[Foundation-l] Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

[Foundation-l] Report from South...

[Foundation-l] Elections 2005 -...

Sean Turvey

23 Jun 2005 23 Jun '05

5:25 a.m.

Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project. The proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki Sincerely, Sean A. Turvey U.E.

Show replies by date

Erik Moeller

28 Jun 28 Jun

3:10 a.m.

Sean Turvey:

...

Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project. The proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki

From the description: "This project would encompass all religions present and past. History, sacred text (ie. Bible, Quran, Book of Kells, etc.), beliefs, leaders, and essays." History: Wikipedia Sacred text: Wikisource, Wikiquote Beliefs: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiquote Leaders: Wikipedia, Wikiquote Essays: Wikisource (if notable and free content) What is the justification for a new project? Best, Erik

Robert Scott Horning

3:06 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Erik Moeller wrote:

...

Sean Turvey:

Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project. The proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki

What is the justification for a new project? Best, Erik

I think it is time to have a serious meta-discussion regarding what it going to take in order for the Wikimedia Foundation to accept a whole new project, and what guidelines should be in place, as well as a roadmap for what would have to be accomplished in order for such a project to move from a "gee, this would be a cool idea" to "here is the server space, let's roll!" By a meta-discussion, I don't mean on meta.wikimedia.org, but a discussion about proposal discussions. The new project proposal page is getting swamped with ideas of varying qualities, and the only criteria that I see for getting culled from that page is strictly because it is an old idea... and that a rather arbitrary decision as well. Other than Wikinews recently, I don't see much movement (or even desire from the board) to actually grant a project a green light to start up and be given a separate co-equal project space as a peer to Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, etc. I guess I'm asking to formalize this process, and to let people trying to propose new projects realize just how difficult it can be to get a major project started. Wikinews did just about everything right, IMHO, when that project proposal came about, and I would like to see that any new project that is started have to go through similar standards before it become an official Mediawiki Foundation project. Steps I would suggest include: 1) Project description template filled out, including: ** More detailed project propsal made on a separate article on meta (largely done for most new project proposals now, although of varying quality) ** Sample "front page" of what the project would look like if it were given a green light. ** Licensing issues in the disucssion, particularly if not specifically the GFDL. ** Technical requirements, including what changes to software would have to be made to make the project successful. ** Funding sources to help with basic startup costs, or who might be willing to help sponsor the new project (goes with the earlier earmarking discussion on this list). 2) Sponsorship of proposal by MediaWiki users. This is mainly to show widespread community support for the idea, and that it won't languish in lack of use once started. ** A "threshhold" value be established before projects can move beyond this point. For example, 10 registered users agreeing to sponsor the idea, and > 60% favor vs. oppose (or some other figure... this is just an example). ** Advertisement of the proposal, on this list as well as in other forums and contexts. Also... spamming discouraged when doing this sort of advertisement. Try to search and find the potential community for the project proposal idea. ** Respond to comments regarding proposal 3) Review by "proposal committee". This is a new step, but I am suggesting that a group of "veteran" Wikimedia (from all projects) users help review project proposals that get to this stage (having passed the earlier threshold requirements). **Suggest to the project proposer ways to help improve the proposal submission, review technical aspects, and in general help clean up the proposal into something that can easily be digested by the board. Yes, I am volunteering. **It would also be the job of this group to cull out and remove languishing proposals on a the new proposal page, subject to general concensus. They should establish formal guidelines for what gets removed and potentially what can be reinstated. **Establishing a new "accepted project" page to (hopefully) get wider review by the Wikimedia community of projects that have passed the new requirements. These would be considered "serious" propsals that are on their way to become a new project, and should be put to a higher standard. ** The proposal committee would be doing some of the advertising at this point, including front-page meta links to the new proposal, and formal notification on this list (and other mediawiki lists, as appropriate). ** It should be possible for a proposal to die at this stage as well, although a good proposal with popular support should survive this stage. 4) Formal presentation to the Wikimedia board. While board members can (and likely will) be involved in the earlier stages, this is the formal stage where the board gives official comment regarding the status of the project. It can be sent back for more discussion, killed outright at the discression of the board, or accepted. 5) The project has been accepted and is a peer to existing MediaWiki projects. Server space is found and content is being added to the new project. --------- Any other ideas on what process a project should go through to become accepted? What should the criteria be for being removed from the new project proposal page? Do we want to encourage/discourage anybody from making these proposals? What general guidelines should there be for new project proposals beyond those already listed on Meta? How can we keep the board from getting flooded with new ideas, but have a chance to review really good new ideas? -- Robert Scott Horning

