I am a bit concerned about the pace at which new Wikipedia spinoff projects are created. Wiktionary was a good idea, because it filled a gap that was there -- we received lots of dictionary entries, so it seemed like the logical conclusion to start a wiki-dictionary.
But now we have a new "Textbook-Wiki" which was started without much discussion - possibly a good idea, but also possibly too specific - and shortly afterwards, a "Wiki-Quote" project was created. Now people are talking about creating a "Wiki-Piki" for pictures.
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, and we still don't have Wiktionaries in other languages. Wiktionary could have benefitted a lot from better planning before it was set up. I'm not sure I like the Wiki- Quote idea at all, as it intersects a lot with Project Sourceberg, is not very wiki-like (a quote is a quote) and not very compatible with the open content idea. Wiki-Quote was only very briefly discussed.
Furthermore, it's not exactly like we have lots of free resources. Our database server, pliny, is down on its knees, the full text search on the English wiki is now permanently disabled, we have only a couple of active server administrators, and hardly enough developers to address problems in the software.
I propose that 1) we do not start any new Wiki spin-off projects until our current resources have been substantially expanded; 2) 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. After this period, users on the Meta wiki should vote on whether the new wiki should be set up or not. 3 months may seem long, but if interest can't be kept up that long, the idea may not be so great after all.
Otherwise I see the danger that we'll end up with lots of nice ideas that all go nowhere, like the sep11.wikipedia.org (which IMHO should never have been set up in the first place).
Regards,
Erik
I agree with all of what Eric wrote below, except that"Wiktionary was a good idea." It was not a good idea to start a sectioned, English only dictionary. The merits of the idea would have been rested in a facile connectivity to the main Wp, and for it to be international. The [[wiktionary:article]] link is not facile -- it should just be [[d:article]] -- like the [[w:article]] link on wiktionary and meta.
As for internationality -- From wikitionary main page: "Please note that this is the *English Wiktionary: while it aims to describe all words of all languages, the definitions and descriptions are in English only. Similar Wiktionaries in other languages will be set up gradually."
Fortunately, this kind of above nonsense is being actively contradicted : as in: http://wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A3%AB http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Cake etc...
All suggestions improvements best understood with time. ;) Im out of time, -s-
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I am a bit concerned about the pace at which new Wikipedia spinoff projects are created. Wiktionary was a good idea, because it filled a gap that was there -- we received lots of dictionary entries, so it seemed like the logical conclusion to start a wiki-dictionary.
But now we have a new "Textbook-Wiki" which was started without much discussion - possibly a good idea, but also possibly too specific - and shortly afterwards, a "Wiki-Quote" project was created. Now people are talking about creating a "Wiki-Piki" for pictures.
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, and we still don't have Wiktionaries in other languages. Wiktionary could have benefitted a lot from better planning before it was set up. I'm not sure I like the Wiki- Quote idea at all, as it intersects a lot with Project Sourceberg, is not very wiki-like (a quote is a quote) and not very compatible with the open content idea. Wiki-Quote was only very briefly discussed.
Furthermore, it's not exactly like we have lots of free resources. Our database server, pliny, is down on its knees, the full text search on the English wiki is now permanently disabled, we have only a couple of active server administrators, and hardly enough developers to address problems in the software.
I propose that
- we do not start any new Wiki spin-off projects
until our current resources have been substantially expanded; 2) 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. After this period, users on the Meta wiki should vote on whether the new wiki should be set up or not. 3 months may seem long, but if interest can't be kept up that long, the idea may not be so great after all.
Otherwise I see the danger that we'll end up with lots of nice ideas that all go nowhere, like the sep11.wikipedia.org (which IMHO should never have been set up in the first place).
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
I propose that
- we do not start any new Wiki spin-off projects until our current
resources have been substantially expanded; 2) 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. After this period, users on the Meta wiki should vote on whether the new wiki should be set up or not. 3 months may seem long, but if interest can't be kept up that long, the idea may not be so great after all.
Seconded.
Otherwise I see the danger that we'll end up with lots of nice ideas that all go nowhere, like the sep11.wikipedia.org (which IMHO should never have been set up in the first place).
basically... Sep11,wikipedia.org was created to appease people protesting against the deletion of acticles on victims of the Sep11 attacks who were pure nobodies and didn't belong in Wikipedia.
Tarquin wrote:
basically... Sep11,wikipedia.org was created to appease people protesting against the deletion of acticles on victims of the Sep11 attacks who were pure nobodies and didn't belong in Wikipedia.
They weren't pure nobodies, just not people you would look up in an encyclopedia... even one that isn't paper.
The attempt at appeasement didn't really work, and so the Sep11 wiki is little more than a warehouse for the tributes that people wrote to their loved ones.
- Stephen G.
On 7/18/03 6:10 PM, "tarquin" tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Otherwise I see the danger that we'll end up with lots of nice ideas that all go nowhere, like the sep11.wikipedia.org (which IMHO should never have been set up in the first place).
basically... Sep11,wikipedia.org was created to appease people protesting against the deletion of acticles on victims of the Sep11 attacks who were pure nobodies and didn't belong in Wikipedia.
Yeah, screw them.
Erik Moeller said...
I am a bit concerned about the pace at which new Wikipedia spinoff projects are created.
<snip> I share Erik's concerns. I think we may be suffering what some people call WikiAddiction: we love wikis, and so we want to use them for every good idea that comes up as fast as possible.
I propose that
- we do not start any new Wiki spin-off projects until our current
resources have been substantially expanded;
Agreed. Many of Wikipedia's useful functions are still unavailable. Our computing resources and volunteer programming staff are already stretched too thin trying to support the projects we already have.
- 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. After this period, users on the Meta wiki should vote on whether the new wiki should be set up or not. 3 months may seem long, but if interest can't be kept up that long, the idea may not be so great after all.
Or something like that. One of the important things to consider is that perhaps a wiki is not the best tool to use for the project you have in mind. I haven't seen the discussions (and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt), but using a wiki to create an image respository is like using a claw hammer and a dull screwdriver to do fine woodworking.
Stephen G.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org