[Foundation-l] Proposal-Dikimedia (data) vs. Wikimedia (metadata)

[Poe, Marshall]

Re Robin’s good comments, and the ongoing discussion of the purpose of Wikimedia. 

I would say that if WikiMedia is going to host both projects such as Wikipedia and 
Wikisource, it needs to make a clear distinction between the two, because they are 
very different.

Wikipedia is meta data, in this instance encyclopedia-style analysis of entities such as 
(to use my favorite example) the Magna Carta.  As we learn more about the Magna 
Carta (data), the Magna Carta *entry* (meta data) can be changed and improved.

Wikisource is data, in this instance exact copies of the text of historical artifacts. If we 
have an accurate copy of the Magna Carta in Wikisource, it should not be edited. It can 
only become less valuable as it is edited and moves further and further away from the 
original source text.

Wikipedia is an analytic project; Wikisource (and Wikiquote, Wikionary, and 
Wikibooks) are all descriptive projects.  Fully open read/write wikis are appropriate for 
analytic projects—they improve by amendment; Fully open read/write wikis are not 
appropriate for descriptive projects—they decline in value by amendment (assuming we 
have an accurate copy).

The descriptive sites obviously need to limit access, particularly to artifacts deemed by 
the community to be accurate. Why allow people to edit a perfectly good transcription of 
the Magna Carta?  If there is an error, users can bring it to the attention of the community 
and the community can decide; if there is an error in transcription, the edit can proceed. 
If not, then not.

I think it makes good sense to allow any user to *add* a descriptive entry, but that there 
needs to be some vetting procedure for *edits*.  Now, you might say that such sites are not 
really “wikis.” Fine, lets configure Wikimedia software to allow additions of data entries by 
anyone and editing of data entries by some reasonable vetting process. We’ll call it 
something different, and launch a separte entity to host descriptive projects.

How about “Diki,” where “d”is for data or description?  Dikimedia?

(And "diki" means "wild in Russian!)

Best, Marshall

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org on behalf of Robin Shannon
Sent: Sat 9/24/2005 8:40 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Proposing New Projects (was Proposal for anewproject: Wikisomething--repost)
 
I think one of the reasons that new proposals have trouble getting up
is because most of the new proposal ideas just aren't suitable for
wikis. Wikis are not the be all and end all of user driven websites.
There are many, many different paradigms (forums, blogs etc), wikis
are just one of those paradigms. Just  because wikis worked well for
the 'pedia doesn't mean they are going to work well for other things.
I have said it before and i will porbably say it again: we need a
discussion about the future of wikimedia. Are we in the 'buisness' of
wikis, or are we in the 'buisness' of making the sum of human
knowledge avaliable to everyone? If it is the former, we need more
info on the "propose a new project page" about the limitations of
wikis. If it is the latter, then we need some more software tools than
just mediawiki.

paz y amor,
-rjs.

