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

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 13:50:38 UTC 2008


Hoi,
When a project with no activity for a long time has 900 articles and 50% of
the basic messages localised, it can be considered for closure. The only
moment when you consider criteria is based on the present moment. What do
you expect ?

It is in my opinion within the bounds of what is reasonable. If as a
consequence of a proposal for closure people are found to reinvigorate that
project, I would count it a successful conclusion. If nobody cares and the
project is closed, it is sadly a successful conclusion.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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