation for helping to maintain the content, enforce policies and helping work towards the mission. We also want to make sure that the project has the funding to continue indefinetely. 3) Fix and improve our back end. Thankfully, it feels like a fair amount of this has been addressed in the past two weeks so we're much less stressed about this than we were. 4) Increase the visibility and credibility of our project. Get more people involved.
That out of the way, time to discuss the process of trying to get acquired by the Wikimedia Foundation. Simply put, there were three basic steps that we took: 1) Contacted members of the Wikimedia Foundation to ask them if they would be interested in bringing Fan History into the Wikimedia Foundation family. Got directed to other people, told not sure who in the organization this would be best proposed to, got told that the Foundation itself probably wouldn't be interest, finally suggested I post this on the list because if community consensus is yes than we can go ahead. 2) Posted the proposal on the mailing list. Good feedback. Suggested I post it to the Strategy Wiki. 3) Posted to strategy wiki.
Step one is fine. The only problem I might have had with step one was not getting out right rejected.
The problem is really when it comes to steps two and three. To my knowledge, all of the projects that are currently part of the Wikimedia Foundation are home grown; they did not join as part of any aquisition process. In this regards, our proposal was unique. Steps two and three are kind of where we got hung up: What is the timeline? What are the next steps to take after these?
The timeline issue is a big one. For us, this is not that big of a deal necessarily. We're finacially in a place where we can probably chug along for a while in that regards. We're not facing issues of possibly being shut down because of legal problems or scripting problems. We do not have issues that say this is a last resort option for us to keep us open. In the future, others may contact Wikipedia where this may be an issue or where the founders may see this as the only solution.
I tried to ask various people to get a feel for the timeline that we were looking at to, well, know if WMF was interested in acquiring us or setting up some sort of official relationship. What I got told by people in the know on #wikimedia-strategy was that we were looking at three to eighteen months before we got some sort of official response back regarding whether this was something that the Wikimedia Foundation community was interested in. I was left with the impression that unless I was basically agitating and trying to get support on an almost daily basis, the timeline was actually closer to eighteen months. EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
And that eighteen months didn't even factor in under what conditions WMF would want us, what we would have to give up, and if we'd even be willing to accept WMF's offer if they made that decision. We couldn't get the information that we needed to know if we even wanted to work with Wikimedia Foundation for that long.
That puts us in a bind. There are other places we would like to approach. (And if you have ideas for who would be a good fit, please get in touch with me.) Is it ethical for us to approach other people and organizations while we have this on the table with the WMF? If we approach other people in the mean time, does that signal that our interest in the WMF is dead? We just don't know. Is it fair to the WMF to basically keep us in limbo for three to eighteen months? We kind of don't think so.
Outside of the timeline issue, there is the whole procedural issue. Proposal is made. It is posted to the appropriate places that WMF employees and volunteers have guided us to. What are the next steps? There really hasn't been any clarity for us on this. When we've asked in the chat, the answer is persistence. That's not a step and it isn't particularly helpful. Persistence how? Post repeatedly to the mailing list? Troll talk pages of contributors to Strategy Wiki asking for them to vote yes, Fan History should be part of the WMF?
Looking around at other new content proposals, Strategy Wiki looks like a place where proposals go to die. There are proposals that have been there a year, that have no votes, with no comments on them. There doesn't appear to be any follow up by 1) the person who posted the proposal, 2) volunteers for the WMF, 3) WMF employees who are working on strategy wiki. This is not encouraging for several reasons. If you are really excited about your content proposal and it would be a really good fit, you have the time to basically put full force into launching the project in the next three to six months, you've followed the guidelines that I have gotten and the procedure on the wiki, time and procedure become a huge issue that are potentially huge deterrents.
By deterents, I mean that these projects could end up off WMF and you could lose contributors who can't get past the bureaucracy to accomplish their goals, are not insider enough to push to get things done, are going to deter future proposals and may deter future contributions to Wikipedia and related projects.
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:
1) 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?
