[Foundation-l] New Project Process

Samuel Klein sjklein at hcs.harvard.edu
Tue Apr 3 20:22:37 UTC 2012

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We had started a stub table about this:
>> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
> This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.

Thanks for the reminder, Nemo.  I was looking for this on Meta, but
forgot to check the stratwiki.
Embarrassing, since apparently I started the page... :) Liam: another
reason to consider merging meta wikis.

> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such
> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest money in promoting it?

Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
across two wikis.

Liam (paraphrased):
> - "project review" : identify support each project expects from the WMF.
> - "easy improvements with high value". Start with Wiktionary
> - rename Commons to "WikiCommons"? merge WikiSpecies w/ WikiData?
> - merge Outreach, Strategy and MetaWiki --> wikimedia.org
> - lower barriers b/t wikis: global userpages, talk, watchlists

This whole class of brainstorming is important; making it less of a
pain to travel between projects is good for all of them.

> may be we could use the experience of langcom and appoint ten individuals
> who would recommend new proposals to the Board.

That's not a bad idea.


More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list