Elisabeth Bauer

3:52 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

...

[snipped good suggestions] Sorry to say this, but in my opinion we shouldn't accept any new projects at all for the next two years but instead work on improving the existing ones. There's enough work to do and even the time we discuss new projects would be better invested in discussing and solving our current problems. greetings, elian

Robert Scott Horning

4:47 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals

Elisabeth Bauer wrote:

...

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

I would have to, for the most part, agree. The point I was trying to make is that the new project proposal page is getting filled, and either it gets shut down entirely with a note (no more new proposals are going to be accepted, period), or that those new proposals be given a chance to move forward. It is at least possible for a new idea to come up that might grab the attention of the board. So should there be a moritorium on new projects? Should that kill the whole new project proposal page entirely? Are the people proposing these new project simply wasting their time? From what you are suggesting, elian, is that yes, they are wasting their time in futility because none of those projects are ever going to be accepted. And projects that have been on that page for more than a few months are being culled, so most of those are really brand-new project proposals. From my brief time of watching that page on Meta, the number of proposals has substantially increased, somewhat proportional to the overall growth of the Wikimedia projects in general. I am suggesting that perhaps there are some good ideas out there, but the people who have a germ of an idea they want to come forward with should have to put some effort into getting that idea made into a full project. Mind you, this is an idea killing proposal, not a project generator engine. At each stage of the process I outlined, there would be a way to get rid of weak ideas for new projects, or things that simply don't fit in with the larger community. Each stage is a way to politely say "no" to somebody and try to discourage them from going forward with a new project, but give some little bit of encouragement if the idea does seem to be remarkable. Also to try and keep what is often new members of the wikimedia community involved and hopefully join with existing projects, redirecting their energy and at least letting them know that they are welcome to share their ideas, no matter how different they may be from the rest of the community. At the moment, there are only two levels to creating a project: 1) The project proposal page and 2) When the server is turned on and people are adding content. This creates problems and is sending a message that nobody, particularly the board, is really going to take anything on that project proposal page seriously. It also creates a disconnect between the board and the community at large that IMHO shouldn't be there. It should also be bold and blunt that new project ideas are not likly going to happen, while from reading everything on the new project proposal page seems to suggest the exact opposite. At least a slightly discouraging "look at wikicities" note is in the talk page, but there could be more. And perhaps even this mailing list isn't exactly the appropriate place to announce a new project idea, at least in the initial stages. You are correct that often it is a waste of time and bandwidth to have to deal with new project proposals, where most of them will be shot down anyway. Again, this is usually by people new to Wikipedia, or relatively so and have begun to branch out a little bit, discovering Meta, the new project page, and this mailing list. I would argue that these are exactly the kind of people we need to encourage, and try to get them involved with the other existing projects as much as possible. These also tend to be somewhat creative, and people who the word "no" doesn't discourage. A formal process will actually cut down on the number of postings to this mailing list, and will be only for projects that pass the first few "roadblocks". There must be some point between absolutely nothing new will be created and every crazy proposal will be accepted with server space. If it is going to take a couple of years for a proposal to meander from initial concept to final green light, perhaps that would be better. I do believe that new project ideas that are sent through a formal process are going to be healthier projects in the long term, and have a larger support community to maintain and add content. Wikispecies is one of those that could have greatly benefited from a process like this, where the basic ideas on how it would have been put together could have been refined before it was turned loose. Ditto with the 9/11 memorial site. Perhaps even with Wikibooks, although I personally like that project. -- Robert Scott Horning

Rebecca

4:48 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

On 6/28/05, Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> wrote:

...

