[Foundation-l] New Project Process

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Interesting. Please allow me to second that with the proposal to
reconsider existing projects. For example, what would a WMF evaluation
of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such a project, or
at least cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages? Or invest money
in promoting it?

Kind regards
Ziko




2012/4/3 Samuel Klein <sj at wikimedia.org>:
> With the launch of the WikiData effort, I am reminded that we should
> return to our early willingness to experiment with new project ideas.
> This means both starting new types of projects (like commons, like
> wikidata!) and closing / archiving / spinning off projects (like the
> sep11 wiki).
>
> Two things I would love to see in the near future:
>  - a fixed new-project process, and at least one proposal evaluated
> through it.  Starting to work through the backlog of new project
> ideas/requests that have existing active projects elsewhere
>  - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we are
> as a society towards reaching that goal
>
> SJ
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel Klein <sj at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> I would love to see the new project process on Meta come back online.
> (much of this email is posted to [[m:talk:new project proposals]])
>
> I could use some help in making this happen - we need to start an
> incubator process for ideas with support, and a separate process for
> proposing existing projects that have been incubated elsewhere for
> support or hosting.   The meta page for each proposed project should
> track its progress, whether offsite or on the incubator...  a project
> infobox should be designed... an interested group (if less formal than
> langcom) should go through and review the backlog of proposals and
> suggest the necessary next step for each.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
>
> A space to hold POV debates would be an interesting intermediate
> ground between no-restraint edit wars and topic bans, for those in
> heated argument.  Is Wikinfo designed for this?  I was thinking of
> something more like 'Wikireason'.  There have been various proposals
> for an 'argument wiki' over the years, but I've never seen a working
> implementation.
>
>> I have actually been independently trying to think of other wikis that
>> should be "sister projects".   Some are really obvious and
>> non-controversial--
>
>> SNPedia, for example, an encyclopedia of single nucleotide polymorphisms and related studies
> Yes.  Link:  http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/SNPedia
>
> Genealogy:  WeRelate and Rodovid.  Both remarkable and lovely
> projects.  Combinable, if all parties could be brought together.
> Both could use support; I've touched on the possibility of becoming
> WMF projects with each, and they are willing to discuss it.  The
> result would be by far the largest free collection of genealogy
> information, with support from one of the major libraries studyig and
> archiving related data in the US
>
> Children's encyclopedia: WikiKids, Vikidia, Grundschulwiki, Wikimini.
> These projects could be coordinated better to share ideas and lessons,
> and could use more visibility.  Some people active in these projects
> are already Wikimedians.
>
> Dictionaries: OmegaWiki.  This multilingual dictionary could help
> revamp our toolchain for Wiktionary, which remains a bit broken.
>
> Interface translation: TranslateWiki.  iirc it does not want to be a
> WMF project per se, but could use more explicit support than we have
> given so far.
>
> Citations and bibliography: AcaWiki (and the budding WikiScholar).
>
> Wikified maps: Wikimapia. currently profitable and popular; probably
> fine on their own.  However they use a non-free map stack and use an
> NC license; finding a way to help that project migrate to a free stack
> and license  [now that there is a free orthorectified aerial map
> available http://blog.stevecoast.com/im-working-at-microsoft-and-were-donating-ima]
> would be of benefit to the whole world.
>
>
> Other projects for which there is a supply of raw materials available
> from content donors (which we cannot currently accept):
> * Annotated source materials and their translations:  Part of Wikisource++ ?
> * Translation memory:  Part of Translatewiki++ ?
> * Public datasets: Wikidata
> * Music scores: Wikimusic
>
>
>> We're at the point where the lack of diversity of our English language
>> project 'styles' may be a major factor dissuading new users from
>> participation.
>
> It is certainly one of the factors.
>
>
> Sam.
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
-----------------------------------------------------------