Wikibuilder - a knowledge base covering the design and construction of the built environment
Project proposal page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibuilder
See also: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects
== Basic idea ==
To create a knowledge base covering the design and construction of the built environment.
== Scope ==
Much, if not most, of the information could be presented as text (and could start off as just that), but text presents profound and obvious limits for describing the built environment, so much of the information would be pictorial. With the drawing expertise of designers and draughtspeople around the world who are intimate with CAD (computer aided draughting) there should be no shortage of people to get the ball rolling.
There are currently efforts going on in the graphics and architecture industries to standardise pictorial file formats (see links below) and the main topic of initial discussion on Wikibuilder may well revolve around the kind of file formats to use for presenting and distributing sketch, 2D, 3D and other kinds of pictorial information. Carrying on from this might be discussion on graphical styles and style standardisation.
There are a few open-content repository-type websites around for sharing building details, et cetera, but most of them are woeful and narrowly focused on CAD technicians looking for details to use at work. There're a myriad of websites dotted around the internet offering information on design but this is extremely fragmented. [edit]
== Why? ==
Ever since we as a species started manipulating our environment we have built a vast knowledge of designing and constructing the built environment. This knowledge belongs to everyone, but much of it is is locked away in people's heads with no easy way to share such information except for books (usually expensive ones) and apprenticeship. A wiki focused on the built environment could help unlock this knowledge and make it accessible to vast numbers of people (builders, designers, inventors, diy'ers, knowledge lovers) who could put it to use and continue to build on it in a open way. A wiki could also help the push for open standards in the presentation of pictorial information via the internet.
Kind regards, Christiaan
Can't it be a part of Wikibooks?
Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
Can't it be a part of Wikibooks?
It could, but then so could all the Wikimedia projects. I'm not sure it would suit Wikibooks. I see this as a "commons" project covering the design and construction of the built environment *in its entirety* in all languages. Plus the prominence of being a separate Wikimedia project will help in attracting builders and designers. It may even need special code introduced into MediaWiki to deal with presenting/previewing up-and-coming 2D and 3D file formats, etc.
Christiaan
I would like to see the process for creating new factual/specialist Wikimedia projects include a stage at whic hthe new project is a Wikibook, which serves as a demonstration of what project content will include (and a rough topic mesh for the project), proof of interest in the project, and a source of inspiration to new project contributors.
After this initial overview book could come full-fledged project development.
+sj+
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:43:41 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
Can't it be a part of Wikibooks?
It could, but then so could all the Wikimedia projects. I'm not sure it would suit Wikibooks. I see this as a "commons" project covering the design and construction of the built environment *in its entirety* in all languages. Plus the prominence of being a separate Wikimedia project will help in attracting builders and designers. It may even need special code introduced into MediaWiki to deal with presenting/previewing up-and-coming 2D and 3D file formats, etc.
Christiaan_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm sympathetic to this view but the corollary is that a special Wikimedia project (i.e. not buried in Wikibooks) would encourage interest in an area where, comparatively speaking, you don't have a natural base of editors. Compare say the amount of builders, architects and musicians to the number of mathematicians and programmers. It's a systemic bias issue.
I would rather see such new projects *that have recognised potential and a good plan* given a prominent domain space such as: beta.wikimedia.org/Wikibuilder or beta.wikibuilder.org ..and advertised along side Wikisource, Wikispecies and other Wikimedia projects under a Wikibetas heading or something.
I think this is especially pertinent to projects that may need special code to reach their true potential, such as presenting music notation in Wikiscores or previews of 2D and 3D CAD files in Wikibuilder.
Christiaan
On 19 Jan 2005, at 4:25 am, Sj wrote:
I would like to see the process for creating new factual/specialist Wikimedia projects include a stage at whic hthe new project is a Wikibook, which serves as a demonstration of what project content will include (and a rough topic mesh for the project), proof of interest in the project, and a source of inspiration to new project contributors.
After this initial overview book could come full-fledged project development.
+sj+
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:43:41 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
Can't it be a part of Wikibooks?
It could, but then so could all the Wikimedia projects. I'm not sure it would suit Wikibooks. I see this as a "commons" project covering the design and construction of the built environment *in its entirety* in all languages. Plus the prominence of being a separate Wikimedia project will help in attracting builders and designers. It may even need special code introduced into MediaWiki to deal with presenting/previewing up-and-coming 2D and 3D file formats, etc.
