Daniel-
I am a bit concerned about the pace at which new Wikipedia spinoff projects are created.
Isn't spin-offs the whole point of the Wikimedia idea?
No, it's not the *whole* point of the Wikimedia idea. Wikimedia has many different purposes:
- Have a non-profit in place that can accept donations - Have an organization with a board that can make decisions - Develop a common "brand" for our existing wiki projects - Create a central entry point for all the Wikipedia projects (the Wikimedia homepage) - Possibly (!) have a central place for depositing media files -- images, sounds etc. - Have a nice webpage that Jimmy's mom can visit without reading anything at all about felching.
Yes, one raison d'etre for the Wikimedia project is to find new ways to successfully apply the wiki principles, and I'm all in favor of doing that. But not at the present pace.
But now we have a new "Textbook-Wiki" which was started without much discussion -
Not much discussion? There was so much discussion that we very quickly got our own mailing list.
The fundamentals of the project (what kind of material is to be placed there; do we need a textbook project or should it be part of a larger project) were not discussed much, the specifics (how to write textbooks NPOV etc.) were discussed in great detail. I don't remember a timetable or a deadline for suggestions ever being brought up.
possibly a good idea, but also possibly too specific -
Too specific? Have you browsed any online book seller for textbooks? There are thousands of different types - if anything it is a far more ambitious project that creating just one encyclopedia. We plan on writing hundreds of different textbooks. Specific indeed.
Maybe. But what about HOWTOs and manuals of all kinds? These are not textbooks. Yet, the two have similarities in style, and both are at least in part procedural knowledge. The name "textbook" usually implies use in an educational setting. Yet much of the material that is currently there is also of interest outside such use. IMHO "textbook" is too limited. It only encourages the creation of yet another spin-off project in the near future for other types of non-fictional works. What I would prefer is a structure like this:
encyclopedia dictionary non-fictional works (books.wikipedia.org) fictional works (tales.wikipedia.org)
See, I prefer generalized projects to specific ones. As you say, a tribute wiki is better than a specific September 11 wiki. An encyclopedia is better than just an encyclopedia of birds. A dictionary for every language is better than just a dictionary for English. And a place to write all types of non-fictional works may be better than just a place to write textbooks -- the procedures for writing textbooks are in part specific, but in large part also applicable to writing other non-fictional works.
I was hoping to be able to bring this up in a discussion, but the textbook-wiki was set up before I could even read through the existing postings.
This is all nice and good, but haven't we learned anything from the Wiktionary experience? Wiktionary was set up without much thought as to how the wiki process could be applied to a dictionary; it took months to formulate some kind of standard template,
Huh? The template and the processes you speak of were worked out the WikiWay on live data.
The "wiki way" does not necessarily mean that you have to avoid any notion of planning or foresight :-)
To work this stuff out you have to work with real data - mock-ups on meta are little help here
I disagree. Many templates we successfully use on the 'pedia were worked out that way. I have nothing against a little chaos, but Wiktionary had far too much of it for my taste. The chaos and ugliness on Wiktionary, the lack of any real leadership was what discouraged me from working on that project.
Wikiquote:
Giving the source of the quotations and giving commentary about them is wiki-like.
Maybe. Then again, such commentary will likely end up being very POV, whereas Wiktionary and Wikipedia try to follow NPOV, and Textbook-Wiki tries to follow DPOV.
Wiki-Quote was only very briefly discussed.
I don't remember the discussion at all...
This was more or less done on Fonzy's private request to Brion.
- we formalize a process for starting such
projects, e.g. a planning period of at least 3 months on Meta with exact specifications as to what is to be placed there.
I wouldn't put such a time period on it since many ideas never are discussed much.
Can you name a single idea that would not benefit from prior discussion? I don't see this as a substantial hurdle for new ideas, as any proposal that has gone through the discussion stage *would* eventually be voted upon, so the good ideas would end up being implemented.
Regards,
Erik