I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething. Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual somethings of all different sorts, therefore it spares us the need to found any new different projects for speficic things. Moreover, we could also integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
Please vote for wikisomething on Meta-Wiki and lend the new project your support: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikisomething
cordially, Elian
Elisabeth Bauer schrieb:
I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething.
'''strong support'''!
Moreover, we could also integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
We should have done this from the begining. "One World - One Wiki!", doesn't that sound much cooler than "The Free Encyclopedia" *yawn*?
Kurt
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething. Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual somethings of all different sorts, therefore it spares us the need to found any new different projects for speficic things. Moreover, we could also integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
cordially, Elian
I know this was in jest, but I would like to know if people on this mailing are fed up with all of these sort of proposals or if they need to be encouraged more. I've been vocal about this in the past, but my impression is that no new major project will ever be started. Period. If you take a look at the "No" votes for Wikiversity, for example
(see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote )
the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some technical issues that seem to be preventing new projects from being started. What are those incredible technical issues that are going to force any new project from starting for more than a year from now? Is there any reason at all to even encourage anybody to start a new project of any kind? Is a general concensus that new proposals should not even be brought up on Foundation-l?
I do believe that at the very least there needs to be a few more steps in the development process of a new project proposal before it gets to Foundation-l. I've been a regular contributor to this mailing list now for close to a year, and I've seen a dozen or so new project proposals get posted, most by very well-meaning people and some of them are very well thought out. There are some proposals that are "not ready for prime-time" and perhaps they should be more thought out before they come up here. For most new project ideas, Foundation-l is the very last place that anything will be heard about the idea, not the first.
Another related issue is more along the lines of how to publicize the kernel of an idea that may be useful but needs a bit more work, such as the Wikimemory proposal that has been debated recently. Requesting help for such proposals on this mailing list is throwing the idea before a very hostile audience, perhaps unwittingly and certainly without the knowledge of new Wikimedia users who happen to come across this mailing list as suggested by the New Project Policy. Perhaps instead of announcing the formal new project proposal here, there should be some development effort at some Wikiproject or some other sub-community of Wikimedia users that are much more receptive of the idea, and can give some depth to the idea before it comes here.
At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well. On the other hand, if the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they are not board members).
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be screaming about. Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if possible give hard examples. If the concern is purely social and getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate concern. I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers. This is also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
On 23/09/05, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
If you take a look at the "No" votes for Wikiversity, for example
(see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote )
the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some technical issues that seem to be preventing new projects from being started. What are those incredible technical issues that are going to force any new project from starting for more than a year from now?
<snip>
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be screaming about.
Can you show me where developers have objected?
Dan
Dan Grey wrote:
On 23/09/05, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be screaming about.
Can you show me where developers have objected?
Dan
I'll post some comments from the Wikiversity vote page to start with:
* This project doesn't seem well focused, we need first to stabilize our current projects before starting new ones, and solve technical bottlenecks. Yann http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yann 15:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC) *Rgf http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rgf&action=edit 19:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC) Too early. We must mature the other projects before thinking in something so big. *Micru http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Micru 16:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC) We're spreading too thin. Other projects still haven't consolidated, so it's too early for starting another one. Please, wait at least a year, and solve the technical issues in the meanwhile.
I'll also bring up a comment by Brian Vibber on this mailing list:
"Our software was written for Wikipedia; our development team has primarily gotten into it from and for Wikipedia, and we haven't really seen much specialized software development coming from the communities for these other projects. "
"I would generally recommend against tossing in _yet more_ different new projects when our existing ones are so poorly supported, without a better idea of who's going to support them and with what. "
My reply is: What are the specific issues that need to be addressed? I think the problems are more social than technical. In other words, it is not the technical difficulty of trying to turn on a wiki portal for a particular project but rather the social aspect of trying to get people organized to help support the projects. Some of these projects, like Wikibooks or Wiktionary are still tyring to recruit people to join the project and get a critical mass necessary to get the project running smoothly. In terms of what is needed to get some technically inclined people to help write the necessary specialized software needed for each project, that will come in time.