Christiaan_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- +sj+ _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
like google labs, only wikilabs? a place to put all our crazy dreams... sounds like a good idea.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:56:58 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
I'm sympathetic to this view but the corollary is that a special Wikimedia project (i.e. not buried in Wikibooks) would encourage interest in an area where, comparatively speaking, you don't have a natural base of editors. Compare say the amount of builders, architects and musicians to the number of mathematicians and programmers. It's a systemic bias issue.
I would rather see such new projects *that have recognised potential and a good plan* given a prominent domain space such as: beta.wikimedia.org/Wikibuilder or beta.wikibuilder.org ..and advertised along side Wikisource, Wikispecies and other Wikimedia projects under a Wikibetas heading or something.
I think this is especially pertinent to projects that may need special code to reach their true potential, such as presenting music notation in Wikiscores or previews of 2D and 3D CAD files in Wikibuilder.
Christiaan
On 19 Jan 2005, at 4:25 am, Sj wrote:
I would like to see the process for creating new factual/specialist Wikimedia projects include a stage at whic hthe new project is a Wikibook, which serves as a demonstration of what project content will include (and a rough topic mesh for the project), proof of interest in the project, and a source of inspiration to new project contributors.
After this initial overview book could come full-fledged project development.
+sj+
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:43:41 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
Can't it be a part of Wikibooks?
It could, but then so could all the Wikimedia projects. I'm not sure it would suit Wikibooks. I see this as a "commons" project covering the design and construction of the built environment *in its entirety* in all languages. Plus the prominence of being a separate Wikimedia project will help in attracting builders and designers. It may even need special code introduced into MediaWiki to deal with presenting/previewing up-and-coming 2D and 3D file formats, etc.
Christiaan_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- +sj+ _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yeah "Wikilabs", that's sounds better.
On 19 Jan 2005, at 12:04 pm, Robin Shannon wrote:
like google labs, only wikilabs? a place to put all our crazy dreams... sounds like a good idea.
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:56:58 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
I'm sympathetic to this view but the corollary is that a special Wikimedia project (i.e. not buried in Wikibooks) would encourage interest in an area where, comparatively speaking, you don't have a natural base of editors. Compare say the amount of builders, architects and musicians to the number of mathematicians and programmers. It's a systemic bias issue.
I would rather see such new projects *that have recognised potential and a good plan* given a prominent domain space such as: beta.wikimedia.org/Wikibuilder or beta.wikibuilder.org ..and advertised along side Wikisource, Wikispecies and other Wikimedia projects under a Wikibetas heading or something.
I think this is especially pertinent to projects that may need special code to reach their true potential, such as presenting music notation in Wikiscores or previews of 2D and 3D CAD files in Wikibuilder.
Christiaan
On 19 Jan 2005, at 4:25 am, Sj wrote:
I would like to see the process for creating new factual/specialist Wikimedia projects include a stage at whic hthe new project is a Wikibook, which serves as a demonstration of what project content will include (and a rough topic mesh for the project), proof of interest in the project, and a source of inspiration to new project contributors.
After this initial overview book could come full-fledged project development.
+sj+
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:43:41 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:
Can't it be a part of Wikibooks?
It could, but then so could all the Wikimedia projects. I'm not sure it would suit Wikibooks. I see this as a "commons" project covering the design and construction of the built environment *in its entirety* in all languages. Plus the prominence of being a separate Wikimedia project will help in attracting builders and designers. It may even need special code introduced into MediaWiki to deal with presenting/previewing up-and-coming 2D and 3D file formats, etc.
Christiaan_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- +sj+ _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- hit me: robin.shannon.id.au jab me: saudade@jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Christiaan Briggs (christiaan@last-straw.net) [050120 00:44]:
Yeah "Wikilabs", that's sounds better.
Sounds like a more generalised version of Wikicities (http://www.wikicities.com/) - presumably with viewers for types of data other than MediaWiki-text.
Presumably implementing this is just a Simple Matter Of Programming ;-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Christiaan Briggs (christiaan@last-straw.net) [050120 00:44]:
Yeah "Wikilabs", that's sounds better.
Sounds like a more generalised version of Wikicities (http://www.wikicities.com/) - presumably with viewers for types of data other than MediaWiki-text.
Presumably implementing this is just a Simple Matter Of Programming ;-)
I'm not sure I see the relationship. I think Robin Shannon got it right the first time when he compared it to google labs.
