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

[Robert Scott Horning]

Delirium wrote:

> 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

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