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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
>> The process to create a new project is far too difficult.  An
>> incubator wiki would facilitate that process.  The fact that
>> Wikicities is already doing something which you feel has overlap (but
>> then later say wouldn't have any overlap), is really irrelevant.
>>
> The process should be that difficult.  The impetus for new projects 
> seems to be more often a reflection of people's inability or 
> unwillingness to look for compromise solutions;  it has very little to 
> do with an objective need for another project.
> One starts from Wikipedia with its set of fundamental principles.  A 
> new project should first of all have a motivation based on a variance 
> of one of those fundamental principles.  The first spin-off was Meta 
> which when I first joined was promoted as a place where one could 
> engage in POV rants that could not be allowed on Wikipedia.  
> Wiktionary was a response to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary".  
> Wikibooks was intended for books (not necessarily strictly 
> *text*books) which required that a subject be treated with more depth 
> than would be possible in an encyclopedia; I've always believed that 
> the "No original research" could be a little more relaxed in a 
> Wikibooks context.
>
> The answer to deletionist controversies should not always be to 
> establish a new project; it should lie in an attempt to find common 
> ground.  That's something which a certain cadre of people on Wikipedia 
> refuses to seriously consider.  I don't know what rules the Wikijunior 
> people have been violating in Wikibooks, but that is an omnous claim.  
> It seems to reflect the usual dynamic conflict between those who want 
> clarity and certainty, and those who treasure innovation as a primary 
> value.  A project has a serious problem when either of those two gains 
> dominance.
>
> Once established I believe in the autonomy of the separate projects, 
> but they still need to have an understanding of where they come from.  
> Autonomy should not be an excuse for excluding what might otherwise be 
> allowed, but this is an extremely difficult problem which can only be 
> addressed with a lot of goowill.
>
> Ec
Hoi,
The idea that "one start from Wikipedia and its fundamental principles" 
is historically true and that is it. Now that there are more projects it 
is better to say that the fundamental principles are the principles 
associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. This implies that it should 
fulfil a position in what the Wikimedia Foundation stands for. The "No 
original research" is sensible for an encyclopaedia but when some 
research leads to a proper Wiktionary description, nobody will complain.

Projects have their autonomy but they are not autonomous in everything; 
the Wikimedia principles should govern what room there is for this 
autonomy. All projects are part of the overall goal of the Wikimedia 
Foundation; to bring information to people in their language. This 
implies that the different project even though they have their autonomy 
are part of this greater goal. It is therefore that in my opinion the 
projects should support each other where applicable. Where more 
information is needed than is provided in Wikipedia, it should be 
possible to easily find it in either Wikibooks, Wiktionary or 
Wikiwhereever. This is important because this is what brings what we do 
together. It limits what a project is and it expands the potential for 
finding the information that is needed.

Thanks,
   GerardM