Christiaan
g'day everyone,
I was just thinking about how difficult it is to get really good (gfdl) photos, and maybe we should start some kind of competion (aimed at non-wikimedians) for a really great photo for a wikipedia article. Just a thought.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
Robin Shannon wrote:
g'day everyone,
I was just thinking about how difficult it is to get really good (gfdl) photos, and maybe we should start some kind of competion (aimed at non-wikimedians) for a really great photo for a wikipedia article. Just a thought.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Media_competition
This is aimed at Wikimedians, but the rules state that no prior contributions are required - your entry can be your first contribution to the projects.
We have a few more details to sort out, and then we hope to make this more widely known - we could easily make it seen outside Wikimedia as well as on the projects.
If anyone has advice, suggested changes and so on - please do add to the talk page.
--sannse
--- Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
like google labs, only wikilabs? a place to put all our crazy dreams... sounds like a good idea.
Not as a stand-alone Wikimedia project. Having this on Wikicities (or as a set of Wikibooks) seems to be much better fit.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Not as a stand-alone Wikimedia project. Having this on Wikicities (or as a set of Wikibooks) seems to be much better fit.
Anything that wants to get started on wikicities would gladly be moved to Wikimedia if the communities both wanted it that way. That is, anything which fits with the Wikimedia charitble public purpose mission which gets started at wikicities will not be held there.
And any wikimedia castoffs (tokipona, klingon?) are welcome there.
Wikicities is commercial, but I intend for it to support the foundation.
Also: Angela and I have decided to reject any proposals at wikicities which appears to be a fork of anything at wikimedia.
--Jimbo
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:26:59 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: <snip>
Anything that wants to get started on wikicities would gladly be moved to Wikimedia if the communities both wanted it that way. That is, anything which fits with the Wikimedia charitble public purpose mission which gets started at wikicities will not be held there.
<snip>
i remember you saying on several occasions that you wanted to keep your stuff (bormis, wikia, wikicites, <anything else i might not know about>) and wikimedia seperate. I also remember you saying that you did not think that it would be appropriate for other wikis started elsewhere to merge with, or become part of the wikimedia family.
I dont mean to nitpick or anything but a) have you really thought this offer thru; and b) did i misinterpret what you said (wrote) previously.
Again i dont mean to nitpick, and im certainly not trying to critisise you (i think hosting trial projects at wikicities may well be a good idea), im just curious and also dont wont to give any more fodder to the cabal myth.
humbily, [[User:The bellman]]
Robin Shannon wrote:
i remember you saying on several occasions that you wanted to keep your stuff (bormis, wikia, wikicites, <anything else i might not know about>) and wikimedia seperate.
Yes, this is legally and ethically necessary.
I also remember you saying that you did not think that it would be appropriate for other wikis started elsewhere to merge with, or become part of the wikimedia family.
No, I did not say that. It will depend on the circumstances, the nature of the project, the judgment of the community, and the judgment of myself and the other board members.
I have a strong ethical obligation to the Wikimedia Foundation, and nothing I do will compromise that, this was my point. I don't want wikicities to compete with or fork anything that's more suitable for the foundation. And I would like to make wikicities available to help resolve problems within the foundation (for example, providing a home for communities like tokipona, which although perfectly fine in and of themselves, have been judged to be inconsistent with our overall language policy).
--Jimbo
The Toki Pona debate (somehow) completely passed me by. So if in 3 years time the number of Toki Pona articles rivals the number of artciles in the klingon or lojban wikipedias, and the number of Toki Pona speakers had increased, and there was resonable community support for the Toki Pona wikipedia to move back in to the foundation this would be allowed?
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:35:18 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Robin Shannon wrote:
i remember you saying on several occasions that you wanted to keep your stuff (bormis, wikia, wikicites, <anything else i might not know about>) and wikimedia seperate.
Yes, this is legally and ethically necessary.
I also remember you saying that you did not think that it would be appropriate for other wikis started elsewhere to merge with, or become part of the wikimedia family.
No, I did not say that. It will depend on the circumstances, the nature of the project, the judgment of the community, and the judgment of myself and the other board members.
I have a strong ethical obligation to the Wikimedia Foundation, and nothing I do will compromise that, this was my point. I don't want wikicities to compete with or fork anything that's more suitable for the foundation. And I would like to make wikicities available to help resolve problems within the foundation (for example, providing a home for communities like tokipona, which although perfectly fine in and of themselves, have been judged to be inconsistent with our overall language policy).
--Jimbo
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:48:59 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
like google labs, only wikilabs? a place to put all our crazy dreams... sounds like a good idea.