Sorry to say this, but in my opinion we shouldn't accept any new projects at all for the next two years but instead work on improving the existing ones. There's enough work to do and even the time we discuss new projects would be better invested in discussing and solving our current problems. greetings, elian

There are *many* people who disagree with this, and I think it's somewhat rude to shoot down so bluntly what is a perfectly reasonable new suggestion - cleaning up the messy process and improving the prospects of a new project actually being successful. If we'd had this in the first place, several of our current projects might be markedly more successful. -- ambi

Erik Moeller

4:49 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Elisabeth:

...

A blanket injunction against new projects may express popular sentiments, but is unhelpful. However, I would certainly agree that technical evaluation needs to take higher precedence for future projects, and where key technical requirements are not met, new projects should not be launched. Furthermore, in our own allocation of funds to development work, we should strongly prioritize existing projects, unless we receive a grant specifically to develop a new one. This, combined with the requirement that new projects shouldn't be too narrow in scope (Wikispecies is an unfortunate exception in this regard) should be sufficient safeguards against mindless expansion. Artificial barriers are not needed. It's also important to note that ever since Wikispecies, we have become *much* more conservative with launching new projects. I find it highly unlikely that the majority of the community would support a poorly planned and insufficiently implemented project at this point. Nevertheless, open discussion of even the wackiest ideas should be tolerated. After all, Wikipedia started out as a wacky idea. Erik

Yann Forget

5:45 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Hi, Le Tuesday 28 June 2005 14:52, Elisabeth Bauer a écrit :

...

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

I agree 100% with this. I think we have enough problems to solve for the time being. IMO we should make it clear that no new projects will be accepted for at least a year. I have the feeling that we are running forward instead of trying to solve existing problems.

...

greetings, elian

Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux

Robert Scott Horning

7:48 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Yann Forget wrote:

...

Hi, Le Tuesday 28 June 2005 14:52, Elisabeth Bauer a écrit :

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

greetings, elian

Regards, Yann

Did you even read what I wrote? I never even suggested that new projects should be created, certainly not immediately. I'm just suggesting that some sort of structure be put into place to permit a new project to be made...eventually. The current process is a mess, and many people in the Wikimedia community (including many who don't bother to read this mailing list) are clammoring to have some new project or new aspect of Wikimedia enhanced or changed. This is precisely to help avoid future problems. I am specifically pointing out the Sean Turvey is an example of somebody we don't want to discourage (or shouldn't) from participating in existing projects... or solving the problems that you are talking about. I think there is some merit to his proposal, but there needs to be some education in terms of what Wikimedia and its projects are all about. There also needs to be some sort of outlet vent to let ideas ferment and take shape, and I believe that the project proposal page is one way to do that. I hope that Sean hasn't been discouraged from refining his ideas, and I believe that there is a place for much of what he is proposing. Based on his last message, he may have already left, which is our loss, not his. I guarentee that ignoring the new project proposals completely is going to be a gradual death to Wikimedia and eventually Wikipedia. Most groups are desparate for fresh blood and new ideas, and by killing that avenue completely, it will have an overall chilling effect on the rest of all Wikimedia projects. The current success of Wikipedia and other related projects is attracting many new people, and there should not be an elite attitude that somehow these new "recruits" are somehow less valuable. That some of their energies could be redirected, perhaps, but don't stop the process completely. And be honest to the people proposing these projects, that a well thought out proposal is going to be necessary in order to succeed, which will take time and a lot of effort if they want to see it happen. Right now I don't see that honesty, and from the apparent attitude here that they should never even bother trying. -- Robert Scott Horning

Aphaia

29 Jun 29 Jun

1:23 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Hi, as for new project launching, I support Elian and Yann: it is not the time for us to start a new large projects. It is the time to care for existing projects including their new language projects. On 6/29/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:

...