As for where Fan History's proposal to join WMF stands now, we're not sure. The mailing list conversation died. Strategy wiki's only commentary has been regarding getting us off the blacklist for Foundation projects.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
Laura,
It seems unlikely if only based on "We have no notability requirement." Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.
Fred Bauder
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. This isn't as coherent as I would like.
To give some back story that might not have been as obvious in our initial proposal, we were interested in joining the WMF for several primary reasons:
- Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization where we
fundamentally believe in the objectives of the organization. 2) Wikimedia Foundation has credibility that could be extended to our project, helping us accomplish our mission. 3) Fan History and I feel like we have positive relationships with Wikimedia Foundation staff, based on our interactions at RecentChangesCamp and in various chat rooms like #wiki and #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net.
We have certain things that we want to accomplish that have been detailed elsewhere. We're in the process of looking for and determining if we should partner with some one to accomplish these goals, what we're looking for in partnering or being acquired by some one. Our general criteria have been:
- Non-profit, no-profit or for profit business where the emphasis would
be on helping us to succeed with our mission. Monetization of the project is fine so long as major content focus and creation is focused around monetizing. We see our project as fundamentally for a greater good, to preserve and document the history of fan communities, and we don't want that made secondary to commercial interests. 2) Financial issues. In an ideal world, we would want one or two or three of our staffers to get some form of compensation for helping to maintain the content, enforce policies and helping work towards the mission. We also want to make sure that the project has the funding to continue indefinetely. 3) Fix and improve our back end. Thankfully, it feels like a fair amount of this has been addressed in the past two weeks so we're much less stressed about this than we were. 4) Increase the visibility and credibility of our project. Get more people involved.
That out of the way, time to discuss the process of trying to get acquired by the Wikimedia Foundation. Simply put, there were three basic steps that we took:
- Contacted members of the Wikimedia Foundation to ask them if they
would be interested in bringing Fan History into the Wikimedia Foundation family. Got directed to other people, told not sure who in the organization this would be best proposed to, got told that the Foundation itself probably wouldn't be interest, finally suggested I post this on the list because if community consensus is yes than we can go ahead. 2) Posted the proposal on the mailing list. Good feedback. Suggested I post it to the Strategy Wiki. 3) Posted to strategy wiki.
Step one is fine. The only problem I might have had with step one was not getting out right rejected.
The problem is really when it comes to steps two and three. To my knowledge, all of the projects that are currently part of the Wikimedia Foundation are home grown; they did not join as part of any aquisition process. In this regards, our proposal was unique. Steps two and three are kind of where we got hung up: What is the timeline? What are the next steps to take after these?
The timeline issue is a big one. For us, this is not that big of a deal necessarily. We're finacially in a place where we can probably chug along for a while in that regards. We're not facing issues of possibly being shut down because of legal problems or scripting problems. We do not have issues that say this is a last resort option for us to keep us open. In the future, others may contact Wikipedia where this may be an issue or where the founders may see this as the only solution.
I tried to ask various people to get a feel for the timeline that we were looking at to, well, know if WMF was interested in acquiring us or setting up some sort of official relationship. What I got told by people in the know on #wikimedia-strategy was that we were looking at three to eighteen months before we got some sort of official response back regarding whether this was something that the Wikimedia Foundation community was interested in. I was left with the impression that unless I was basically agitating and trying to get support on an almost daily basis, the timeline was actually closer to eighteen months. EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
And that eighteen months didn't even factor in under what conditions WMF would want us, what we would have to give up, and if we'd even be willing to accept WMF's offer if they made that decision. We couldn't get the information that we needed to know if we even wanted to work with Wikimedia Foundation for that long.
That puts us in a bind. There are other places we would like to approach. (And if you have ideas for who would be a good fit, please get in touch with me.) Is it ethical for us to approach other people and organizations while we have this on the table with the WMF? If we approach other people in the mean time, does that signal that our interest in the WMF is dead? We just don't know. Is it fair to the WMF to basically keep us in limbo for three to eighteen months? We kind of don't think so.
