Hoi, BetaWiki has chosen SiteMatrix as its extension of the week. I had a good look at it and, I was astonished about the huge amount of projects. Projects that never showed any activity. Projects that are just empty waiting for someone to come along and start. Given the long list of discussions about projects that did show some activity in the past, I expect that there is no problem in killing of projects that had no activity at all. Projects like the bm.wiktionary for instance.
If there are no objections, an inventory can be made of such projects that are then deleted.
Thanks, GerardM
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
What about projects with just one or two content pages, but no content edits since years? (as for example tt.wikiquote, where one single (small) content page was created in 2004 and nothing except spam and cleanup since then)
Best regards, Thogo. -------------------------------------------------- 2008/1/11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, BetaWiki has chosen SiteMatrix as its extension of the week. I had a good look at it and, I was astonished about the huge amount of projects. Projects that never showed any activity. Projects that are just empty waiting for someone to come along and start. Given the long list of discussions about projects that did show some activity in the past, I expect that there is no problem in killing of projects that had no activity at all. Projects like the bm.wiktionary for instance.
If there are no objections, an inventory can be made of such projects that are then deleted.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 12, 2008 12:41 AM, Thomas Goldammer thogol@googlemail.com wrote:
What about projects with just one or two content pages, but no content edits since years? (as for example tt.wikiquote, where one single (small) content page was created in 2004 and nothing except spam and cleanup since then)
I think the most appropriate reaction to those inactive projects is closure. Most of inactive wiktionary, wikibooks and wikiquote were supposed to be launched without any request of particular user group who exactly had wished for that project or even support of language community (i.e. on the wikipedia). They were just the result of language divisions of monolingual parent projects. I assume the closure of such projects harm none, specially if we leave the way to reopen it and if there are contents even a few, to keep it either as dump or just read-only wikis online.
Best regards, Thogo.
2008/1/11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, BetaWiki has chosen SiteMatrix as its extension of the week. I had a good look at it and, I was astonished about the huge amount of projects. Projects that never showed any activity. Projects that are just empty waiting for someone to come along and start. Given the long list of discussions about projects that did show some activity in the past, I expect that there is no problem in killing of projects that had no activity at all. Projects like the bm.wiktionary for instance.
If there are no objections, an inventory can be made of such projects that are then deleted.
Thanks, GerardM
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This issue has come up several times before, and I've thought up a solution.
What if we had a centralized wiki (called archive.wikimedia.org or somesuch) where all closed/inactive wikis with a low number of contributions could be archived. That way, rather than leaving a Wikiquote locked with 2 pages and unlikely to ever be found, we could have a centralized place where all of these low-content projects could be placed.
Thoughts?
Chad
On Jan 11, 2008 10:54 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 12:41 AM, Thomas Goldammer thogol@googlemail.com wrote:
What about projects with just one or two content pages, but no content edits since years? (as for example tt.wikiquote, where one single (small) content page was created in 2004 and nothing except spam and cleanup since then)
I think the most appropriate reaction to those inactive projects is closure. Most of inactive wiktionary, wikibooks and wikiquote were supposed to be launched without any request of particular user group who exactly had wished for that project or even support of language community (i.e. on the wikipedia). They were just the result of language divisions of monolingual parent projects. I assume the closure of such projects harm none, specially if we leave the way to reopen it and if there are contents even a few, to keep it either as dump or just read-only wikis online.
Best regards, Thogo.
2008/1/11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, BetaWiki has chosen SiteMatrix as its extension of the week. I had a good look at it and, I was astonished about the huge amount of projects. Projects that never showed any activity. Projects that are just empty waiting for someone to come along and start. Given the long list of discussions about projects that did show some activity in the past, I expect that there is no problem in killing of projects that had no activity at all. Projects like the bm.wiktionary for instance.
If there are no objections, an inventory can be made of such projects that are then deleted.
Thanks, GerardM
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Chad ha scritto:
This issue has come up several times before, and I've thought up a solution.
What if we had a centralized wiki (called archive.wikimedia.org or somesuch) where all closed/inactive wikis with a low number of contributions could be archived. That way, rather than leaving a Wikiquote locked with 2 pages and unlikely to ever be found, we could have a centralized place where all of these low-content projects could be placed.
Thoughts?
Chad
Somehow it seems to me that the incubator may be the place. However, if there's no one interested in incubating, let's just delete the projects and restart them if someone bothers.
Marco
2008/1/11, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
This issue has come up several times before, and I've thought up a solution.
What if we had a centralized wiki (called archive.wikimedia.org or somesuch) where all closed/inactive wikis with a low number of contributions could be archived. That way, rather than leaving a Wikiquote locked with 2 pages and unlikely to ever be found, we could have a centralized place where all of these low-content projects could be placed.
Thoughts?
Chad
On Jan 11, 2008 10:54 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008 12:41 AM, Thomas Goldammer thogol@googlemail.com
wrote:
What about projects with just one or two content pages, but no content edits since years? (as for example tt.wikiquote, where one single (small) content page was created in 2004 and nothing except spam and cleanup since then)
I think the most appropriate reaction to those inactive projects is closure. Most of inactive wiktionary, wikibooks and wikiquote were supposed to be launched without any request of particular user group who exactly had wished for that project or even support of language community (i.e. on the wikipedia). They were just the result of language divisions of monolingual parent projects. I assume the closure of such projects harm none, specially if we leave the way to reopen it and if there are contents even a few, to keep it either as dump or just read-only wikis online.
Best regards, Thogo.
2008/1/11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, BetaWiki has chosen SiteMatrix as its extension of the week. I had a
good
look at it and, I was astonished about the huge amount of projects.
Projects
that never showed any activity. Projects that are just empty
waiting for
someone to come along and start. Given the long list of discussions
about
projects that did show some activity in the past, I expect that
there is no
problem in killing of projects that had no activity at all. Projects
like
the bm.wiktionary for instance.
If there are no objections, an inventory can be made of such
projects that
are then deleted.
Thanks, GerardM
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We already have; http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ . The name might not be optimal, but there is precedent for putting content of closed wikis back into the Incubator (where they really should have been in the first place). ~~~~
On 11/01/2008, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/11, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
What if we had a centralized wiki (called archive.wikimedia.org or
We already have; http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ . The name might not be optimal, but there is precedent for putting content of closed wikis back into the Incubator (where they really should have been in the first place).
That actually sounds like just the thing - "incubator" will attract people interested in them when they come along. And "put back to the incubator" sounds much nicer than "shut down" ;-)
- d.
Hoi, I am asking people's opinion of closing projects, deleting projects with NO content. When other people bring in the whole hoopla of projects with some content, a completely different issue is addressed. I am ONLY interested in closing projects with no content. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 11, 2008 6:37 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2008, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/11, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:
What if we had a centralized wiki (called archive.wikimedia.org or
We already have; http://incubator.wikimedia.org/ . The name might not
be
optimal, but there is precedent for putting content of closed wikis back into the Incubator (where they really should have been in the first
place).
That actually sounds like just the thing - "incubator" will attract people interested in them when they come along. And "put back to the incubator" sounds much nicer than "shut down" ;-)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I am asking people's opinion of closing projects, deleting projects with NO content. When other people bring in the whole hoopla of projects with some content, a completely different issue is addressed. I am ONLY interested in closing projects with no content.
If there's no content, there isn't a local community to get upset.
- d.
On 12/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am asking people's opinion of closing projects, deleting projects with NO content. When other people bring in the whole hoopla of projects with some content, a completely different issue is addressed. I am ONLY interested in closing projects with no content. Thanks, GerardM
Seems like a good idea. One less spam target.
cheers, Brianna
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org