Not as a stand-alone Wikimedia project. Having this on Wikicities (or as a set of Wikibooks) seems to be much better fit.
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential wikimedia projects? Not that there's anything wrong with using wikibooks for this, but it is not precisely in line with the primary reason for wikibooks' existence. Wikilabs could also be a good initial test site for new software patches and upgrades, since everything on it will explicitly be in beta.
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential wikimedia projects?
Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki idea and Wikicities already exists to fill that role. Concentrating development energy into our existing projects and staying on mission are more important than budding-off new projects to the degree suggested,
As Jimmy said, if any Wikicities project is viable, willing, and would help advance Wikimedia's goals, then we, as a community, could decide to bring them into our fold.
Wikilabs could also be a good initial test site for new software patches and upgrades, since everything on it will explicitly be in beta.
That is what test.wikipedia.org and any number of other MediaWiki-based sites that the developers already use.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 20 Jan 2005, at 5:38 am, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential wikimedia projects?
Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki idea...
That's why I said, *that have recognised potential and a good plan*
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
That's why I said, *that have recognised potential and a good plan*
But would it fit well into our mission of providing a free reference source? If so, could this be done within an existing Wikimedia project?
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:31 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential wikimedia projects?
Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki idea and Wikicities already exists to fill that role. Concentrating development energy into our existing projects and staying on mission are more important than budding-off new projects to the degree suggested,
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential Wikimedia projects with recognised potential and good plans, which fit well into our mission of providing a free reference source?
I see this as a way to reduce budding-off, not to increase it. This would provide a place for the initial growth of new projects before deciding certain difficult issues such as 1) how they are licensed, 2) what standards they will use for naming, namespaces, and classification, 3) how they will be internationalised. It would allow for more structured discussion of the goals and viability of new projects before they were stamped with a domain-level seal of approval.
0) Disclaimers about the alpha/beta nature of the projects could be explained once for the entire site. 1a) Wikilabs could be PD, containing only links to other CC/GFDL content that would be in the project proper, making transition to a different license easy. 1b) Discussions about how to license contributions, and how to comply explicitly with licenses or related content, would be important for each project. Reaching consensus on these matters could be expected before a project forged off on its own (cf. Wikicommons, Wikispecies, Wikinews). Legal scholars could visit this single site to weigh in on these related discussions; discussions about copyright would not die simply because those interested in a particular new project did not have the right expertise. 2) Discussion of standardization, how to comply with / interact with / reference existing standards, and citation, would also be important for each project. Comparisons to existing reference works on related subjects, existing projects with similar goals, and existing classification methods, could likewise be expected before a project took on its own domain (cf. Wikispecies, Wikipeople*, Wikibuilder*). 3) Wikilabs could be like meta, multilingual on a single wiki, with unified discussion of which projects should be how multilingual when. Initial interest in a new project is often focused in one or two languages, and the first hundred people interested in the project are not necessarily interested in such decisions (cf. Wikisource, Wikispecies, 911-wiki)
Wikilabs could also be a good initial test site for new software patches and upgrades, since everything on it will explicitly be in beta.
That is what test.wikipedia.org and any number of other MediaWiki-based sites that the developers already use.
...but would soon be larger than any of these sites, and would certainly have a larger active body of regular users whose use might trigger sneaky new bugs.
could this be done within an existing Wikimedia project?
I think it makes conceptual sense to have a separate wikilab for promising new projects, inasmuch as it makes conceptual sense to separate any of the Wikimedia projects from one another. However, in the absence of a wikilab, Meta seems the best place to expand project drafts and start creating initial policy and content.
That's a good summary of the details Daniel. I think the operative word for 'Wikilabs' is "recognition."
Put is this way: the problem with starting, say, [[Wikibuilder]] off as a Wikibook is one, for technical reasons, but two, because there is no natural base of editors who are builders and architects, etc (compared to programmers and scientists, etc.). To have [[Wikibuilder]] being developed in its early stages under "Wikilabs" would allow for 'instant recognition of potential,' whereas under Wikibooks the potential isn't so obvious (especially to designers and builders who just happen across the site). A "Wikilabs" [[Wikibuilder]] project is a very easy concept to grasp and would be something a lot of people would be willing to get their teeth into. A [[Wikibuilder]] under Wikibooks is a nice idea... hope it does well, kinda thing.