Outside of the timeline issue, there is the whole procedural issue. Proposal is made. It is posted to the appropriate places that WMF employees and volunteers have guided us to. What are the next steps? There really hasn't been any clarity for us on this. When we've asked in the chat, the answer is persistence. That's not a step and it isn't particularly helpful. Persistence how? Post repeatedly to the mailing list? Troll talk pages of contributors to Strategy Wiki asking for them to vote yes, Fan History should be part of the WMF?
Looking around at other new content proposals, Strategy Wiki looks like a place where proposals go to die. There are proposals that have been there a year, that have no votes, with no comments on them. There doesn't appear to be any follow up by 1) the person who posted the proposal, 2) volunteers for the WMF, 3) WMF employees who are working on strategy wiki. This is not encouraging for several reasons. If you are really excited about your content proposal and it would be a really good fit, you have the time to basically put full force into launching the project in the next three to six months, you've followed the guidelines that I have gotten and the procedure on the wiki, time and procedure become a huge issue that are potentially huge deterrents.
By deterents, I mean that these projects could end up off WMF and you could lose contributors who can't get past the bureaucracy to accomplish their goals, are not insider enough to push to get things done, are going to deter future proposals and may deter future contributions to Wikipedia and related projects.
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?
As for where Fan History's proposal to join WMF stands now, we're not sure. The mailing list conversation died. Strategy wiki's only commentary has been regarding getting us off the blacklist for Foundation projects.
Sincerely, Laura Hale _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Laura,
It seems unlikely if only based on "We have no notability requirement." Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.
I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the English Wikipedia. Other projects within the WMF family would not necessarily be subject to the same standards, in the same way that the Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images while the English Wikipedia does.
Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the English Wikipedia. Other projects within the WMF family would not necessarily be subject to the same standards, in the same way that the Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images while the English Wikipedia does.
This is an excellent point that gets to the heart of the divergence problems between Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's respective purposes. The difference though is that Wikimedia serves Wikipedia - not the other way around. Wikipedia's success itself came largely from being able to confine its scope and its mission toward dealing with issues of substance and not so much ideas about fluff - popular as that fluff may be.
But I agree that Wikimedia is not so encumbered with principles as Wikipedia, and thus it can take on projects that deal with non-encyclopedic content. (In fact this unencumberance allows for some degree of allowance for non-encyclopedic content on even Wikipedia - see Commons for example). You have to understand the objection here though - which is that we inevitably find that Wikipedia will conflict with any other Wikimedia projects if their priorities are too different.
Wikipedia is more than just Wikimedia's flagship project, and its encyclopedic and journalistic principles have a priority that far exceeds its own "wiki."
-Stevertigo
Hoi, You might have waved a red rag, time to hoist the pirate flag... What nonsense. Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation's biggest project and indeed it gets most of the attention and most of the tender loving care. HOWEVER, there are other projects that are most definitely not encyclopaedic and that are massively important, relevant even succesful. Not just Commons, but also projects like Wiktionary, Wikinews...
These projects are successful despite the lack of focussed attention given to Wikipedia. This will be partially remedied with the Commons project. Similar projects could and should be considered for the other projects. The best argument I have heard so far why this is not done is that the WMF lacks the resources to do this and do this well at this time.
It has been argued in the past that projects like Wiktionary would do better outside the WMF. This might be true, personally I am not sure. Thanks,, GerardM
2009/12/1 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the English Wikipedia. Other projects within the WMF family would not necessarily be subject to the same standards, in the same way that the Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images while the English
Wikipedia
does.
This is an excellent point that gets to the heart of the divergence problems between Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's respective purposes. The difference though is that Wikimedia serves Wikipedia - not the other way around. Wikipedia's success itself came largely from being able to confine its scope and its mission toward dealing with issues of substance and not so much ideas about fluff - popular as that fluff may be.
