[Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.

[Mark Williamson]

Alright, then... why the proposal to close projects? If, after all,
people are already proposing to close them on their own. What is wrong
with the existing system?

I think we should just say that as long as a Wiki has over 1000
non-bot generated articles, it may *not* be closed by a simple vote; a
Wiki may not be re-proposed after it has failed to be closed; and
beyond that let the existing system work its magic.

Mark

On 11/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  My time is better spend supporting OmegaWiki and Betawiki. The way I try to
>  accomplish things is different from you. My time is better spend doing the
>  things that I do. The things that I understand. I said it before, we want by
>  and large the same thing but we go about it in a different way. You way of
>  doing things does not work for me. And yes, I do support particular
>  languages .. to do that I exchanged for instance e-mails with a professor
>  today.
>  Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
>  On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > >  At the same time there is an increasing group of people that object to
>  > all
>  > >  the projects that are for intends and purposes dead. The creation of
>  > the
>  > >  Incubator, the policies of the language committee and now the proposed
>  > >  criteria for the closure of projects are all intended to make sure that
>  > >  there are some minimal criteria that intend to ensure that as many
>  > projects
>  > >  as possible will do well.
>  >
>  > Let them object. Their criteria seem to be far less stringent than
>  > yours -- the vote to close the Chamorro Wikipedia ended at a
>  > standstill with no clear consensus either way. If people want to vote
>  > to close the Kanuri Wikipedia, as they already did, then why can't we
>  > let them?
>  >
>  > >  I am not God, and you are not a boy putting his finger in the dyke. We
>  > both
>  > >  cannot prevent people to object to moribund projects. What we can do is
>  > stem
>  > >  the flow and provide objective criteria that will streamline the flow
>  > and in
>  > >  that way we can prevent damage.
>  >
>  > Damage, of what type? Any time somebody has made a seemingly frivolous
>  > proposal (although both proposals had good reasons: Lombard and
>  > Yiddish), it was soundly defeated in a poll. And if anyone ever voted
>  > to close a Wikipedia that should obviously remain open by any sane
>  > criteria (say, Catalan or Venetian), I am confident that someone would
>  > intervene.
>  >
>  > >  Jimmy has his contacts, the WMF has its contacts, I have mine and so do
>  > you.
>  > >  When we want to have more languages supported with a Wikipedia we can
>  > tell
>  > >  them about it, we can be enthusiastic about it but in the final
>  > analysis it
>  > >  is the people that have to do the work. You can lead a horse to water,
>  > you
>  > >  cannot make it drink.
>  >
>  > The problem is that we are not leading enough "horses" right now. When
>  > is the last time you have e-mailed a Guamanian guy to let him know
>  > that the Chamorro Wikipedia exists? Or asked for help from some
>  > organization that aims to promote the culture of the Marshall Islands?
>  > These people and organizations do exist, and I (and others) have
>  > solicited similar help before for other projects, with some success.
>  > It's been a while since I sent such an e-mail, but I have found they
>  > helped with: Malagasy, Maltese, Sicilian, Friulian, and several
>  > others.
>  >
>  > Mark
>  >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>  > foundation-l mailing list
>  > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>