1) Technically we're in "year 10" so people might still reference it as an
"open" matter until January 2012 (eg some kind of "Wikimedia 10 in
perspective"). I wouldn't necessarily assume we archive it until then, in
case there are any "end of year" stuff people add to it before it's closed.
2) Once it's archival interest only, then close it via bugzilla request -
unlikely to be controversial so long as the data is publicly preserved. If
we don't have a "Requests to close wikis" page on Meta we probably should
3) Finally, we should devise some kind of canonical naming for old inactive
wikis which are being kept for historical/archival interest but are closed
to public editing. I'd suggest something like ten.archive.wikimedia.org
hosting the same content but configured as read-only to all. Then leave
as a one page soft redirect to this wiki. This will not be
the only historical "old" wiki and a canonical naming system allows us to
handle and index those to come.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Steven Walling <swalling(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
[I may forward this on to Foundation-l depending on replies. The list has
been very quiet recently.]
I just wanted to poke those interested in the long term plan for
about our options, since basically all we're getting
activity-wise on the site is the very occasional edit including some
vandalism that has required revision deletions.
As discussed on the Village Pump, it looks like filing a bug to close it
(meaning only Stewards could edit, but the site would be preserved) is the
most viable option. The question I have is: would people like to open a
formal request to close the project on Meta or are they okay with me just
going ahead and filing a bug?
Your input is appreciated,
Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation
WikiX-l mailing list