I guarentee that ignoring the new project proposals completely is going to be a gradual death to Wikimedia and eventually Wikipedia. Most groups are desparate for fresh blood and new ideas, and by killing that avenue completely, it will have an overall chilling effect on the rest of all Wikimedia projects.

Partly agreed, on that most groups are desperate for fresh blood and new ideas, but in my observation it seldom comes from the newer and smaller projects (Babel [you may not confuse it with ex-Babylon or Meta:Babel] is one glorious exception; I think also Chinese Wikipedia's merit system as interesting, but surely most of Wikimedians - even Wikipedians haven't noticed that). Most of projects, like English Wikipedia are a sort of intellectus activus - self-sufficient, or auto-poesis i.e. closed but dynamic system: Or I might say they are loosely monadic; they but have no window, though reflect all others, specially as for larger projects. On the contrary, small wikis, like just launching Wiktionary, need support from larger communities - same projects in different languages and larger (mostly Wikipedia) project in the same language. And larger projects seem to moan by its growing pain currently. They need to help themselves at first and sometimes not capable to care their sibling projects. In general a new project can hardly start by only newcomers - they need experienced people on the other projects, and in the long term it would be rewarded but currently we need to concentrate clear and present problems on larger existing projects. Here we should set our priority to care for those project suffering many problems, legally, comuniticatively, on governance, etc ... and seek steady and practical solution, not adventure to launch new projects for the sake of their potential merits. -- Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com

28 Jun 28 Jun

11:24 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals

Hello Robert, Responding to your last commetn first:

...

Most groups are desparate for fresh blood and new ideas, and by killing that avenue completely, it will have an overall chilling effect on the rest of all Wikimedia projects. The current success of Wikipedia and other related projects is attracting many new people, and there should not be an elite attitude that somehow these new "recruits" are somehow less valuable. That some of their energies could be redirected, perhaps, but don't stop the process completely.

This is exactly right. Most of the new project ideas actually can be fitted neatly into existing projects; but this is rarely obvious to the newer community members who have not considered all of the facets of those projects. Erik Moeller wrote:

...

>> Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project. >> The proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki > > What is the justification for a new project?

We tend to be so combative when new projects are suggested! New projects do not need to *justify* themselves as much as they need to clarify what they would be about. It is rare that a new project idea has no encyclopedic or free-knowledge merit at all; as a community we should make an extra effort to find that merit and encourage it. Most projects could be fitted into the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject]] mold; but first those who understand the workings of Wikipedia need to understand what is in the proposer's mind. On 6/28/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote:

...

I think it is time to have a serious meta-discussion regarding what it going to take in order for the Wikimedia Foundation to accept a whole new project, and what guidelines should be in place

This is already slightly off-target. Long before asking the Foundation whether it would like to accept or bless a new project, project proposers should be responded to by members of the existing projects. Active users should identify how and if the proposal can be made a subproject of an existing project. This requires no input by Foundation officials. That said, there is no question that the new project proposals page is getting swamped. When someone submits a new proposal, s/he is usually very motivated to respond to questions and jump through hoops. We should clarify what an informative way to present and specify a new project is.

...

1) Project description template filled out, including: ** More detailed project propsal made on a separate article on meta ** Sample "front page" of what the project would look like ** Licensing issues in the disucssion, particularly if not GFDL ** Technical requirements, including changes to software

NB: usually these changes are nice, but not necessary prerequisites.

...

** Funding sources to help with basic startup costs, or who might be 2) Sponsorship of proposal by MediaWiki users.

You mean Wikimedia :-)

...

** A "threshhold" value be established before projects can move beyond ** Advertisement of the proposal, on this list as well as in other forums ** Respond to comments regarding proposal 3) Review by "proposal committee". This is a new step, but I am suggesting that a group of "veteran" Wikimedia (from all projects) users

This is basically a great idea; though it need not be veterans, just users who care about new project development; and it need not be a formal committee with elections and terms, just an interest group of people who actively care for incoming proposals.