But I agree that Wikimedia is not so encumbered with principles as Wikipedia, and thus it can take on projects that deal with non-encyclopedic content. (In fact this unencumberance allows for some degree of allowance for non-encyclopedic content on even Wikipedia - see Commons for example). You have to understand the objection here though - which is that we inevitably find that Wikipedia will conflict with any other Wikimedia projects if their priorities are too different.
Wikipedia is more than just Wikimedia's flagship project, and its encyclopedic and journalistic principles have a priority that far exceeds its own "wiki."
-Stevertigo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
There are proposals that have been there a year, that have no votes, with no comments on them.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Strategy wiki wasn't even set up a year ago.
It was created in July. Proposals weren't accepted until almost August.
I'm willing to have this discussion, but let's do it honestly, and without hyperbole. ;)
pb
____________________ Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation
philippe@wikimedia.org
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Perhaps she mistook the meta proposals for strat. Where, by all accounts, a proposal with nothing going on for the last year are lively, considering there are proposals on there dated as far back as 2004, a number of them dated 2006. For those who aren't terribly active in our community, seeing something like that, can't blame em for thinking the process is dead. After all, when was the last time the WMF opened a _new_ project (not a new language, a completely new project).
/me shrugs -Jon
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:53, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
There are proposals that have been there a year, that have no votes, with no comments on them.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Strategy wiki wasn't even set up a year ago.
It was created in July. Proposals weren't accepted until almost August.
I'm willing to have this discussion, but let's do it honestly, and without hyperbole. ;)
pb
Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation
philippe@wikimedia.org
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
'06 wikiversity
________________________________ From: Jon Davis wiki@konsoletek.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 12:19:34 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
Perhaps she mistook the meta proposals for strat. Where, by all accounts, a proposal with nothing going on for the last year are lively, considering there are proposals on there dated as far back as 2004, a number of them dated 2006. For those who aren't terribly active in our community, seeing something like that, can't blame em for thinking the process is dead. After all, when was the last time the WMF opened a _new_ project (not a new language, a completely new project).
/me shrugs -Jon
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:53, Philippe Beaudette pbeaudette@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
There are proposals that have been there a year, that have no votes, with no comments on them.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Strategy wiki wasn't even set up a year ago.
It was created in July. Proposals weren't accepted until almost August.
I'm willing to have this discussion, but let's do it honestly, and without hyperbole. ;)
pb
Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation
philippe@wikimedia.org
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/11/29 Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com:
As for where Fan History's proposal to join WMF stands now, we're not sure. The mailing list conversation died. Strategy wiki's only commentary has been regarding getting us off the blacklist for Foundation projects.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
I think it's time to stop messing you around. I'm not part of the foundation and I can't speak for it however:
1)at this point you basically have to assume the answer is no. The only people who could okay you joining are Sue Gardner or a direct board vote. Neither Sue nor the board have shown much interest and you are unlikely to get enough community backing to make them do so.
2)Even if it did happen "staffers getting some form of compensation" is right out. The WMF has far less than 1 employee per wiki.
3)Timelines. The general rule with regards to wikimedia projects is that if something doesn't happen fast it probably won't happen and if it does it will take years.
As for alternative partnerships Tvtropes are by far the most obvious (large community,shared interests) but dealing with the software issues would be quite a trick.
I'm going to post a clarification as there seems to be some confusion regarding my post:
After we got back the original e-mail from some one at the WMF, we were asked by four or five parties to try to continue along with the process in order to present WMF with a kind of case study for this process. It wasn't intended to be a formal one with a write up (though if some one wants to do that or wants me to do that, let me know) but just so that when this issue arose again, there would be a clear example as to how things were handled.
My post was intended mostly as a "From my perspective, this is where the process broke down."
The process broke down in the following places:
1. Lack of a clear procedure for this in terms of what the steps should be. 2. Lack of clarity regarding the behavioral expectations of all vested parties in this process. 3. Lack of a timeline for when steps should be taken. 4. No clear point where a proposal is considered dead, beyond silence. 5. Misleading steps in the proposal process that create misconceptions. 6. Connectivity problems between proposals on strategy and meta. 7. Incorrect assumptions regarding Wikipedia needing to apply to all new projects.
