[Foundation-l] meta-discussion for new project proposals

[Sj]

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 at 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