Christiaan
P.S. As a draughtsperson, the potential of [[Wikibuilder]] is obvious to me. I spend my entire day referring to books and more experienced people for the things I design and draw. To be able to refer to an entire world would be amazing. I can only imagine what people who really _need_ such knowledge would do with it.
On 21 Jan 2005, at 5:24 am, Sj wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:31 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential wikimedia projects?
Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki idea and Wikicities already exists to fill that role. Concentrating development energy into our existing projects and staying on mission are more important than budding-off new projects to the degree suggested,
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential Wikimedia projects with recognised potential and good plans, which fit well into our mission of providing a free reference source?
I see this as a way to reduce budding-off, not to increase it. This would provide a place for the initial growth of new projects before deciding certain difficult issues such as 1) how they are licensed, 2) what standards they will use for naming, namespaces, and classification, 3) how they will be internationalised. It would allow for more structured discussion of the goals and viability of new projects before they were stamped with a domain-level seal of approval.
- Disclaimers about the alpha/beta nature of the projects could be
explained once for the entire site. 1a) Wikilabs could be PD, containing only links to other CC/GFDL content that would be in the project proper, making transition to a different license easy. 1b) Discussions about how to license contributions, and how to comply explicitly with licenses or related content, would be important for each project. Reaching consensus on these matters could be expected before a project forged off on its own (cf. Wikicommons, Wikispecies, Wikinews). Legal scholars could visit this single site to weigh in on these related discussions; discussions about copyright would not die simply because those interested in a particular new project did not have the right expertise. 2) Discussion of standardization, how to comply with / interact with / reference existing standards, and citation, would also be important for each project. Comparisons to existing reference works on related subjects, existing projects with similar goals, and existing classification methods, could likewise be expected before a project took on its own domain (cf. Wikispecies, Wikipeople*, Wikibuilder*). 3) Wikilabs could be like meta, multilingual on a single wiki, with unified discussion of which projects should be how multilingual when. Initial interest in a new project is often focused in one or two languages, and the first hundred people interested in the project are not necessarily interested in such decisions (cf. Wikisource, Wikispecies, 911-wiki)
Wikilabs could also be a good initial test site for new software patches and upgrades, since everything on it will explicitly be in beta.
That is what test.wikipedia.org and any number of other MediaWiki-based sites that the developers already use.
...but would soon be larger than any of these sites, and would certainly have a larger active body of regular users whose use might trigger sneaky new bugs.
could this be done within an existing Wikimedia project?
I think it makes conceptual sense to have a separate wikilab for promising new projects, inasmuch as it makes conceptual sense to separate any of the Wikimedia projects from one another. However, in the absence of a wikilab, Meta seems the best place to expand project drafts and start creating initial policy and content.
-- +sj+ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Put is this way: the problem with starting, say, [[Wikibuilder]] off as a Wikibook is one, for technical reasons, but two, because there is no natural base of editors who are builders and architects, etc (compared to programmers and scientists, etc.). To have [[Wikibuilder]] being developed in its early stages under "Wikilabs" would allow for 'instant recognition of potential,' whereas under Wikibooks the potential isn't so obvious (especially to designers and builders who just happen across the site). A "Wikilabs" [[Wikibuilder]] project is a very easy concept to grasp and would be something a lot of people would be willing to get their teeth into. A [[Wikibuilder]] under Wikibooks is a nice idea... hope it does well, kinda thing.
Wikilabs isn't needed at all due to the existence of Wikicities. After being hosted at Wikicities for some time we can then see if Wikibuilder is 1) a viable idea and 2) if it is something that will fit with our mandate.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
ok then, how about wikilabs AT wikicites, just so that we can keep all the wikimedia trails/betas/alphas together in one place, so they can easily feed off each others (and our) user base. And also, if there was some other wiki (that we hadnt started, but which wanted to join the foundation), then it could be moved to wikilabs (at wikicities) first, and then (if there is consensus) it could join us.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:34:45 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Put is this way: the problem with starting, say, [[Wikibuilder]] off as a Wikibook is one, for technical reasons, but two, because there is no natural base of editors who are builders and architects, etc (compared to programmers and scientists, etc.). To have [[Wikibuilder]] being developed in its early stages under "Wikilabs" would allow for 'instant recognition of potential,' whereas under Wikibooks the potential isn't so obvious (especially to designers and builders who just happen across the site). A "Wikilabs" [[Wikibuilder]] project is a very easy concept to grasp and would be something a lot of people would be willing to get their teeth into. A [[Wikibuilder]] under Wikibooks is a nice idea... hope it does well, kinda thing.