I apologize for the earlier rambling and lack of clarity regarding what I was attempting to accomplish with my post.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
I'd toss in there "lack of realistic expectations from your project", especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned. This alone can account for much of the other things you view as "breakdowns".
-Dan On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
I'm going to post a clarification as there seems to be some confusion regarding my post:
After we got back the original e-mail from some one at the WMF, we were asked by four or five parties to try to continue along with the process in order to present WMF with a kind of case study for this process. It wasn't intended to be a formal one with a write up (though if some one wants to do that or wants me to do that, let me know) but just so that when this issue arose again, there would be a clear example as to how things were handled.
My post was intended mostly as a "From my perspective, this is where the process broke down."
The process broke down in the following places:
- Lack of a clear procedure for this in terms of what the steps should be.
- Lack of clarity regarding the behavioral expectations of all vested
parties in this process. 3. Lack of a timeline for when steps should be taken. 4. No clear point where a proposal is considered dead, beyond silence. 5. Misleading steps in the proposal process that create misconceptions. 6. Connectivity problems between proposals on strategy and meta. 7. Incorrect assumptions regarding Wikipedia needing to apply to all new projects.
I apologize for the earlier rambling and lack of clarity regarding what I was attempting to accomplish with my post.
Sincerely, Laura Hale _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks for this repost, Laura.
I don't know where 18 months comes from, but it is much much too long :-)
It might be more accurate to say that our project proposal process is broken, and we simply need to fix it. The Meta process for requesting a new project is what I have in mind. As philippe pointed out, the Expanding Content task force is meant to address the meta-topic of this thread. The current (broken) process does in its way accomodate both new and adoptive projects -- projects are encouraged to link to demo sites or live communities in their proposal.
Laura writes:
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...
- 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?
Yes. 1 and 2 need to be defined, along with any criteria that should be met before starting on 1. It is polite for the Foundation to let people know whether it is worth their time to draft the proposal. As for 3, I don't think anyone would ask for proposals to be exclusive. Similarly, it is polite for the proposer to let the WM community know whether they are serious, or about to pursue some other option instead.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
The process broke down in the following places: ... 4. No clear point where a proposal is considered dead, beyond silence. 5. Misleading steps in the proposal process that create misconceptions. 6. Connectivity problems between proposals on strategy and meta. 7. Incorrect assumptions regarding Wikipedia needing to apply to all new projects.
Also good points. 7 is an ongoing discussion, but the other three points could be addressed with clear process.
I apologize for the earlier rambling and lack of clarity regarding what I was attempting to accomplish with my post.
I found the background quite informative...
Dan Rosenthal writes:
I'd toss in there "lack of realistic expectations from your project",
especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned.
This point, the copyright question, and the narrowness of project scope seem like the hardest ones to reconcile. But that doesn't save us from addressing the good points made about fixing the proposal process. Wikimedians could respond quickly with "looks interesting, but a) individiual projects don't get dedicated paid staff [since 2002 :)], b) you'll have to pursue a license migration in one of the following ways..., and c) you'd have to frame this as part of a larger-scope 'cultural history' wiki".
As a pillar of the free culture community, it might also be useful for us to welcome such interest rather than frustrating it, offering an overview (as a community service) of the options for specialized free knowledge projects that want sustainable hosting/supoport/tool development.
Mike.lifeguard writes:
I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*?
I'm not sure what you mean. There are lots of new interesting projects, in line with our mission, that require tools and distributed collaboration to replace proprietary but essential basic knowledge with free knowledge. A number of them have had reasonable proposals made on Meta. Among the projects that developed successfully independent of Wikimedia (most of which are nevertheless less often visited than, say, Wikispecies): Wikikids, Rodovid + WeRelate, AboutUs, Open Library, Wikimapia + OpenStreetMap.
