[Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Michael Peel <email at mikepeel.net> wrote:

>
> On 2 Sep 2009, at 12:35, David Goodman wrote:
>
> > There is sufficient missing material in  every Wikipedia, sufficient
> > lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
> > earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
> > updating  articles, sufficient potentially free media to add,
> > sufficient needed imagery to get;  that we have more than enough work
> > for all the volunteers we are likely to get.
>
> I apologise for taking this slightly out of context, but it touches
> upon something I've been wondering about recently, which is: do we
> have a complete set of WMF projects?
>
> David focuses on Wikipedia, which is the main project, and also
> touches on Wikimedia Commons. We also have (in no particular order)
> WikiBooks, WikiSource, WikiNews, Wikiversity, Wiktionary, Wikiquote
> and WikiSpecies, in all their various languages. Each of these has
> essentially its own set of volunteers (so I disagree with David's
> assertion at the end of his paragraph - different work brings in
> different volunteers).
>
> The latest* one of these projects is Wikiversity, which opened on 15
> September 2006. That's almost 3 years ago. In terms of internet time,
> that's practically a generation ago.
>
> Do we now have all of the projects running now that we could have
> running? Are all of the gaps in our project coverage already done
> sufficiently well by someone else that we couldn't improve on matters
> by having our own?
>
>
Geographical/atlas/map kind ofproject

granted, there's wikimapia and other external equivalents
but we (Wikimedia) are lacking it



> My personal feeling is that there's plenty of scope for new Wikimedia
> projects. There have been plenty mentioned on this mailing list, or
> on the various wikis, etc.** A wiki version of OpenLibrary is a good
> example of something we could try; even if it failed then it wouldn't
> be time wasted, as the result could be fed into OpenLibrary. So, I
> think the answer to my question is "no".
>
> What could be the cause of this recent dearth of new projects?
>
> Could it be the presence of Wikia?
>
> Are we stuck in the mindset of just Wikipedia + supporting projects?
>
> Is the technical side of things too moribund to easily establish new
> projects?
>
> Are we afraid of trying new things (or worse, unable to try new things)?
>
> Do we lack the leadership to make new projects successful?
>
> Is it a limitation of not being able to make a living from working on
> Wikimedia projects?
>
> Wikimedia is big enough that it can launch new projects very
> publicly, and get a lot of support (both volunteer and financial)
> very quickly. It's widespread enough that you can ask a group of
> people in any room if they know of Wikipedia, and over half of them
> will.*** Actually editing Wikipedia might not appeal to them, but
> working on a different project could, especially if it's in their
> speciality.
>
> One final question: do we need to start looking for project donations
> - i.e. absorbing projects started elsewhere?
>
> Mike
>
> PS: my questions here are posed to be provocative. Please don't take
> them as accurately representing my viewpoints.
>
> * Note that increasing the number of languages that these projects
> use doesn't in my mind count as a new project.
> ** A few of my favourite examples: WikiJournal, publishing scholarly
> works; WikiReview, providing in-depth reviews of subjects; WikiWrite,
> where fiction can be written collaboratively; etc.
> *** Country-dependent. Your language may vary.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>