...

**Suggest to the project proposer ways to help improve the proposal **It would also be the job of this group to cull out and remove languishing proposals on a the new proposal page, subject to general **Establishing a new "accepted project" page to (hopefully) get wider review by the Wikimedia community of projects that have passed the new ** The proposal committee would be doing some of the advertising at this point, including front-page meta links to the new proposal, and formal ** It should be possible for a proposal to die at this stage as well, although a good proposal with popular support should survive this stage.

I don't think *any* proposal should end in 'death'; as the process moves forward, more and more of the proposer's ideas should make their way into other projects. /Perhaps/ a FaithWiki will eventually be recognized as a necessary separate project; but first the suggester might contribute to the Religion wikiportal on En http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Religion Then he might create a WikiProject for "Religious History" on EN:WP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject#Religion Finally, if Sean Tuvey and others want to compose a collection of essays offering overviews of existing faiths and religions, they could produce a Wikireader (on WP) or a Wikibook on the subject, densely hyperlinked to encyclopedia articles.

...

4) Formal presentation to the Wikimedia board. While board members can 5) The project has been accepted and is a peer to existing MediaWiki projects. Server space is found and content is being added to the new

The board doesn't need to be involved unless there is somehow a need for a separate domain name, which is rarely the case even for good project ideas.; and 'new server space' is rarely an issue. This thread should be moved to a suitable page on Meta, and elaborated on. SJ

Robert Scott Horning

29 Jun 29 Jun

4:39 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals

Sj wrote:

...

Hello Robert, Responding to your last commetn first

3) Review by "proposal committee". This is a new step, but I am suggesting that a group of "veteran" Wikimedia (from all projects) users

That is one of the reasons I put veteran in quotes, although I do think that the people helping out and sending suggestions to project proposals should have at least a little experience with Wikimedia projects in general of some sort. Probably more important is the ability to have a little patience and be able to explain the interal politics of the Wikimedia community... or even what each separate project is like. I have noticed a slightly different flavor between each project (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, etc.) where the editing styles are slightly different, even though there are some who move across all of these project. This even goes to what is acceptable content vs. unacceptable... and is beyond just the "charter" of each project as well. I certainly think that people who post a project proposal idea should be contacted early by such helpers, and if possible redirected to other projects that could help them out. Sabine Cretella wrote: One thought on that - or maybe more: I am quite sure that what already is online from wikipedia to wikisource can include everything. Of course over time there will be changes in conceiving how information should be subdivided and then linked. When I read the message about the "believe-wiki" I thought: but this is already there ... in the different projects There are some projects, like WikiMusic, just as an example, that offer a very different vision for what could be done, and may even require some slight to substantial programming changes in order for the information to be edited. Of course, such efforts can be folded back onto existing projects, but on an experimental basis my be justified as totally different site. Another is WikiData, where database type information can be added to existing articles. This is a totally new concept, and does deserve its own "team" to get it going, but this is more a software developer project rather than something more along the lines of a typical Wikimedia project. I mention these two projects as hard examples of new project proposals that simply can't be accomodated by current projects. They really are very new ideas, and things that would help the community as a whole. And while both of these proposals will introduce some new legal issues, it is not substantially different than what is currently done. This is mainly new technical abilities and being able to do things in a slightly different fashion. Finally I want to point out wikitree.org This is an example of a new project proposal that has simply been developed indepenedently, and is also another very clear example of something that simply can't be accomodated by existing projects run by Wikimedia. Indeed it is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, with even pages deleted because of people not having noteriety. For those not familiar with this site, it is geneological information that is being linked together using the MediaWiki software, but some substantial modifications. I mention this because it has been previously proposed as a new project to be run by the Wikimedia foundation, but instead has moved out on its own, partly because there was no way to push the proposal through. It was on the new project proposal page well before the website turned "live". It has even been left as a "dead" proposal, not even on the main project proposal page. There is merit to a project like this, and there are funding sources as well to help pay for a service like this... long term funding at that. Projects of this kind are also going to bring in some very different people into the community that normally wouldn't be working on things like Wikipedia. BTW, I have also seen several people from Wikimedia projects over there at wikitree, so I know for them at least this isn't a revelation. I do wish the people at Wikitree success and at the moment it is being done completely out of the pocket of the original organizers. Keep in mind that my proposal is only to more formalize the process of becoming a new Wikimedia project, not to accelerate the process and flooding the Wikimedia Foundation with a whole bunch of unsupported projects. Again, I ask that detractors to this proposal come up with an alterative, and if they simply don't want new projects (with general consensus from the community) state that boldly that simply no new projects will ever be accepted, or will come from channels other than the new project proposal page. Let them know it is an exercise in futility, and that people like Sean Turvey are wasting their breath to even try (or myself for that matter). -- Robert Scott Horning

