[Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.
millosh at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 12:51:42 UTC 2008
Generally, I agree with you about this issue, however, in some
particular points I do not:
- While your first point is a valid one, I don't think that a problem
with a script should lead to the closure of the project. I would
prefer an ultimatum here, too: If your script problem may not be
solved by computational methods, then you have 2h04m to allow writing
on your project in another script.
- I don't agree that not active projects should be closed if they
represents a valid language. AFAIK, even Swahili Wikipedia is not
quite active and this is a lingua franca of Sub-Saharan Africa. Maybe
such projects should be locked (because of not wasting stewards' time
with dealing with vandalism) with a clear notice (preferably in native
language) which states that "If you are a speaker of that language and
you are willing to contribute there, you should ask for unlocking
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> For quite some time, we have had people arguing for the closure of projects.
> I have seen many arguments pro and against closures. What has been missing
> in all these projects are objective criteria why it makes sense to find
> fault with a project.
> I have come up with three objective arguments.
> - A project is not what it is advertised to be. For instance when a
> language is always written in a particular script, a project in any other
> script is problematic.
> - A project does not have at least 90% of the most relevant messages
> localised. For your information there are only 498 messages in this category
> at the moment.
> - A project should have at least 1000 articles. When there is nothing
> to see what is the point ?
> The first argument is an absolute, never mind the size.
> For the second and third I would argue for closure when both conditions are
> not met. When there is activity in either it may be reason for giving an
> ultimatum. The ultimatum would be that both conditions need to be met within
> three months.
> The most important reason why we need viable projects is because it is sad
> to see so much time wasted by good people on projects that have little or no
> objective value. No value because nobody actively cares. Yes, people may
> come along and get an interest and eventually they will, but time of
> valuable people is wasted now and that provides in my opinion a really
> strong extra argument.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l