Wikilabs isn't needed at all due to the existence of Wikicities. After being hosted at Wikicities for some time we can then see if Wikibuilder is 1) a viable idea and 2) if it is something that will fit with our mandate.
-- mav
Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
ok then, how about wikilabs AT wikicites, just so that we can keep all the wikimedia trails/betas/alphas together in one place, so they can easily feed off each others (and our) user base. And also, if there was some other wiki (that we hadnt started, but which wanted to join the foundation), then it could be moved to wikilabs (at wikicities) first, and then (if there is consensus) it could join us.
You'll have to ask the Wikicities people about that, but I think it is a great idea.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Wikilabs isn't needed at all due to the existence of Wikicities. After being hosted at Wikicities for some time we can then see if Wikibuilder is 1) a viable idea and 2) if it is something that will fit with our mandate.
I don't think this is a correct summary of the situation. If your statements were true they would beg the question why [[Proposals for new projects]] and [[New project policy]] exist at all on Wikimedia?
The goal of [[Wikibuilder]] would be to spread and promote knowledge of the built environment, a very laudable goal in my opinion. This clearly fits the criteria for proposing a new project under the the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation. And [[Wikilabs]], I'm suggesting, would be the perfect place for approved project proposals according to [[New project policy]].
[[Proposals for new projects]] clearly states that "Wikimedia is not a free hosting company for any kind of wikis. If your project doesn't fit the ideals of Wikimedia you are probably better off with a wiki hosting company such a http://wikidev.net or http://www.wikicities.com or hosting it on your own." Wikibuilder clearly fits the ideals of Wikimedia.
At the risk of sounding patronising--I really don't intend this to be--my guess is that you, along with many others involved, have a natural inclination to reject Wikibuilder as not fitting in because it's a not a conventional project along the lines of science or media, hence your comments that Wikicities is the correct venue, in seeming contradiction to [[Proposals for new projects]].
As I suggested in an earlier email an idea like Wikibuilder would benefit greatly from being developed by the Wikimedia Foundation. I doubt a conclusion of viability would ever be reached if Wikibuilder was started on Wikicities. My guess is such a project would languish and I, for one, would be very cautious about the amount of time I dedicated to such an effort (I would sooner see an entirely separate project set up).
And I certainly don't think Wikibuilder needs to be up and running _anywhere_ before a decision can be made with regards to Wikimedia's mandate. A comprehensive proposal is enough to make this decision.
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
I don't think this is a correct summary of the situation. If your statements were true they would beg the question why [[Proposals for new projects]] and [[New project policy]] exist at all on Wikimedia?
That is the place to propose new ideas and individual pages linked from that is the place to develop them, gain input and try to get people interested. It is also the place to prove that the proposed project is 1) fits within our educational mission 2) is not something that could be done within an existing project.
[[Proposals for new projects]] clearly states that "Wikimedia is not a free hosting company for any kind of wikis. If your project doesn't fit the ideals of Wikimedia you are probably better off with a wiki hosting company such a http://wikidev.net or http://www.wikicities.com or hosting it on your own." Wikibuilder clearly fits the ideals of Wikimedia.
How so? The proposal and how it would 'clearly fit' are not at all clear to me. Nor has the reasoning not to have this be part of an existing project.
At the risk of sounding patronising--I really don't intend this to be--my guess is that you, along with many others involved, have a natural inclination to reject Wikibuilder as not fitting in because it's a not a conventional project along the lines of science or media, hence your comments that Wikicities is the correct venue, in seeming contradiction to [[Proposals for new projects]].
As the person leading this idea the onus is on you to convince others that this is a good idea.
And I certainly don't think Wikibuilder needs to be up and running _anywhere_ before a decision can be made with regards to Wikimedia's mandate. A comprehensive proposal is enough to make this decision.
Then get busy writing and winning hearts and minds. :)
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
On 23 Jan 2005, at 12:19 am, Daniel Mayer wrote:
[[Proposals for new projects]] and [[New project policy]] ... is also the place to prove that the proposed project is not something that could be done within an existing project.
The problem is anything _could_ be done on Wikicities, Wikibooks, or as a separate project, therefore there's nothing to prove and no project need ever see the light of day on Wikimedia. This line of thinking just doesn't correlate with that on [[Proposals for new projects]] and [[New project policy]], nor with how new projects have so far emerged.
That something _could_ be done somewhere else doesn't mean it _should_.
Wikibuilder clearly fits the ideals of Wikimedia.