Anthere

2:43 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Though kind of wary of new projects, I totally welcome any efforts suggested to clarify this page, if this help better studying projects supported by the community. More organisation on the topic can't be wrong ;-) Ant Robert Scott Horning a écrit:

...

Erik Moeller wrote:

Sean Turvey:

Please be advised that I have posted a proposal for a new project. The proposed name is Faith Wiki. The address is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Faith_Wiki

What is the justification for a new project? Best, Erik

Dovi Jacobs

10:27 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Some thoughts on the very concept of a "new project": The Wikimedia concept first came into being based on an analogy to the reference shelf in a library. The first, most basic and most important tool on a reference shelf is a good encyclopedia. That gave us Wikipedia, where we began. Other typical elements on the reference shelf are dictionaries and other language tools (Wiktionary); and a book of famous quotations (Wikiquote). A reference shelf also includes a good atlas, but this has been pretty well incorporated into Wikipedia. Then we moved off the reference shelf and into the classroom: Course textbooks and study guides are in Wikibooks (and these make up a large part of the realm of non-fiction). Travel guides are similar, but they were already taken by Wikitravel. Then we created Wikisource for the entire realm of texts previously published (but not original contributions). So we became a full library too, not just a reference shelf. Then we realized that people learn not from plain texts alone but from illustrated texts, radio and television: images, sounds, and video. Hence Wikimedia Commons. The entire realm of the news media was still left uncovered (newspapers, magazines, TV news, radio, etc.), but then Wikinews began. So what is left for new projects that cannot be covered within the existing ones? Not much, really. At least I cannot think of many. All that seems to be left are certain kinds of original texts: *Original fiction *Original non-fiction *besides* study guides (which are already covered by Wikibooks) I don't even know if we want projects like that or not. But it does seem that the vast majority of needs are covered by the existing projects. So I agree with the general sentiment that most of the effort should be going into bettering the existing projects, though this does not mean there cannot be new projects. We should indeed guide people as to how they can build their ideas within the existing projects. Dovi --------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

Sabine Cretella

10:45 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

One thought on that - or maybe more: I am quite sure that what already is online from wikipedia to wikisource can include everything. Of course over time there will be changes in conceiving how information should be subdivided and then linked. When I read the message about the "believe-wiki" I thought: but this is already there ... in the different projects. On the Italian wiktionary for example there is a special glossary on christianity - the thing that is lacking now would be a page where only links to all existing "christianity articles/projects etc." are collected. Last year, when I created the "Merry Christmas" project I tried to do this, but that page is available on the Italian wiktionary only. So the only thing I would create besides the project and inter project links is one wiki where these links on special themes are collected - where you go to a "chapter" called maybe "football" and you find a list of all football related articles on wikipedia, wikinews, links to glossaries etc. of course structured in a certain way. Maybe wikidata could help us in this - I am not really sure - such a thingie needs quite a lot of "thinking about it", but I believe that people interested in only a specific subject would very much appreciate it if they would not have to surf from one project to the other searching for related articles, but finding a pool of grouped information. I don't say we must do this now - it is as if I feel the time to be a bit too immature to do this as there are too many changes on the way. But I'd like to keep this in mind - it could become necessary (maybe in another form/shape - we'll see). Ciao, Sabine ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

Delirium

11:45 p.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Dovi Jacobs wrote:

...