Wikimedia as a community could significantly shift the amount of attention devoted to building these and other free-content reference works. We need to decide whether we should. (by the way, this doesn't have to be limited to starting new projects or adopting existing ones; we could find other ways to drive traffic and interested editors to fellow-traveller projects that meet our criteria for furthering our mission. The part where closer collaboration becomes interesting is: It would be great to see wikikids projects in fr, de, es and nl (three independent projects!) develop interwiki links[1]. We could help ensure WeRelate's data is backed up and preserved for generations. Wikimapia might be even more beautiful without its massive ads.)
There's nothing wrong with us deciding that any particular Project isn't within Wikimedia's scope, but each of those decisions deserves due consideration. (note that we could decide that a Project like an atlas is very much within our scope, but a specific proposed implementation isn't suitable. Many current proposals got hung up on that distinction.)
I'd be far more interested in discussing ways we can critically evaluate which of our current projects should remain in the Wikimedia movement, and which should be asked to move outside that movement to continue their development.
Once we have a way to assess projects for their priority is in the grand scheme of empowering people to develop and share free educational knowledge, we can assess current Projects and implementations as well. Even our lowest-traffic projects such as wikiversity and wikisource tend to be among the most popular sites in their domain.
SJ
[1] the german grundschul wiki is the smallest, but has the best main page welcome that others could learn from: " * Are you an expert in gerbils? * Do you know all about airplanes? * Do you know why penguins and polar bears never meet?
Then you will fit right in! Join now! "
Great analysis SJ. By the way - since we're talking about working with other organisations outside of Wikimedia Projects, there is another Strategic Planning taskforce that people might be interested in weighing in on. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alliances_and_Partnerships_Task_Force The "expanding content" one has already been mentioned in this thread but the "partnerships and alliances" is trying to discuss how the Wikimedia projects/Foundation/community should interact with other projects.
Best, -Liam [[witty lama]]
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for this repost, Laura.
I don't know where 18 months comes from, but it is much much too long :-)
It might be more accurate to say that our project proposal process is broken, and we simply need to fix it. The Meta process for requesting a new project is what I have in mind. As philippe pointed out, the Expanding Content task force is meant to address the meta-topic of this thread. The current (broken) process does in its way accomodate both new and adoptive projects -- projects are encouraged to link to demo sites or live communities in their proposal.
Laura writes:
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...
- 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?
Yes. 1 and 2 need to be defined, along with any criteria that should be met before starting on 1. It is polite for the Foundation to let people know whether it is worth their time to draft the proposal. As for 3, I don't think anyone would ask for proposals to be exclusive. Similarly, it is polite for the proposer to let the WM community know whether they are serious, or about to pursue some other option instead.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
The process broke down in the following places: ... 4. No clear point where a proposal is considered dead, beyond silence. 5. Misleading steps in the proposal process that create misconceptions. 6. Connectivity problems between proposals on strategy and meta. 7. Incorrect assumptions regarding Wikipedia needing to apply to all new projects.
Also good points. 7 is an ongoing discussion, but the other three points could be addressed with clear process.
I apologize for the earlier rambling and lack of clarity regarding what I was attempting to accomplish with my post.
I found the background quite informative...
Dan Rosenthal writes:
I'd toss in there "lack of realistic expectations from your project",
especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned.
This point, the copyright question, and the narrowness of project scope seem like the hardest ones to reconcile. But that doesn't save us from addressing the good points made about fixing the proposal process. Wikimedians could respond quickly with "looks interesting, but a) individiual projects don't get dedicated paid staff [since 2002 :)], b) you'll have to pursue a license migration in one of the following ways..., and c) you'd have to frame this as part of a larger-scope 'cultural history' wiki".
As a pillar of the free culture community, it might also be useful for us to welcome such interest rather than frustrating it, offering an overview (as a community service) of the options for specialized free knowledge projects that want sustainable hosting/supoport/tool development.
Mike.lifeguard writes:
I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*?
