[Foundation-l] RFC: A Wikipedia/etc.-like Web Directory (e.g: dmoz.org, the old dir.yahoo.com , etc)

[David Goodman]

This works for the notable things that are in Wikipedia. The point of
a project like this would be to go one step further, and have a  open
content  directory, not  based on advertising , that would cover the
local and hobbyist material that either does not make it into
Wikipedia or that is frequently challenged there.  Names that i think
indicate the purpose would be Wikipedia2 or Wikilocal. Whether the
Wikimedia foundation is open to the possibilities of an additional
project would be another matter, but there could be another home for
it. I hope that they would consider doing it themselves, for it would
benefit greatly from their sponsorship, their established procedures,
and their commitment to both free copyright and freedom from
advertising.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have just seen a list of the Wikimedia projects and noticed that the
> last one was created in 2006, is that right?
> In spite of all sympathy for a Wiki-directory I am afraid that
> partially Wikipedia already has taken over that part. When I am
> looking for the web site of a museum I tend to go to the Wikipedia
> article about that museum and look there under "Weblinks".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> 2009/10/27 Bod Notbod <bodnotbod at gmail.com>:
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif at iglu.org.il> wrote:
>>
>>>> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
>>>> directory" section of:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>>
>> One workaround I've found is to add a "resources" section to the
>> /talk/ page and list sites there. I've been responsible for a few
>> rather long 'external links' sections and have been disappointed to
>> see them trimmed because I felt all of the links I provided were valid
>> (in that they provided substantial information not easily included in
>> the article [for example, on an article about an author including
>> links to articles written by them] or hosted images that we couldn't
>> use [particularly useful for modern artists]).
>>
>> With the section on the talk page I added my recommendation that the
>> section should not be archived when the talk page grew large as I felt
>> the section would remain of value to editors and ought to remain
>> relatively prominent.
>>
>> It's not an ideal solution because there's not much you can do with
>> the section other than edit/add to it. But I felt it was a good
>> compromise for those times when I was in disagreement with another
>> editor over the external links section.
>>
>> I tend towards the "argh, no, not another project" view on things. I
>> think because, and perhaps this is unfair, I dislike that they may
>> drain talent and resources away from the encyclopedias.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>