Wait, wait. The risk to shut down to get enough consensus to shut down a
project with an active community which is not systematically violating any
fundamental principle is zero.
Vito
Il giorno gio 18 apr 2019 alle ore 10:45 Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> ha scritto:
The difference here being that it is not a
professional system. If you
mess with the crowd the crowd does not generally go where you prefer it to,
it goes home.
Other potential contributors see what has been done, and decide not to
waste their efforts where outsiders can throw their work away. (outsiders
meaning people not from the project that is being closed).
Preserving as read only in another place is far more acceptable and
indicates respect for one's efforts, even when times have changed. Internal
deletion, change and general editing is a completely different issue. It is
a given when you start. It is implied by CC-by-sa licence.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Andy Mabbett
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:50 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
system for our 2030 goals]
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood
<peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a
message to all
volunteers
that their work could be similarly abandoned and
lost one day.
For some value of "lost" - it's likely, in this case, that all the
content would be preserved, either by making the wiki read-only, or
perhaps migrating articles to, say, Wikisource.
Sure, things like some portal pages, templates and categories might be
discarded, but that can happen to the work of any of us, on any
project, anyway.
We have a related, but different, issue at Wikispecies .Technically at
least, that project is now (or could soon be, with a few tweaks)
wholly redundant to Wikidata, and could be populated using
Listeria-like scripts or templates, from what is held in Wikidata.
The Wikispecies community vehemently resist this, and respond with
suggestions that data in Wikispecies (held in a variety of templates,
as well as much unstructured prose) should be what is edited, and
should be used in a reverse of the above process to somehow magically
populate Wikidata.
So we continue to maintain versions of the same data on two (or more:
Wikipedias and Commons also do their own things with biological
taxonomy) vastly different projects, diluting the impact of all of our
volunteer-hours. Anyone who commissioned a system like this in a
professional capacity would be sacked for incompetence.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>