How so? The proposal and how it would 'clearly fit' are not at all clear to me.
Wikibuilder's goal is to spread and promote all knowledge of the built environment within the terms of the Wikimedia Foundation. It really doesn't get any clearer.
At the risk of sounding patronising--I really don't intend this to be--my guess is that you, along with many others involved, have a natural inclination to reject Wikibuilder as not fitting in because it's a not a conventional project along the lines of science or media, hence your comments that Wikicities is the correct venue, in seeming contradiction to [[Proposals for new projects]].
As the person leading this idea the onus is on you to convince others that this is a good idea.
My point was that your argument doesn't seem to correlate with much of what has already taken place in regard to new projects, and the reason you're opposed to Wikibuilder being developed under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation is primarily because it doesn't fit your preconception of what a Wikimedia project should be, and that the reasons you've presented are secondary to this. My reason for pointing this out is to suggest that people need to have an open mind about the possibilities for Wikimedia and not be so quick to dismiss.
And I certainly don't think Wikibuilder needs to be up and running _anywhere_ before a decision can be made with regards to Wikimedia's mandate. A comprehensive proposal is enough to make this decision.
Then get busy writing and winning hearts and minds. :)
Absolutely, but there's no rush. I'd like to see this proposal develop organically with lots of input from others; there're many things to consider and technological considerations may well delay any decision.
Christiaan
--- Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
That something _could_ be done somewhere else doesn't mean it _should_.
That something _could_ be done here doesn't mean it _should_.
Works both ways but you still must prove that this will do no harm to existing projects (that is, not a fork) and that it serves our mission and purpose.
Wikibuilder's goal is to spread and promote all knowledge of the built environment within the terms of the Wikimedia Foundation. It really doesn't get any clearer.
Built environment? I still haven't heard a good argument on why that can not be accomplished within the framework on an existing project. I'm not saying that such an argument does not exist, just that it has not gained my attention.
Absolutely, but there's no rush. I'd like to see this proposal develop organically with lots of input from others; there're many things to consider and technological considerations may well delay any decision.
That much we can agree on. :)
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Wikibuilder's goal is to spread and promote all knowledge of the built environment within the terms of the Wikimedia Foundation. It really doesn't get any clearer.
Built environment? I still haven't heard a good argument on why that can not be accomplished within the framework on an existing project. I'm not saying that such an argument does not exist, just that it has not gained my attention.
Yes but you're conflating two points, which is surprising because in a previous email you kept them separate. Whether it can be accomplished elsewhere is one thing, and I've responded to this. Whether it is compatible with Wikimedia's "ideals", as referred to on [[New project proposals]], is another.
Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge. Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a large section of human understanding (relating to our very survival on this planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there really is no denying this.
Absolutely, but there's no rush. I'd like to see this proposal develop organically with lots of input from others; there're many things to consider and technological considerations may well delay any decision.
That much we can agree on. :)
Great! :)
Christiaan
Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge. Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a large section of human understanding (relating to our very survival on this planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there really is no denying this.
There's thousands of 'large sections of human understanding'. That's not enough to cut it for me. What is it that makes 'the built environment' more suitable to such a treatment? What is it you want to do in wikibuilder anyway? The term is rather vague, so I'd like to see some more explanation.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge. Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a large section of human understanding (relating to our very survival on this planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there really is no denying this.
There's thousands of 'large sections of human understanding'.
That wasn't actually the operative point. What's makes it compatible with Wikimedia's ideals is the fact that its goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge (it just happens to be a very large and important portion of knowledge). i.e. it fits the criteria for a new project proposal. Whether people think we should do it is another question. Conflating these two points isn't useful.
That's not enough to cut it for me. What is it that makes 'the built environment' more suitable to such a treatment? What is it you want to do in wikibuilder anyway? The term is rather vague, so I'd like to see some more explanation.
Take a look at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibuilder http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikibuilder
Christiaan
If it were to be started, I suggest merging it with the WikiTech proposal.
OK, im receptive to the idea (in fact i quite like it), but why is information about the built enviroment special? why not a wikimedia linux wiki, or potplant wiki, or people who are born on the 12th of April wiki?
I guess im getting at a point which we all must ask ourselves. What makes us who we are; and what is our mission. I think the stated mission of spreading human knowledge, could apply to a whole lot of things that would probably be deemed inaproprate.... or would they?
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:03:30 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
Wikimedia's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge. Wikibuilder's goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge of a large section of human understanding (relating to our very survival on this planet). Wikibuilder fits the ideals of Wikimedia, there really is no denying this.
