I would like to see this become an open part of Meta. It is traditional meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly. Sam.

I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to say nothing of interim updates to the current plan).

I'd also support this sort of thing going to meta. Perhaps not marking everything as historical, but certainly a slow move to a central location that's easy for newbies to find.

It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was "popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.

On 12/08/2012 16:45, MZMcBride wrote: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_**Association<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association> KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

I'll weigh in on wiki later today or tomorrow (I've been very sick and haven't been on much) but I did want to put in a couple of my thoughts: - Part of me doesn't have an enormous issue with merging content into meta if people really want it though I don't think it helps much - I think creating StrategyWiki as it's own entity when it was done was necessary and important. I don't think the strategy process would have been as successful without doing it. - I don't think that creating strategyWiki was part of a 'fad' by the foundation or others to create new wikis. We have certainly created separate wikis which I do not think needed to be made (and hurt their purpose) but Strategy was not one of them and, if anything, was the 'start' of the fad and, like most fad starters, was the one with the most legitimate reasons. Everyone follows the trendsetter because they want their results, but forget that they're different. - There are many reasons the separate wiki was/is good but to keep it short I'll give the biggest one: The StrategyWiki required a fresh community with as much activity and new blood as possible from around the projects and the movement as a whole. Meta was not, and is not, a fresh community. It does many things well but it is still it's own community with it's own rules and structure. Sadly you just can't invite a fresh, new community into an old community (it's the same reason the travelWiki proposers were saying that it would be best to start off with a fresh, new, name etc). I don't think it would have done as well if it didn't have the flexibility that a new community allowed (turning on liquid threads for example etc). Overall I think the strategy project actually showed that splitting off to a new wiki can be helpful at times and I think that it should be done for the new strategy plan (likely to start next year, at the latest, I'd imagine) should do the same and either use Strategy or a new wiki. Using Strategy would probably be best and keeping the historic pages could be helpful. James On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mono &lt;monomium(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_St… whole https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< -- James Alexander Manager, Merchandise Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l