Wikipedia has developed a number of unique tools that are already well developed, and for the most part each other sister project takes advantage of those tools as well as they can. Categories, for instance, are all but absent from Wikibooks and are not really appropriate. This is one thing that does need to be revisited for Wikibooks, as an example. On the other hand, Commons uses categories extensively and very few images don't have at least one category, and often have several.
I'm not saying that there are any organized efforts on the part of developers, but when people are saying that we need to "wait a year" (I've seen that repeated over and over again elsewhere) before starting any new project, I would like to know what kind of technical issue is a problem. In the case of Wikiversity, is 125 people a sufficient kernel of support to get it going? Is that not enough people that would be able to form a good stable community? From the stand point of those who are objecting to new projects being started, I don't thing 1000 people supporting a new project is going to be sufficient in terms of people willing to do the heavy lifting to get the new project started.
Of course, this is up to the board to decide on their own, and the polling is just a way to attempt to guage general community sentiment. They are free to do whatever they want (the board), but there certainly are a bunch of people who are shooting down every proposal, no matter how well thought out and how much support it may have. When objections describe technical issues may be a problem, they seem to be speaking on behalf of the developers even if that may not be the case.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
My reply is: What are the specific issues that need to be addressed? I think the problems are more social than technical. In other words, it is not the technical difficulty of trying to turn on a wiki portal for a particular project but rather the social aspect of trying to get people organized to help support the projects. Some of these projects, like Wikibooks or Wiktionary are still tyring to recruit people to join the project and get a critical mass necessary to get the project running smoothly. In terms of what is needed to get some technically inclined people to help write the necessary specialized software needed for each project, that will come in time.
I agree that the problem is more social than technical. That being said, it seems pointless to have technical people running around developing software when you aren't sure what you want that software to do.
I'm not saying that there are any organized efforts on the part of developers, but when people are saying that we need to "wait a year" (I've seen that repeated over and over again elsewhere) before starting any new project, I would like to know what kind of technical issue is a problem. In the case of Wikiversity, is 125 people a sufficient kernel of support to get it going? Is that not enough people that would be able to form a good stable community? From the stand point of those who are objecting to new projects being started, I don't thing 1000 people supporting a new project is going to be sufficient in terms of people willing to do the heavy lifting to get the new project started.
It's not a question of the number of supporters.
Of course, this is up to the board to decide on their own, and the polling is just a way to attempt to guage general community sentiment. They are free to do whatever they want (the board), but there certainly are a bunch of people who are shooting down every proposal, no matter how well thought out and how much support it may have. When objections describe technical issues may be a problem, they seem to be speaking on behalf of the developers even if that may not be the case.
One thing that would help to convince me that this is a well thought out proposal would be to see a single course in ANY subject, with the equivalent of one semester's duration, presented and brought to its logical conclusions. With that experience to guide us we would be in a much better position to evaluate what we need to take the idea further. Without it the entire project is nothing more than an adventure in wishful thinking. . Ec
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well. On the other hand, if the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they are not board members).
You want the Board to make a decision? Keep dreaming. If you want something done, do it yourself. Form your own organisation, secure your own funding, develop your own software.
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be screaming about. Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if possible give hard examples. If the concern is purely social and getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate concern. I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers. This is also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
Some software requirements are listed at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity#Possible_software_needs
Making a comprehensive list is a job for a developer, and you don't seem to have any interested developers at the moment. It's much easier to put your name on a list of supporters than it is to write 1000 lines of code. Or indeed, to determine the requirements that that 1000 lines of code should fulfill.
-- Tim Starling
--- Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net a écrit :
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
I want to propose a new idea for a new project:
Wikisomething.
Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual
somethings of all
different sorts, therefore it spares us the need
to found any new
different projects for speficic things. Moreover,
we could also
integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
cordially, Elian
I know this was in jest, but I would like to know if people on this mailing are fed up with all of these sort of proposals or if they need to be encouraged more. I've been vocal about this in the past, but my impression is that no new major project will ever be started. Period. If you take a look at the "No" votes for Wikiversity, for example
(see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote )
the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some technical issues that seem to be preventing new projects from being started. What are those incredible technical issues that are going to force any new project from starting for more than a year from now? Is there any reason at all to even encourage anybody to start a new project of any kind? Is a general concensus that new proposals should not even be brought up on Foundation-l?
I do believe that at the very least there needs to be a few more steps in the development process of a new project proposal before it gets to Foundation-l. I've been a regular contributor to this mailing list now for close to a year, and I've seen a dozen or so new project proposals get posted, most by very well-meaning people and some of them are very well thought out. There are some proposals that are "not ready for prime-time" and perhaps they should be more thought out before they come up here. For most new project ideas, Foundation-l is the very last place that anything will be heard about the idea, not the first.
Another related issue is more along the lines of how to publicize the kernel of an idea that may be useful but needs a bit more work, such as the Wikimemory proposal that has been debated recently. Requesting help for such proposals on this mailing list is throwing the idea before a very hostile audience, perhaps unwittingly and certainly without the knowledge of new Wikimedia users who happen to come across this mailing list as suggested by the New Project Policy. Perhaps instead of announcing the formal new project proposal here, there should be some development effort at some Wikiproject or some other sub-community of Wikimedia users that are much more receptive of the idea, and can give some depth to the idea before it comes here.
At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well. On the other hand, if the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they are not board members).
If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be screaming about. Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if possible give hard examples. If the concern is purely social and getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate concern. I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers. This is also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
-- Robert Scott Horning
I don't think people are against new projects, but that people are searching for newness in the proposed project. What is interesting in a project which actually means to split Wikipedia in a lot of thematic encyclopedies, like this "Wikicracy" or even Wikispecies do ? does it do any sense ? I don't think so. If anybody has a real new idea what can be done with wiki-technology (the technology most easily available for our projects, but other things must be doable. Some kind of atlas could be great, but doesn't seam to be doable for the moment), it should be great. But wikicracy already exists : it's called wikipedia, and it's collecting much more knowledge (except politics, I mean) at the same time. Interdisciplinarity is one of the things making wikipedia so cool, in my opinion, so 'm not for splitting it in subprojects, because this aspect will else be lost. Wikiversity is a great idea, and I voted for it, even if it's maybe not doable with the means we have today. It's an exciting project, and if we are able to do it, it will be fantastic ! People learning freely and efficiently knowledge able to change their life, maybe one day acquiring a degree by that way, all over the world. The same for Wikimemories : a mankind rich of all human experience. Long term consequences overstep imagination.
Traroth
___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
I want to propose "something completely different": Wikisomethingelse! For all the multilingual something else, that is outside the scope of Wikisomething.
cordially, Snowdog
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething. Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual somethings of all different sorts, therefore it spares us the need to found any new different projects for speficic things. Moreover, we could also integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
Please vote for wikisomething on Meta-Wiki and lend the new project your support: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikisomething
cordially, Elian _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/24/05, Roberto Frangi rfrangi@coopetition.it wrote:
I want to propose "something completely different": Wikisomethingelse! For all the multilingual something else, that is outside the scope of Wikisomething.
Well, you see, in an attempt to keep the project(s) as international as possible, I would propose that wikisomething be called wikistuff, it's easier to pronounce and I believe more easily translated. Wikitruc would be the French name of it, and it sounds good.
As for the license, I propose "some-license v.0.0" (compatible onwards up to v.99999999.0) as the ground license for both those projects.
My two cents.
Delphine -- ~notafish
On 9/25/05, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you see, in an attempt to keep the project(s) as international as possible, I would propose that wikisomething be called wikistuff, it's easier to pronounce and I believe more easily translated. Wikitruc would be the French name of it, and it sounds good.
Why not use the international lingua france, Greek? And we want to educate people in all these "something" matters, don't we? So why not call it Wiki-education, which, translated, is wikipaidia. Bastardise it into American English, and we get Wikipedia.
Damn, that name's taken.
Sam
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org