On 1/29/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@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