[Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?

James Alexander jalexander at wikimedia.org
Tue Aug 14 01:18:59 UTC 2012

I'll weigh in on wiki later today or tomorrow (I've been very sick and
haven't been on much) but I did want to put in a couple of my thoughts:

   - Part of me doesn't have an enormous issue with merging content into
   meta if people really want it though I don't think it helps much
   - I think creating StrategyWiki as it's own entity when it was done
   was necessary and important. I don't think the strategy process would have
   been as successful without doing it.
   - I don't think that creating strategyWiki was part of a 'fad' by the
   foundation or others to create new wikis. We have certainly
   created separate wikis which I do not think needed to be made (and hurt
   their purpose) but Strategy was not one of them and, if anything, was the
   'start' of the fad and, like most fad starters, was the one with the
   most legitimate reasons. Everyone follows the trendsetter because they want
   their results, but forget that they're different.
   - There are many reasons the separate wiki was/is good but to keep it
   short I'll give the biggest one: The StrategyWiki required a fresh
   community with as much activity and new blood as possible from around the
   projects and the movement as a whole. Meta was not, and is not, a fresh
   community. It does many things well but it is still it's own community with
   it's own rules and structure. Sadly you just can't invite a fresh, new
   community into an old community (it's the same reason the travelWiki
   proposers were saying that it would be best to start off with a fresh, new,
   name etc). I don't think it would have done as well if it didn't have the
   flexibility that a new community allowed (turning on liquid threads for
   example etc).

Overall I think the strategy project actually showed that splitting off to
a new wiki can be helpful at times and I think that it should be done for
the new strategy plan (likely to start next year, at the latest, I'd
imagine) should do the same and either use Strategy or a new wiki. Using
Strategy would probably be best and keeping the historic pages could be


On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mono <monomium at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please weigh in at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Strategy_Wiki
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Katie Chan <ktc at ktchan.info> wrote:
> > On 12/08/2012 16:45, MZMcBride wrote:
> >
> >> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> >>
> >>> It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was
> >>> "popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of
> >>> using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or
> >>> disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole
> >>> movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA
> >>> decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what a WCA is.
> >>
> >>
> > <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_**Association<
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association>
> > >?
> >
> > KTC
> >
> > --
> > Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> >     - Heinrich Heine
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

James Alexander
Manager, Merchandise
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list