[Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.
Mark Williamson
node.ue at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 13:41:08 UTC 2008
Indeed - when the only limits are on numbers of things a project has
NOW, regardless of your intentions, under those limits, someone could
propose and delete a Wiki with 900 pages that had 50% of the basic
messages translated.
Certainly, that was not your intention - but that would be the rule.
Mark
On 11/04/2008, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> Gerard,
>
> What you say in the below message is reasonable. Yet, is it not also
> reasonable to infer that your earlier messages have been poorly formulated?
> First and foremost, they have been construed by several list contributors as
> an intent to see projects shut down. Secondly, you've failed to dispel this
> belief to the extent that you felt resorting to "shouting" was appropriate.
>
> My comment added nothing to the discussion at hand, nor was it meant to.
> Thus, I was surprised to get any response to me expressing amusement. Apart
> from being an expression of amusement, it was a gut reaction to seeing what
> I consider one of the cornerstones of constructive Internet discussion
> thrown up. I've shouted in the past month or so, I'll own up to that. I felt
> I was justified when about six hours away from my computer saw well over a
> hundred messages hit this mailing list. However, anyone who doesn't have at
> least a passing familiarity with RFC 1855 should read it stat. Were it up to
> me people would not be allowed on the Internet without passing an
> "Information superhighway driving test" and that would be a part of it, but
> here I digress.
>
> You need to address the concern that has been raised. You may call the
> guidelines you would like to see "objective", you may have no intention of
> seeing any project closed as a result of their introduction, but you will
> not be alone in interpreting and applying them. Could you be introducing
> something that could be "misused" according to how you intend to see things
> progressed? Could someone else come along after you and shut something down
> by interpreting your objective guidelines in a way you had not foreseen? If
> so, then the guidelines still need work.
>
>
>
> Brian McNeil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard
> Meijssen
> Sent: 11 April 2008 15:04
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.
>
> Hoi,
> It is no way to prevail if you ask me, it is only silly. To me it means that
> the thread is not know because otherwise it would be known that this same
> argument has been rehashed several times. Writing in upper case is
> understood as shouting and that is exactly what you do when you are
> frustrated. So it is completely appropriate in this situation as it
> expresses profoundly and effectively my sentiments.
>
> Again, this proposal is about introducing some objective criteria in stead
> of the current situation where anything goes. Again, this proposal is NOT to
> close any projects down. I would personally only consider the closure of
> projects when no activity exist for quite some time.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I can't remember the last time I saw 1855 used to prevail in an argument.
> > However, it never fails to raise a smile when someone cites an RFC.
> > Reminds
> > me of the decades I spent on Usenet. :)
> >
> >
> > Brian McNeil
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chad
> > Sent: 11 April 2008 14:38
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.
> >
> > Please turn off Caps when posting. This has been internet
> > standard since 1995[1]
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855#page-4
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hoi.
> > > I DO NOT PROPOSE TO CLOSE ANY PROJECT
> > >
> > > What I propose is to have at least some objective criteria.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gerard
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I am not exactly sure why everybody really supports this proposal. I
> > can
> > > > only say that if it is accepted most of the minor wikipedias which
> > are
> > > > active on a level of several native speaker contributions per month,
> > will
> > > > be closed. In this case, I will be the first one to encourage them
> > leaving
> > > > WMF and migrating to some more friendly server. As an example, I used
> > to
> > > > be a temporary admin in Lak Wikipedia, which has between 30 and 40
> > > > articles, and I am continuing to monitor the project. There are
> > regular
> > > > contributions from native speakers, but they will probably never
> > localize
> > > > 100% messages since nobody has ever heard of betawiki, and people are
> > only
> > > > interested in editing pages. There is no chance it will reach 1000
> > > > articles in two years, as it has been suggested. I think it is very
> > > > typical of a project open BEFORE the new rules of the language
> > > > subcommittee were established. If you guys want a fork - welcome, go
> > on.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > >> > - A project should have at least 1000 articles. When there
> > is
> > > > >> nothing
> > > > >> > to see what is the point ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It can take a long time for a new project to reach this goal. If
> > we
> > > > >> assume that a self-sustaining wiki project can grow exponentially
> > (at
> > > > >> least at first), the first couple hundred or thousand articles
> > can
> > > > >> take a long time. After this point, however, more articles will
> > > > >> attract more editors, which in turn will produce more articles,
> > ad
> > > > >> infinitum.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would prefer to see a condition which is based on annual
> > growth.
> > > > >> Active editing membership and number of articles should increase
> > every
> > > > >> year by a certain percentage until the project reaches a certain
> > > > >> stable size. For very large projects, such as en.wikipedia, it's
> > > > >> unreasonable to expect continued growth at a constant rate, so we
> > need
> > > > >> to include cut-offs where we don't expect a project to be growing
> > at a
> > > > >> constant rate anymore. Requiring growth in active membership can
> > help
> > > > >> to reduce bot-generated projects like Volapuk which has article
> > growth
> > > > >> but no new members.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 10% article growth per year (which is 100 articles if your
> > project
> > has
> > > > >> 1000) is not an unreasonable requirement. 5% growth in active
> > editors
> > > > >> (1 new editor for a project that already has 20) would not be an
> > > > >> unreasonable lower-limit either. Projects which can't meet even
> > these
> > > > >> modest requirements probably don't have a critical mass to
> > continue
> > > > >> growth and development.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requiring projects to have 1000 articles in a fundamentally flawed
> > > > > proposal, since all projects start out with no articles, so all
> > > > > projects would be immeadiately closed. If you're going to have such
> > a
> > > > > requirement, it would have to only come into force after X years,
> > or
> > > > > something, but then you have issues with when and how to reopen it,
> > > > > and when to reclose it if it still doesn't work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Requiring a certain growth rate sounds good. I think the cut-off
> > point
> > > > > should be quite low (1000 articles, say). I'm not sure what a good
> > > > > rate would be for that first 1000 articles. Does anyone have
> > > > > statistics for how existing projects grew at the beginning? It the
> > > > > growth exponential at the beginning? I would expect not, since you
> > > > > probably get rapid growth during the first couple of months (for a
> > > > > Wikipedia: articles on general topics, geographical articles on the
> > > > > area that speaks that language, etc) which then tapers off as the
> > > > > novelty begins to wear off and then things follow an exponential
> > curve
> > > > > from then on. That's just a guess though, I'd love to see the
> > actual
> > > > > statistics if anyone has collated them.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
mailing list