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

[Nathan]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Michael Peel <email at mikepeel.net> wrote:
>
> There's a big difference between starting a new section of something,
> and starting something completely new and fresh. With the former, you
> get all of the baggage of that project so far - e.g. if you want to
> start something slightly different on the English Wikipedia, then you
> have to modify huge numbers of policies, argue with many thousands of
> people, etc. Sometimes it's easier to split something off and do it
> seperately - as WikiSpecies has been doing, for example.
>
> There's also a big difference between testing a project and launching
> a project. Tests are normally small-scale, aimed at just trying
> something out, rather than actually doing a project. It's very
> difficult to establish critical mass with that approach. Launching a
> project involves announcing it loudly to the world, and getting the
> attention of lots of people. As long as the basic idea is sound, you
> then get a large influx of people who want to try it out. Perhaps
> they don't all stick around - but some of them will.
>
> Of course, you can't do either very often, otherwise people will stop
> paying any attention. But for some projects, it could work very well.
> Especially if there's the backing of e.g. a funding body, which could
> easily be attracted now that Wikimedia is so large and popular.
>
> Mike
>

I think you can test a project in the incubator, get an idea of how it
will work, set up the initial structure and *then* launch it publicly.
The publicity part is the simplest. We've got a built-in megaphone;
any launch that is incorporated with the fundraising drive, or given a
similar level of extended publicity on Wikimedia pages, would reach
many millions of people who already appreciate free collaborative
projects. That would require a somewhat different philosophy from the
current approach to "advertising" (not in the commercial sense) the
fundraising drive, which emphasizes minimal intrusion and a
once-a-year limit. Perhaps the community would be more amenable to
Wikimedia-wide publicity if it promoted projects?

I'd like to see a role like that in launches for future projects; the
foundation hasn't been involved in promoting or fostering new projects
in a deep way in the past, from my understanding, and real support
from the moment of establishment would go a long way towards
protecting promising ideas from abandonment in the incubator. Erik's
point is well made, that developing many promising projects beyond the
idea point requires the commitment of resources that remain scarce.
But there are lots of avenues the Foundation can take in this
direction that don't require the direct allocation of foundation
money; a "lesson plan / course material" wiki, or a "student wiki"
designed for collaborative use by students could be developed jointly
with innovative school systems or teacher groups, or even partnerships
between schools in different countries aimed at allowing international
cooperative learning. We may not be able to organically generate the
Wikimedia community interest and expertise necessary for building the
content these projects would need, but with the Foundation as
technological facilitator and enthusiastic booster...

Nathan