[Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.
Brian McNeil
brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org
Fri Apr 11 15:03:33 UTC 2008
You don't burn a book because you don't like the number of pages it has.
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 15:51
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.
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
>
_______________________________________________
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