[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

[Anthere]

David Gerard wrote:
>> Can you give us a little more context? I can see that there is a
>>proposal to create a separate meta wiki just for the english
>>wikipedia, presumably because many things currently on meta.wikipedia
>>are not really applicable to other wikipedias?

Uh. No.
The proposal born from the fact several editors from the english 
wikipedia recently decided to entirely fix meta as they believed it was 
best. THeir work to categorize meta generally met approval. Their work 
to clean meta (understand speedy delete) generally met opprobe.

So, we are trying to find a common ground so that both deletionnists 
(the group of newcomers) and inclusionnists (meta people) be both happy.

> This isn't a proposal for an English meta at all. It was an attempt to
> make Meta actually useful as a cross-project work wiki, rather than a
> disorganised collection of historical documents with a few working
> pages camped out in the archaeological rubble.

POV :-)

> Linuxbeak started the latest attempt ( [[m:WM:OM]] ); Jimbo gave his
> blessing, but warned that many had tried and failed before. The reason
> appears to be that there are enough people who like it as it is that
> they don't care it's all but unusable and frequently actively
> misleading, and that those of us who would like a cross-project work
> wiki are regarded as a bunch of dicks for trying.

Yup.

> Anthere has also said, when asked directly, that there is an active
> meta community but they don't actually do their work on meta, rather
> on mailing lists and IRC. Which doesn't sound to me like a work wiki,
> but evidently does to her and others. So I proposed a "meta2", which
> can actually be used as a work wiki. The current meta incumbents have
> decided this is in fact a proposal for an en: wikipedia Meta, when it
> wasn't actually anything of the sort, but anyway.


Uh ?

David is slightly arranging propositions the way he sees fit. No, meta 
incumbents have not decided in any way that it was a proposal for 
en:wikipedia. "Meta incumbents" are probably quite perplex with the 
proposal at all...

Let me copy here LinuxBeak proposal so that you understand better...




Alex writes


Well, besides from being a clean canvas that we can work from, it would
boast some things that Meta currently does not:

A.) It would be heavily based upon most of the policies from en.wikipedia.
Some things can change, but it will be a site designed with the purpose of
being an extention of en.wikipedia instead of an entirely separate project.
Meta2 will exist for Wikipedia instead of being a standalone project.

B.) Seeing that it is being built from the ground up, it will be several
exponential degrees easier to keep things organized in a clear and concise
manner. Read: categorization.

C.) It would be much cleaner and accessible by regular Wikipedians. Meta as
it stands right now frightens many people on en. I know... I've talked to
them.

D.) Old material three years from now would be in a category called
"archive" or something akin.

E.) It would have the potential expandability that Meta boasts, except in a
more defined and controlable setting.


--Alex



> Meta is evidently not a cross-project work wiki or service wiki for
> other projects, but a separate community unto itself, somewhat like
> Commons. (Recall en:'s problems with vandalism of images stored on
> Commons, and how we eventually had to resort to storing featured
> images directly on en: owing to the recalcitrance of Commons admins
> who insisted they were an independent project, never mind Commons was
> *invented* as a service wiki.) I'm not entirely sure what the point
> is, but I'm sure someone will follow up with what makes a wiki where
> the community do their actual work in IRC and mailing lists into a
> work wiki whose use is clear to those not in the inner circle.
> 
> 
> - d.

I am glad :-)
You admitted there was a meta community ;-)
Note : a *meta* community, not a *wiki* community ;-)
Thanks David

ant