ps. Marshall, best of luck with memoirbank.com

On 9/25/05, Poe, Marshall <MPoe at theatlantic.com> wrote:
> (Sorry, I reposted this because the formatting was a
> mess; should be easier to read now. MP
>
>
> Thanks very much, Robert, for your good comments. They
> are very apt.
>
> I was the proposer of Wikimemory, and you are right
> about my experience, and I suspect those of other
> proposers.  While I would not say that comments on
> Foundation-l were exactly hostile, they were not for
> the most part friendly, supportive, encouraging,
> numerous, or helpful.  A one line reply like "I think
> this project should be on wikicities" is really not
> very satisfying. I, for one, would like an explanation
> of the various POVs shared.  I tried to offer such
> explanations, at length, and with a certain amount of
> reflection and thought.  With one or two exceptions, I
> rec'd nothing of a similar character.  I'm new to
> Wikimedia, but my experience has made me wonder just
> how serious the "new projects" initiative is.  This is
> a shame, because, as you say, well-meaning people with
>  possibly good ideas are being neglected or even
> frightened away.  In the end, if you want to attract
> serious people, you have to be serious.
>
> The fashion in which new projects are vetted at
> Wikimeida is unprofessional. I mean this with no
> disrespect. Perhaps it is impossible for an
> organization such as Wikimedia to be held to such a
> high standard.  Wikimedia does many things very well
> (I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia).  But professionalism
> just might not be in the cards, and perhaps it
> shouldn't be.  Critics (and I guess I'm one of them)
> will say that Wikimedia's new proposals initiative
> fails exactly because it lacks the standard incentives
> and disincentives built into any real business, that
> is, a strong devotion to the mission, strong incentives
> to pursue said mission, and stong dissincentives
> against unprofessional behavior.  In a successful
> enterprise, if you don't do your job well, there are
> consequences.  In this aspect of Wikimedia, there seem
> to be none.  And perhaps there can be none, because we
> are all uncompensated volunteers.  Again, critics will
> say that this once again demonstrates that
> undisciplined organizations just don't perform very
> well.  When everybody is responsible, nobody is
> responsible.
>
> The question, I guess, is this: can people act
> professionally when they have no motivation other than
> that they should?  My experience suggests the answer is
> no, at least in this narrow instance.
>
> I'm withdrawing Wikimemory from consideration as a new
> project, and am pursuing othere means of realizing it
> (see memoirbank.com).  I believe in it, and hope I can
> find others who do to.  Perhaps someday we can begin
> discussion of something like Wikimemory again, after
> the idea has matured.  I would welcome that.
>
> I will, of course, continue to be a huge fan of
> Wikimedia, and will participate in this and other
> discussions of its future.  Wikimedia can become
> something truely great, and I'd like to help.  It's up
> to us.
>
> Good luck with everything.
>
> Best, Marshall Poe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org on behalf of Robert Scott Horning
> Sent: Fri 9/23/2005 6:43 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Proposing New Projects (was Proposal for a
> newproject: Wikisomething)
>
> Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>
> > I want to propose a new idea for a new project: Wikisomething.
> > Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual somethings of all
> > different sorts, therefore it spares us the need to found any new
> > different projects for speficic things. Moreover, we could also
> > integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
> >
> > cordially,
> > Elian
>
> I know this was in jest, but I would like to know if people on this
> mailing are fed up with all of these sort of proposals or if they need
> to be encouraged more.  I've been vocal about this in the past, but my
> impression is that no new major project will ever be started.  Period.
>  If you take a look at the "No" votes for Wikiversity, for example
>
> (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote )
>
> the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some technical issues
> that seem to be preventing new projects from being started.  What are
> those incredible technical issues that are going to force any new
> project from starting for more than a year from now?  Is there any
> reason at all to even encourage anybody to start a new project of any
> kind?  Is a general concensus that new proposals should not even be
> brought up on Foundation-l?
>
> I do believe that at the very least there needs to be a few more steps
> in the development process of a new project proposal before it gets to
> Foundation-l.  I've been a regular contributor to this mailing list now
> for close to a year, and I've seen a dozen or so new project proposals
> get posted, most by very well-meaning people and some of them are very
> well thought out.  There are some proposals that are "not ready for
> prime-time" and perhaps they should be more thought out before they come
> up here.  For most new project ideas, Foundation-l is the very last
> place that anything will be heard about the idea, not the first.
>
> Another related issue is more along the lines of how to publicize the
> kernel of an idea that may be useful but needs a bit more work, such as
> the Wikimemory proposal that has been debated recently.  Requesting help
> for such proposals on this mailing list is throwing the idea before a
> very hostile audience, perhaps unwittingly and certainly without the
> knowledge of new Wikimedia users who happen to come across this mailing
> list as suggested by the New Project Policy.  Perhaps instead of
> announcing the formal new project proposal here, there should be some
> development effort at some Wikiproject or some other sub-community of
> Wikimedia users that are much more receptive of the idea, and can give
> some depth to the idea before it comes here.
>
> At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on new sister
> projects, please make that official policy on the part of the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board and get that stated on the New Project page, and
> perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well.  On the other hand, if
> the board does intend to allow some new projects to be started if they
> are well thought out and have a support community behind them, there
> should be an official policy to silence the critics who seem to speak in
> a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board (even though I know they
> are not board members).
>
> If there are genuine technical issues that need to be addressed so that
> starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than to.wikibooks.org, I
> would like to know what those issues are that developers seem to be
> screaming about.  Get technical and don't sugar coat it either, and if
> possible give hard examples.  If the concern is purely social and
> getting the new project community organized, that may be a legitimate
> concern.  I don't think it is in as many cases as the critics seems to
> believe it may be, and most new projects tend to recruit more people
> than would normally be participating with Wikipedia alone, so I don't
> think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from volunteers.  This is
> also an issue I would be more than willing to debate as well.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


--
Show me the way to go 127.0.0.1, i'm tired and i want to go to bed...

Hit me: <robin.shannon.id.au>
Jab me: <robin.shannon at jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to ubuntu linux: <http://www.spreadubuntu.org/>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l