There's thousands of 'large sections of human understanding'.
That wasn't actually the operative point. What's makes it compatible with Wikimedia's ideals is the fact that its goal is the spread and promotion of knowledge (it just happens to be a very large and important portion of knowledge). i.e. it fits the criteria for a new project proposal. Whether people think we should do it is another question. Conflating these two points isn't useful.
That's not enough to cut it for me. What is it that makes 'the built environment' more suitable to such a treatment? What is it you want to do in wikibuilder anyway? The term is rather vague, so I'd like to see some more explanation.
Take a look at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibuilder http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikibuilder
Christiaan
Robin Shannon wrote:
OK, im receptive to the idea (in fact i quite like it), but why is information about the built enviroment special? why not a wikimedia linux wiki, or potplant wiki, or people who are born on the 12th of April wiki?
There's a "Why?" section on [[Wikibuilder]]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikibuilder#Why.3F (feel free to elaborate it)
If a potplant wiki is proposed I'll be sure to add my comments to the discussion page on why I don't think it would be a good use of Wikimedia resources. ;)
I guess im getting at a point which we all must ask ourselves. What makes us who we are; and what is our mission. I think the stated mission of spreading human knowledge, could apply to a whole lot of things that would probably be deemed inaproprate.... or would they?
Yes but inappropriate according to which terms. There're basically three questions regarding appropriateness I think:
Q. Does it meet the criteria for a Wikimedia new project? A. Yes (and, as you imply, many ideas would)
Q. Is it technically practicable? A. Yes, with a little work on MediaWiki
Q. Would it be a good use of Wikimedia resources? A. To be decided (which, as you rightly point out, we all must ask ourselves)
Christiaan
On 19 Jan 2005, at 3:48 pm, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Robin Shannon robin.shannon@gmail.com wrote:
like google labs, only wikilabs? a place to put all our crazy dreams... sounds like a good idea.
Not as a stand-alone Wikimedia project.
Why not?
Christianan
SJ wrote:
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential wikimedia projects?
There are a lot of questions that would need to be addressed before this could be answered. How do you decide when a test wiki hosted at Wikilabs has failed and it is time to remove it? What about the risks of breaking links? How will different ideas be developed within the same wiki and how will this content be moved to the real site if the idea turns out to be successful. How many ideas will be accepted for the Wikilabs? Wikicities has had over 120 requests for new wikis in the last three months. Wikimedia is far better known, so this number will be much larger if Wikilabs were part of Wikimedia.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Because Wikimedia is not a free hosting service for just any wiki idea and Wikicities already exists to fill that role.
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
[[Proposals for new projects]] clearly states that "Wikimedia is not a free hosting company for any kind of wikis.
I would like to point out that Wikicities is not purely a free hosting company either. We aim to build communities, not just host wikis. I reject around a third of applications that are made, and of the remaining requests, at least half are adapted between the initial proposal and the creation of the wiki.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Wikilabs isn't needed at all due to the existence of Wikicities. After being hosted at Wikicities for some time we can then see if Wikibuilder is 1) a viable idea and 2) if it is something that will fit with our mandate.
I don't think the existence of Wikicities, which is not officially affiliated with Wikimedia, completely removes the need for a Wikimedia-based Wikilabs. The connection with existing projects, and possibly even the prestige of being a Wikimedia project, might make people more likely to contribute to wikis hosted there rather than at Wikicities.
I also want to reiterate Jimmy's point that wikis on Wikicities can later be moved to Wikimedia if the Wikimedia community supports this. I expect that with some proposals, there would be greater support following a period at Wikicities once the wiki has proven successful.
Angela
---- Angela Beesley www.wikicities.com
On 28 Jan 2005, at 5:17 am, Angela wrote:
SJ wrote:
Why not have a standalone "wikilabs" project for new potential wikimedia projects?
There are a lot of questions that would need to be addressed before this could be answered. How do you decide when a test wiki hosted at Wikilabs has failed and it is time to remove it? What about the risks of breaking links? How will different ideas be developed within the same wiki and how will this content be moved to the real site if the idea turns out to be successful. How many ideas will be accepted for the Wikilabs? Wikicities has had over 120 requests for new wikis in the last three months. Wikimedia is far better known, so this number will be much larger if Wikilabs were part of Wikimedia.
Anagela, could you post these good questions to: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilabs or http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikilabs
Christiaan
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org