[Wikipedia-l] No new wikis

[steve vertigo]

I agree with all of what Eric wrote below, except
that"Wiktionary was a good idea."  It was not a good
idea to start a sectioned, English only dictionary.
The merits of the idea would have been rested in a
facile connectivity to the main Wp, and for it to be
international. The [[wiktionary:article]] link is not
facile -- it should just be [[d:article]] -- like the
[[w:article]] link on wiktionary and meta.

As for internationality -- From wikitionary main page:
"Please note that this is the *English Wiktionary:
while it aims to describe all words of all languages,
the definitions and descriptions are in English only.
Similar Wiktionaries in other languages will be set up
gradually." 

Fortunately, this kind of above nonsense is being
actively contradicted : as in:
http://wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A3%AB
http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Cake  etc...

All suggestions improvements best understood with
time.  ;) Im out of time,
-s-

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> I am a bit concerned about the pace at which new
> Wikipedia spinoff  
> projects are created. Wiktionary was a good idea,
> because it filled a gap  
> that was there -- we received lots of dictionary
> entries, so it seemed  
> like the logical conclusion to start a
> wiki-dictionary.
> 
> But now we have a new "Textbook-Wiki" which was
> started without much  
> discussion - possibly a good idea, but also possibly
> too specific - and  
> shortly afterwards, a "Wiki-Quote" project was
> created. Now people are  
> talking about creating a "Wiki-Piki" for pictures.
> 
> This is all nice and good, but haven't we learned
> anything from the  
> Wiktionary experience? Wiktionary was set up without
> much thought as to  
> how the wiki process could be applied to a
> dictionary; it took months to  
> formulate some kind of standard template, and we
> still don't have  
> Wiktionaries in other languages. Wiktionary could
> have benefitted a lot  
> from better planning before it was set up. I'm not
> sure I like the Wiki- 
> Quote idea at all, as it intersects a lot with
> Project Sourceberg, is not  
> very wiki-like (a quote is a quote) and not very
> compatible with the open  
> content idea. Wiki-Quote was only very briefly
> discussed.
> 
> Furthermore, it's not exactly like we have lots of
> free resources. Our  
> database server, pliny, is down on its knees, the
> full text search on the  
> English wiki is now permanently disabled, we have
> only a couple of active  
> server administrators, and hardly enough developers
> to address problems in  
> the software.
> 
> I propose that
> 1) we do not start any new Wiki spin-off projects
> until our current  
> resources have been substantially expanded;
> 2) we formalize a process for starting such
> projects, e.g. a planning  
> period of at least 3 months on Meta with exact
> specifications as to what  
> is to be placed there. After this period, users on
> the Meta wiki should  
> vote on whether the new wiki should be set up or
> not. 3 months may seem  
> long, but if interest can't be kept up that long,
> the idea may not be so  
> great after all.
> 
> Otherwise I see the danger that we'll end up with
> lots of nice ideas that  
> all go nowhere, like the sep11.wikipedia.org (which
> IMHO should never have  
> been set up in the first place).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com