"MZMcBride" <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote in message
news:C9BBCF19.1056A%z@mzmcbride.com...
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
Yeah, the local CSS/JS cruft is definitely a
problem. I've tried doing
clean-up on a few wikis, but I usually just get chewed out by the local
admins for not discussing every change in detail (which obviously
doesn't scale for fixing 200+ wikis). I would love to hear ideas for how
to address this problem.
This caught my eye as Wikimedia has far more than 200 wikis. There seems
to
be a shift happening within the Wikimedia Foundation. The sister projects
have routinely been ignored in the past, but things seem to be going
further
lately....
Personally, I'm in favor of disbanding all of the projects that Wikimedia
has no intention of actively supporting in the near-future or even
mid-range
future. I think the current situation in which certain sister projects are
supported in name only is unacceptable to the users and to the public.
MZMcBride
I would be very interested to hear what criterion you would use to separate
out a group of 200 (or any number other than zero, one or all [1]) wikis
which are "maintained" from the rest which are "unmaintained"; where
the
distinction in quality of service, the ratio of Foundation resources to
userbase or readership, or any other meaningful statistic, showed any
obvious jump across the boundary. You would need to be able to show such a
thing in order to make anyone believe that there is any "intention" (or lack
thereof) for the Foundation to do anything with the sister projects.
It's one thing to argue that more of the Foundation's resources should be
directed to particular projects; that's a perfectly reasonable discussion,
but for foundation-l, not here. It's quite another to argue that an
arbitrary number (don't forget that Ryan is referring to the number of wikis
with broken JavaScript which are unable to fix it themselves, not any
attempt to count every wiki in the cluster) represents some freudian slip
into some diabolical scheme or even into a subconscious mindset. Even if
that is what you want to claim, that belongs in foundation-l as well. "Our
shell request workflow could use work" is a time-honoured topic which comes
and goes and seems to be in a relatively successful era at the moment.
Anything more political than that has nothing to do with, and no place on,
wikitech-l.
--HM
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity