[Foundation-l] New Project Process

John Vandenberg jayvdb at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 04:42:41 UTC 2012

The policies of each project are different for a very good reason.

e.g. If English Wikiquote was merged into English Wikipedia, the vast
majority of the quote pages would be deleted very quickly, for good or
ill.  I know I would be the first to get out the sickle. :P

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Carlos Felipe Antonorsi
<carfelant at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone, I'm "new" on the list and this is my fist email, but I've been
> reading for a while(I'm from es.wiki). I support what Jürgen said, Most of
> the Wikimedia projects are not very popular (with the exception of
> Wikipedia and maybe commons). I talk about what I've read and listened to
> people totally ignorant about what the wiki is, If there could be a way we
> could incorporate other projects to wikipedia it would be perfect.
> You've never heard in the news things about Wikiquote or Wikiversity, it's
> always about Wikipedia. It would seem that the best thing we could do to
> help improve the participation on those projects would be to merge them in
> to the most popular project: Wikipedia
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jürgen Fenn
> <schneeschmelze at googlemail.com>wrote:
>> Am 3. April 2012 22:22 schrieb Samuel Klein <sjklein at hcs.harvard.edu>:
>> > Ziko:
>> >> 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.
>> I would like to add another option: Who not merge all projects into
>> Wikipedia proper? The lack in participation in the sister projects is
>> largely due to the fact that hardly anyone knows about them. Wikipedia
>> is the only Wikimedia brand people know of. There is nothing you can
>> do about it. If the sister projects were living in their own
>> namespaces within Wikipedia this would be different. We would have,
>> say, a Wikipedia dictionary. They would become part of Wikipedia and,
>> hence, partaking in Wikipedia's popularity. Putting money in sister
>> projects just means wasting funds. The future lies in integrating them
>> into Wikipedia. Five years of experience is enough to tell.
>> Regards,
>> Jürgen.
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> --
> -cfa
> Carlos Felipe Antonorsi G.
> 0416-6852535
> @antonorsi
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

John Vandenberg

More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list