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

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 11/15/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> 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.
>>    
>>
>I think it's more than that.  There are a lot of people who want
>Wikipedia to look more like a finished product than a perpetual work
>in progress.  Daniel P. B. Smith is one of the most outspoken in this
>regard, but there are many others who also feel this way.  If we're
>going to reach a compromise, it has to take these points into
>consideration.
>
I don't like to characterize specific people in this general context.  
In broad terms I think that Wikipedia owes its success to being a work 
in progress.  Wikipedia used to have a rule: "Always leave something for 
someone else to do."  I don't know if it's still there.  It would be 
wrong to interpret that as meaning that you should leave something that 
you know out of an article. It is enough to say that you don't have to 
go overboard to get every last fact about your subject; let someone else 
have the fun and go on to what you are good at.  Wikipedia will never be 
perfect, or at least I hope it never will be.  And if you do want your 
work to be perfect then don't expect it of anybody else.

>There needs to be a place where we can experiment with new ideas more
>freely.  You could argue that that should be in Wikipedia itself, but
>if so then there'd need to be a more static version in place first. 
>Creating a new test project *is* a compromise.  It's saying "this idea
>isn't completely developed yet to where there is a consensus for
>including it in the main project, but we're not going to throw it away
>just because of that."
>
It's going to be a combination.  If the matter is encyclopedic by nature 
the experimentation should be in Wikipedia, but the experiment should 
not be shot down before it even has a chance.  Ditto for the sister 
projects.  If a proposal has characteristics significantly different 
from those of any sister project, only then should an entirely new 
project be considered.

>>Until Wikipedia came along on-line genealogy was already
>>perhaps the best self-organized amateur research area on the net.
>>    
>>
>Again this is largely proprietary and filled with barriers to the
>information being free.  I can't think of any other major site which
>allows for even the basics of what a wiki could offer.  There may be
>some minor sites out there doing this, but Wikimedia could do a much
>better job.
>
To get a grasp of what's being done in genealogy go to 
http://www.cyndislist.com/ .  Most of these sites are run by amateurs, 
but there are certainly some big ones that are in the business to make 
money ... but then Wikipedia has mirror sites trying to make a buck 
without contributing anything to the world's knowledge.  I don't know of 
any genealogical sites built on a wiki principle, but that's not 
essential.  The on-line genealogy community includes a disproportionate 
number of seniors who learned their limited computer skills from their 
grandchildren.  It's like no other major on-line community.

>>We have had our own 9-11 Wiki, but that has not exactly been a memorial
>>success.
>>    
>>
>I think this is largely because it's not a very expandable project. 
>The number of dead people in the world is much greater than the number
>of people who died in the September 11th tragedy, and the former is
>growing every moment.
>
Sure it's expandable.  We don't easily run out of tragedies.  It would 
need to be renamed and repackaged with a broader mandate.  It doesn't 
grow because its mandate is too narrow.

>Anyway, some of these projects will fail, and others will succeed. 
>There is only so much volunteer time to go around, after all.  But I
>don't think it's really possible to figure out which ones are which
>without going ahead and trying it.  Perhaps most importantly, the harm
>is negligible.  A project which doesn't succeed isn't going to use up
>very many resources, after all.
>
There will be a point with some projects when you will see that it's 
going nowhere, and so it is time to delete it.  What criteria do you use 
to determine that point?

Ec