[Foundation-l] Re: Poll for Wikistandards

[Robert Scott Horning]

GerardM wrote:

>On 1/27/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
>  
>
>On an other level, when a project can only be considered properly
>discussed when it has been discussed in the same way as the
>Wikiversity project, it denies that it is a different proposal. The
>arguments for these projects are different. Comparing these two
>proposals in such a way serves no purpose.
>
>I did copy the people who indicated their support as voting in favour
>of this proposal. I did this because these people do not frequent the
>Wikimedia projects as a favour. I promissed Oscar that when someone of
>this list would remove all of them. I will.
>
>Thanks,
>     GerardM
>  
>
>  
>
I have been a critic of how bureaucratic the process of becoming a new 
project has become, so in some ways I see what you are doing as a sort 
of breath of fresh air.  It is nice to see that this proposal has been 
moving forward and a serious attempt is being made to get the whole idea 
working.

As far as Wikiversity is concerned, I was just using it as a comparison 
to how perhaps a successful project should be done.  Another very good 
example and the true standard that most new projects are put up against 
is Wikinews and the whole proposal process that got that project going. 
 There was some serious discussion that happened over the course of 
several months including the development of the [[m:Wikinews]] project.

Here is a comparison to the level of discussion I think should be for a 
new project at a similar stage to where Wikistandards should be at. 
 Compare these two pages on Meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews&oldid=72346

and the corrisponding talk page

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikinews&oldid=73381

There is a reason why Wikinews was developed relatively quickly from 
when the proposal was put together and the vote started.  And even that 
wasn't without any hangups or rough spots once it got going.

Ultimately, what you need to do as well is somehow convince the 
mainstream Wikimedia users that this new project is going to be 
developed and can be considered an equal to the rest of the Wikimedia 
sister projects.  Two projects that were started earlier and have been 
struggling since are the 9/11 Memorial Wiki and Wikispecies.  Most of 
the opposition votes on both Wikiversity and Wikinews were to never see 
projects like that started again.  I think it is reasonable to offer a 
comparison to Wikispecies and potentially what Wikistandards may offer, 
even if it is just in contrast in suggesting that a fairly large group 
of individuals is going to get the project going, and that you have a 
reasonable plan to not only deal with potential objections but that you 
also have an idea of where the project will be in a couple of years and 
what the ultimate vision of this project will be.

As for the votes, I was suprised that my name was listed when I know 
that I didn't vote on that page as a vote of support.  Yes, I support 
the idea of Wikistandards, but I know of no other user interest poll 
that started with a bunch of votes already seeded when the survey was 
started.  If you genuinely have the support of these individuals, it 
wouldn't matter if the poll was brand new or not, they would take the 
time and do the voting themselves after they see what their name is 
attached to.  Having organized the Wikiversity vote, I made extra steps 
to make sure that there could not be any objections to any one of the 
votes that were cast in support, and indeed a good number of supporting 
votes were culled before the final count was made.

One other issue that needs to be dealt with immediately is the 
opposition vote by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation board.  This 
proposal is already starting out on the wrong foot if you can't at least 
keep the board members neutral on the idea in a "let's wait and see what 
the community will come up with" attitude.  I would highly recommend 
trying to overcome Angela's objections as this whole thing is going to 
have to end up in formal discussions with the Foundation Board anyway. 
 It would be far better to have a supporter than an opponent on the 
board before the voting ends.

-- 
Robert Scott Horning