I'm not sure what you mean. There are lots of new interesting projects, in line with our mission, that require tools and distributed collaboration to replace proprietary but essential basic knowledge with free knowledge. A number of them have had reasonable proposals made on Meta. Among the projects that developed successfully independent of Wikimedia (most of which are nevertheless less often visited than, say, Wikispecies): Wikikids, Rodovid + WeRelate, AboutUs, Open Library, Wikimapia + OpenStreetMap.
Wikimedia as a community could significantly shift the amount of attention devoted to building these and other free-content reference works. We need to decide whether we should. (by the way, this doesn't have to be limited to starting new projects or adopting existing ones; we could find other ways to drive traffic and interested editors to fellow-traveller projects that meet our criteria for furthering our mission. The part where closer collaboration becomes interesting is: It would be great to see wikikids projects in fr, de, es and nl (three independent projects!) develop interwiki links[1]. We could help ensure WeRelate's data is backed up and preserved for generations. Wikimapia might be even more beautiful without its massive ads.)
There's nothing wrong with us deciding that any particular Project isn't within Wikimedia's scope, but each of those decisions deserves due consideration. (note that we could decide that a Project like an atlas is very much within our scope, but a specific proposed implementation isn't suitable. Many current proposals got hung up on that distinction.)
I'd be far more interested in discussing ways we can critically evaluate which of our current projects should remain in the Wikimedia movement, and which should be asked to move outside that movement to continue their development.
Once we have a way to assess projects for their priority is in the grand scheme of empowering people to develop and share free educational knowledge, we can assess current Projects and implementations as well. Even our lowest-traffic projects such as wikiversity and wikisource tend to be among the most popular sites in their domain.
SJ
[1] the german grundschul wiki is the smallest, but has the best main page welcome that others could learn from: "
- Are you an expert in gerbils?
- Do you know all about airplanes?
- Do you know why penguins and polar bears never meet?
Then you will fit right in! Join now! " _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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.
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
On Nov 29, 2009, at 11:04 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
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).
I'd also like to point out http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Expanding_Content - a task force to deal with exactly these issues.
Input is always welcomed :)
____________________ Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation
philippe@wikimedia.org
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
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
Hi, Laura. I'll stay out of the main discussion here, but I just wanted to address one point as a bystander who has spent a lot of years involved with Internet startups:
Laura Hale wrote:
[...] There are other places we would like to approach. (And if you have ideas for who would be a good fit, please get in touch with me.) Is it ethical for us to approach other people and organizations while we have this on the table with the WMF? If we approach other people in the mean time, does that signal that our interest in the WMF is dead?
What you're talking about doesn't have a lot of direct precedents that I know of, but with business acquisitions it's common to talk to multiple people at the same time. Indeed, in some cases, I understand it's a legal duty to do so. The notion is that the fairest deals happen in the broadest markets.
In that context, the way that one signals interest is to continue to talk, and by the amount of effort put into the talking.
No matter who you're talking with, one concept you should be aware of as you go forward is what I've heard called "the venture capitalist's no". Because things on the Internet change with some frequency, and because the future is hard to predict, there's often not much incentive to give a clear negative answer. There's also not a lot of incentive for demanding them; as satisfying as clarity is, startups find it more valuable still to keep their options open.
I'm not sure how much that applies to the people you plan to approach, but if I were you I'd try to be prepared for a fair-bit of well-meant fog.
William
I agree with what Phoebe and William have written, and I'll just add a few minor points and then a thought about the process of new project creation.
* When dealing with the WMF and Wikimedia community, you might want to avoid the language of business acquisitions; it's extraordinarily unlikely that the WMF will get into purchasing content for subsequent free distribution, if only for the (for us) perverse incentives it will create.
* The Strategy wiki is not, in my opinion, a great place to propose new projects. It's aimed at long-term and big picture strategy, so it would be a good place to discuss the process of creating new projects, but it is not necessarily well adapted to considering specific proposals.
* The Foundation and the community are not at a place where they can pursue people for project adoption. This is true for a variety of reasons, but the upshot is that you won't find a motivated adopter (someone who will actively court your project or facilitate an adoption) in either group.