But it does seem that the vast majority of needs are covered by the existing projects. So I agree with the general sentiment that most of the effort should be going into bettering the existing projects, though this does not mean there cannot be new projects. We should indeed guide people as to how they can build their ideas within the existing projects.

I agree with this, and think a lot of what people want in new projects could be taken care of by new views on the same data, which is more a matter of coding, software architecture, and user-interface design than a new project per se. For example, Wikispecies has a strong overlap with Wikipedia---it's generally accepted (at least in en:) that any recognized species about which any data is available is an appropriate candidate for an article, and many people agree that it would be nice if we had some sort of structured data in Wikipedia that would allow querying/etc. (essentially the sort of standard information that ends up in various info boxes, like elevation for a mountain peak). Given that, it should be possible for a database of species and Wikipedia to share the same information, just present and query it in different ways. So in both this case and others, I'd lean more towards a long-term solution along these lines, rather than starting more projects with duplicate information that needs to be kept in sync. An issue with user-interface or software can be fixed, but if we end up with multiple projects duplicating information, merging them at a later date is much harder. -Mark

Robert Scott Horning

30 Jun 30 Jun

10:03 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Re: meta-discussion for new project proposals (was Proposal for new project: Faith Wiki)

Delirium wrote:

...

Dovi Jacobs wrote:

I don't think there is anybody on this list that considers Wikispecies to be a run-away success. There were some serious mistakes made in the beginning, and that is obvious even on the discussion pages within Wikispecies (I've taken a look at it and even made a <<few>> modifications). Yes, much of what was there could have been accomodated by Wikipedia, and most of what Wikispecies offered was a taxonomy for how to access the information for various species of living things. I'm just pointing out that there is more out there, and it is precisely a project like Wikispecies that I would like to prevent from happening in the future... at least until it can get proper leadership and figure out (in the case of Wikispecies) exactly how they are going to organize the information rather than tyring to restart the project all over again midstream with a whole new structure (IMHO the real reason why Wikispecies is a dead project). Also, don't try to convince me that anything and everything will be accomodated on current set of projects being run by Wikimedia. I have seen too many people told to yank stuff off of various project servers that had nothing to do with the GFDL, copyleft, NPOV, spamming, or even good taste. It just wasn't "appropriate" for the given project and hence was removed and the content deleted. If you want specific details, I will provide them, but most people on this list should know what I'm talking about here. If it appears that I am digging my heels in here, I am. I know that Wikispecies has given quite a few people some very bad taste in their mouth about new project startups, but that shouldn't stop new ideas from coming up. I also understand that the Wikimedia Foundation is not a catch-all for every crazy Wiki project that comes along, and certainly the MediaWiki software is available for anybody to use if they care to grab it. I have a friend who has just started a fiction colaboration website using MediaWiki software (Wikibooks for fiction...which Wikibooks is not). I appreciate the design to date for the MediaWiki software, and it is neat to see that it can be used for other purposes, even pure commercial (like this one is... and closed membership... by choice of the participants). That certainly can be an option as well for people who have a cool idea for a project that perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to get involved with, and something perhaps some of the participants in the new project proposal area should be directed to. Under ideal circumstances, suggestions for funding or grants could also be made by the Wikimedia community in general to help get an independent project going....again, something that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have to take direct responsibility for or dillute efforts to concentrate on existing projects. If we can keep good relations with people that "leave", the goodwill is going to come back to the Wikimedia Foundation with interest, and possibly $$$ as well. -- Robert Scott Horning

6869

days inactive

6876

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

16 comments

12 participants

tags (0)

participants (12)

Anthere
Aphaia
Delirium
Dovi Jacobs
Elisabeth Bauer
Erik Moeller
Rebecca
Robert Scott Horning
Sabine Cretella
Sean Turvey
Sj
Yann Forget