[Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

[Cormac Lawler]

On 3/29/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've just put some notes on
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta#How_not_to_piss_people_off

I've just replied, and copied text of that below.

[snipped text and pasted below]

>
> The essential conflict appears to be between:
>
>    1. Those who want Meta to be a good repository of historical documents
>    2. Those who want Meta to be usable as an active work wiki.
>
> The impetus for this project is that the first function is actively
> hampering the second. The piles of historical stuff masquerade as
> currently useful documents and get in the way of doing work.


Prove it. How are the historical documents actually hampering the
usability of Meta? Point me to a page, category, template, image,
whatever, that is stopping people from doing work on Meta. Since some
people are confused about what goes on Meta, then, of course, this
project is a great opportunity to start addressing that and to bring
about some system for finding current work and how it relates to past
work. But just how is the old stuff really bad? This project doesn't
need to piss people off at all, but, in many cases, it is doing just
that. On this, I agree with Anthere that these categories describing
something as various shades of useless are, themselves, potentially
incendiary. (this text pasted from Meta)

>
> I asked on m:RFA "What is the local community? There isn't one."
> Anthere answered with a *long* paragraph which didn't answer that
> question, answered several I didn't ask and accused me of all sorts of
> things ... I've asked again and await an answer.
>

I go along with Anthere's subsequent response to this. I'll also give
you a picture of my own sense of community on Meta.

I check my watchlist much more regularly on Meta than I do on en:WP.
For the simple reason that it's far more interesting. On en:WP: "Oh
look, someone vandalised this page and then someone reverted it.
Someone made one of the words on this page a hyperlink (yet didn't
create the page). Someone added a category, a language link, a word."
On Meta: "Oh look, someone just proposed a new Wikimedia project.
Someone has just contacted a whole group of academics and invited them
to Wikimania. Someone just added a quiz functionality to their
proposed course for Wikiversity. Someone just added their
Wikimedia-related PhD topic. Someone is testing out a new language
Wikipedia (and i've no idea what that language is).."

I am connected with these people, I know them, I work with them - just
as others do on any active Wikimedia project.

I also value Meta for the sense of Wikimedia community history it
gives me. Wow, arguments between Larry Sanger and Cunctator - great.
Philosophical speculations on what it means to be a Wikimedian -
interesting, sometimes funny. Loosely written, vague, imperfect essays
on issues that arose from conflicts at some time - intriguing, also
funny. I feel connected to Wikimedia through knowing about this.

"Ghost wiki"? My arse. "Unorganised rubbish"? Yes, could do with with
a bit more organisation, yes, some of it is rubbish that any wiki will
accumulate, but be very careful in labelling it so - even "looks
useless" or "apparently irrelevant" (though Category:Possible_deletia
is fine, IMO). Some of these pages are really very valuable, not just
to the "museum staff" but also to the people who wrote them, and to
the Wikimedia community as a whole.


> For now, I suggest appropriate categorisation and tagging (e.g.
> {{historical}} ) will do for the moment. Deletion really isn't urgent
> - it can wait as long as we like for the museum staff to go over the
> artifacts carefully dusting and categorising them further.
>
> Does this sound workable to all?


Yes, this is definitely the way to go, providing it is "appropriate" :-)

Cormac / Cormaggio