It might actually be easier to approach this as a "new project" proposal for the WMF, as opposed to the adoption of an already existing project. While the layout and formal written processes for creating a new project are (a) confusing (b) nonexistent (c) defunct (or some combination of all three), the general concept is fairly straightforward:
(1) Demonstrate compatibility (i.e. resolve legal and philosophical issues, if any) (2) Demonstrate an active community (3) Resolve serious complaints / criticism in a community forum, most likely on Meta (may take some agitating for comments over a period of time) (4) Present the successful completion of 1-3 to an available employee of the WMF, like Erik Moeller, or a board member, who can see that hosting arrangements are made.
If you can do 1-3, you can probably do 4. The Foundation should really facilitate the entire process, in my opinion, but the absence of their assistance doesn't *necessarily* doom the prospect of a new project. It just means that it won't be easy, and success will require the persistent effort of project advocates.
The 4th step is the "official" approval, but history demonstrates that the actual work involved in step 4 is doable. While Wikiversity is the newest content projects, there are other hosted and distinct projects of other sorts (strategy, chapter projects, etc.) - proving that setting up a new MediaWiki instance with attendant arrangements isn't a major hurdle. Once you've accomplished all the steps, you can import your old wiki into your new wiki and get back to work.
Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Could someone let me know why we need a bureaucratic process (I mean "bureaucratic" without the connotative value) to approve new projects when there has been exactly zero proposals since 2006 that actually needed to be approved? (And in fact, there is serious discussion about whether our current projects make sense, a fact which is too easily overlooked)
I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*?
I'd be far more interested in discussing ways we can critically evaluate which of our current projects should remain in the Wikimedia movement, and which should be asked to move outside that movement to continue their development.
- -Mike
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*?
Does it not happen because there's no process, or is there no process because it doesn't need to happen? I don't actually think there's any consensus one way or the other, though the end result -- inertia, and some confusion on the part of well-meaning people who would like to start more projects -- is the same.
Also, not all proposed projects are similar -- some are closer to what we're already doing than others. For instance, a group of researchers & Wikimedians at WikiSym this year had an idea I've been meaning to write up, for a reference commons that would support the existing WMF projects (similar projects have been proposed before); this would be a separate, tool-server-like project. Another example: lots of people have worked on producing versions of Wikipedia for children, and there's been talk of making a larger effort.
Assuming a project like that had merit, would this kind of project also fall under the "doesn't need to happen" list for you? Or are you mostly talking about proposals for "new wikis for x topic", which have dominated the new projects page historically?
I'd be far more interested in discussing ways we can critically evaluate which of our current projects should remain in the Wikimedia movement, and which should be asked to move outside that movement to continue their development.
I totally agree, though I think the questions I posed are also applicable to this discussion, perhaps with a more general focus: what sort of content do we want to host under WMF auspices? What sort of projects?
I don't like the term "wikimedia movement" (at all), but it could be useful for talking about the miscellany of projects related to us out in the world that aren't necessarily hosted on wikimedia.org. But that's different from asking what projects *should* be directly hosted by Wikimedia. (Clearly, the answer is to get rid of the ever-problematic wikipedia and concentrate on the rest of them :P)
-- phoebe
2009/11/29 Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com:
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:
(...)
This sort of presupposes that WMF, on the whole, wants to acquire projects. My understanding for several years has basically been that we don't; we build very large-scope projects in house, and gently encourage people who come to us with more specialised projects to either find a way to work them into one of the umbrellas, or to find a more appropriate home elsewhere.
So, if WMF is going to begin to acquire projects, it first needs to decide that it wants to do that at all. And *that's* a big step; it'll need discussion and debate, a rethinking of what we conceive of as WMF projects, and how we decide on what is an appropriate use of funds; it's not just something someone in the office can sign off on. Once we have that - if we have that - then we can decide on a policy to handle such cases.
That's the sticking-point here; deciding on the merits or demerits of the FH proposal are somewhat secondary to deciding whether we should be thinking about entertaining the proposal at all, and we can't just finesse past that stage.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org