On 1/29/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's exactly what we have wikiprojects for!
Perfect textbook example
of a good role for them - organising coverage on a specific subject,
getting the infrastructure (names, redirects) in place that they can
then come back and work on content
Ah, yes, this is true to an extent. WikiProjects are definitely better
than nothing. Their two weaknesses are their self-inflicted lack of
teeth (that obsequiously inoffensive nonsense "We're just a bunch of
people who came up with some ideas that we would love you to just
ignore, thanks!") and the lack of a meta-WikiProject.
That is, WikiProjects are self-declared managers of a particular
domain. But who manages the WikiProjects? Who decides "Our coverage of
Iranian dung beetles is inadequate, let's fix that?" Also, where is it
written that all WikiProjects should obey a couple of defined
conventions? And what happens to articles that aren't covered by any
WikiProject at all?
I have a feeling that the Wikipedia 1.0 project is supposed to answer
some of these questions but I haven't heard from them much lately.
Probably because they're actually getting on and doing good work
rather than being noisy and annoying like AfD. :)
Is this true? Is W1.0 doing what I described?
Steve