[Foundation-l] Incubator Wiki for New Wikimedia Projects (was Vote to create Wikiversity Vote)

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 11/13/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >On 11/11/05, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Maybe we need an incubator Wiki for potential new sister projects.
> >>>Wikicities is certainly not the solution for that.  Wikicities is a
> >>>for-profit project complete with advertising being run by a for-profit
> >>>company whose only tie to Wikimedia is that its two founders are on
> >>>the board of directors of Wikimedia (one of whom is the founder of
> >>>Wikipedia).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I would agree that there is a need for an incubator project.  Clearly
> >>the jump from minor discussion on this list and a minor writeup on the
> >>Meta Wiki to turning on a seperate Wiki domain is much larger than
> >>comparable projects on Wikicities, just for instance.  As far as
> >>Wikicities not being the correct solution, I would have to in general
> >>agree but from everything I've seen that is the current recommended
> >>solution with just about everybody strongly pushed onto Wikicities if
> >>their content doesn't fit a current Wikimedia project.  Even the new
> >>projects proposal page strongly recommends Wikicities.
> >>
> It's an interesting idea.  My I suggest the name "The Wikubator".  With
> "Wikiwomb" one could imagin a wide assortment of Wikisperm ideas
> frantically navigating through Meta looking for recognition. :-)
>
> To go into this domain a proposal would still need to fulfill criteria
> established by Meta, but they could be less rigid.  New language wikis
> could also go through The Wikubator.  To be born as a full Wiki a
> project would need to meet certain requirements.  Not the least of these
> would be a minimum number of main namespace articles, and where another
> language is involved, the full translation of a predetermined list of
> important pages.  Since we would not want any full Wikimedia wiki to be
> a one man show, there could be a criterion that some minimum number of
> contributors (excluding sockpuppets) must each have started a specified
> number of NEW articles.
>
> A project in The Wikubator could stay there indefinitely as long as
> there is continuing activity.  If no-one has edited anything in such a
> project for six months it could be aborted.  For this purpose editing
> would not include obvious vandalism and its removal.
>
> >I can see recommending Wikicities for projects which aren't applicable
> >to Wikimedia at all - a wiki for fictional works for instance.  But
> >for proposed Wikimedia projects which just haven't been fleshed out
> >enough to stand on their own, I don't think it's appropriate to host
> >them on Jimmy and Angela's private server.  You seem to agree with me,
> >and that's good.
> >
> Wikicities could still be used for projects that do not meet Meta's
> insemination criteria.
>
> >>I do want to emphasis, however, that Wikibooks is not the place to do
> >>this either.  This is a need for a whole new project altogether.
> >>
> >>
> >Wikibooks isn't the place for incubation of new projects, I agree.
> >And I can see the argument that Wikiversity goes beyond the original
> >scope of Wikibooks.  Essentially I feel that Wikiversity is a superset
> >of Wikibooks.  For that reason I don't really feel comfortable saying
> >that Wikiversity should be a separate project, I'd rather see
> >Wikibooks expanded to include other materials.  But I'd be willing to
> >concede that point, in fact I essentially have.
> >
> >As for Wikijunior, well, I find it hard to see how that's not a book,
> >but that's a completely different discussion.
> >
> The discussions for Wikiversity and Wikijunior have been going on for
> some time already.  Whatever one thinks of them, I don't think that
> their issues are the kind that would be solved in a seed project.  The
> purpose of a seed project would be primarily to see if there is enough
> interest to sustain an otherwise acceptable project.  The problems
> connected with Wikiversity and Wikijunior are different; I have no doubt
> that if started both could easily meet the participation critera..
> Neither project should be a part of this discussion.
>
> >>Are you interested in helping me with organizing that project? The
> >>Foundation board has talked about this issue from time to time, but
> >>there is a need to really sit down and try to come up with the
> >>guidelines for when a project can be started on the incubator/test wiki.
> >> This is a policy issue rather than a technical issue.  This is also
> >>something that rather than an abstract idea, there needs to be something
> >>written as a formal proposal with debate over the principle ideas for
> >>how the whole process would work.  Eventually it would also require a
> >>change in the New Projects policy as well, with the ability to both
> >>create and cull projects from the incubator Wiki.
> >>
> >>
> >I'd be willing to help.  But in my opinion the guidelines should be
> >very minimal, maybe two or three interested sponsors and a one page
> >project proposal (which could be modified as the idea gets fleshed
> >out).  It's kind of the whole point of the wiki to make the threshold
> >very low - unless there's a strong majority sentiment that the project
> >could never become a Wikimedia project would I suggest removing
> >something (barring a project which took up enormous resources,
> >anyway).
> >
> >And yes, it'd be useful to change the whole policy for new projects to
> >basically state that you have to make a test run on the incubator wiki
> >first, but that's really a separate issue which could be hashed out
> >later.  Along those same lines I'd like to see the more borderline
> >AFDs copied over.  If Wikipedia decides to get rid of info about
> >Pokemon maybe it could be made into a proposed project there
> >(elementary schools which are considered non-notable might be a more
> >reasonable candidate).
> >
> No!!!  It should not be a trash dump for Wikipedia's problems.  I think
> that Wikibooks has complained about taking on that role, and rightly
> so.  The AfDs can cover a very wide range of subjects,  but these are
> individual articles, not projects.  There is nothing in the broad topic
> of Pokémon or elementary schools to suggest that it should belong to a
> new Wiki.  Those problems are only about data inclusion, and could
> easily be solved in a collaborative community.
>
> Ec

I think we have very different views as to what a Wiki Incubator would
be.  I don't really see the purpose as guaging interest, but more of
answering questions and building a core community.  In that sense I
think something like Wikiversity would be perfect for it - yes,
there's no lack of interest, but there are a number of questions to
the point where approximately 1/3 of Wikimedians don't even think it
should be a project.

I also don't see why a wiki for game cards or for elementary schools
or for (to use another example) dead people wouldn't make a good wiki.
 In fact, at some point or another I've proposed the latter two as
projects.

Finally, whatever Wikicities wants to do is up to it.  We're talking
about a small little site that pretty much no one has heard of.  I
really don't think it matters what they're trying to do.  Wikimedia
should make its policies for Wikimedia, and Wikicities can figure out
how to deal with that.

Anyway, I can't edit on meta, and you seem to have a much different
idea of an incubator wiki anyway.  Besides, the idea has been floating
around for months already.  The cynic in me thinks that the red tape
to create a project is probably too great, especially a project which
threatens to "end up being a fork of" Angela's website.

Anthony