Re: [Wikimediameta-l] [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement - Wikimediameta-l

Herby

9 Jun 9 Jun

2:53 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:36:03 +0200, "Guillaume Paumier" <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> said:

Hello, [CCing to wikimediameta-l] On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

Given that I was the one who originally suggested that it would be a good idea to open wmf editing thanks to flaggued revisions, I am not going to say it is a bad idea. However, considering wmf site as the official hosting of information regarding all of our organization would be a huge mistake. WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate website.

I concur ; wikimediafoundation.org is the website of the Foundation, and that's all.

Could this be hosted on meta ? Yes, certainly. At least for a while. But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the main page.

In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation all gather. Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g. [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just like on other Wikimedia projects). I agree that meta tends to be a mess and it should be cleaned up. It's not a new idea (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta ) but the project was abandoned. Some months ago I was thinking about creating a new namespace (say Historical:) to archive all the old stuff and clean up the wiki a bit. In a word, we shouldn't open a brand new community wiki just because we're too lazy to clean up the one we've already got for years. -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] "Scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum." Quintilian

I certainly agree with much of what Guillaume says here. The idea of the new namespace (& I agree Historical:) would be very good indeed. Most new people to Meta find rather strange pages which they tag for deletion only to be told that they are "historical" - I may have been one of them :). A problem with Meta is that quite a few people find it, some edit a bit but few stay & work there. I know we all have limited time and have to decide where we can best/most rewardingly allocate it however Meta really could do with less visitors & more workers. I do not see how creating what appears to be a new meta (in the true sense of the word) site is going to help. Those who deal with meta aspects will then move or whatever & Meta as a whole could be tagged as "historical"? If I can I would certainly help with a clear up of Meta - most of my time there has been devoted to the blacklist & we now finally have rather more people committed to that than in the past. It would be good if this topic continued to be posted to the Meta list as well as foundation for the benefit of those of us who are not currently subscribers to foundation. Thanks -- Herby herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different

Reply

Herby

4:19 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:45:34 +0200, "Florence Devouard" <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> said:

...

Guillaume Paumier wrote:

Hello, [CCing to wikimediameta-l] On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

Given that I was the one who originally suggested that it would be a good idea to open wmf editing thanks to flaggued revisions, I am not going to say it is a bad idea. However, considering wmf site as the official hosting of information regarding all of our organization would be a huge mistake. WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate website.

I concur ; wikimediafoundation.org is the website of the Foundation, and that's all.

Could this be hosted on meta ? Yes, certainly. At least for a while. But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the main page.

In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation all gather. Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g. [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just like on other Wikimedia projects). I agree that meta tends to be a mess and it should be cleaned up. It's not a new idea (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta ) but the project was abandoned. Some months ago I was thinking about creating a new namespace (say Historical:) to archive all the old stuff and clean up the wiki a bit. In a word, we shouldn't open a brand new community wiki just because we're too lazy to clean up the one we've already got for years.

Fair enough :-) I would support the development of two main pages (main and community portal) as well as new workspace "historical" as a start. Ant

The idea of looking at Meta's namespces with a view to creating clarity seems very worthwhile. For example Translations: would make some sense to me & doubtless others can come up with good ones too. Meta is a little "casually" organised and we could improve the structure & work on there quite simply I think. -- Herby herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

Reply

Herby

6:49 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement

Agreed - in tidying up some blacklist stuff today I came across a page about spam blacklisting basically unused for over a year & I thought I knew my way around that subject a bit! (btw if anyone wants to forward my stuff to the foundation list feel free - I'm not subscribed so get bounces & my mail is not behaving today!) Cheers On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:28:26 -0300, "mike.lifeguard" <mike.lifeguard(a)gmail.com> said:

...

I certainly agree that organization at meta is severely lacking. The high-traffic areas with dedicated workers tend to be well-organized specifically because there are few workers, so that's needed for things to run smoothly. But for most of the wiki there is a hodge-podge which is a challenge for even experienced wikimedians to navigate through. Archiving old stuff to a dedicated namespace seems like one very easy way to reduce the clutter. Mike -----Original Message----- From: wikimediameta-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediameta-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Herby Sent: June 9, 2008 6:19 AM To: Meta Wikimedia affairs; wikimediameta-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Cc: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediameta-l] [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:45:34 +0200, "Florence Devouard" <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> said:

Guillaume Paumier wrote: > Hello, > > [CCing to wikimediameta-l] > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>

wrote:

>> Given that I was the one who originally suggested that it would be a >> good idea to open wmf editing thanks to flaggued revisions, I am not >> going to say it is a bad idea. >> >> However, considering wmf site as the official hosting of information >> regarding all of our organization would be a huge mistake. >> >> WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate

website.

> > I concur ; wikimediafoundation.org is the website of the Foundation, > and that's all. > >> Could this be hosted on meta ? >> >> Yes, certainly. At least for a while. >> But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role

of

>> meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to

the

main page.

In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation all gather. Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g. [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just like on other Wikimedia projects). I agree that meta tends to be a mess and it should be cleaned up. It's not a new idea (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta ) but the project was abandoned. Some months ago I was thinking about creating a new namespace (say Historical:) to archive all the old stuff and clean up the wiki a bit. In a word, we shouldn't open a brand new community wiki just because we're too lazy to clean up the one we've already got for years.

Fair enough :-) I would support the development of two main pages (main and community portal) as well as new workspace "historical" as a start. Ant

The idea of looking at Meta's namespces with a view to creating clarity seems very worthwhile. For example Translations: would make some sense to me & doubtless others can come up with good ones too. Meta is a little "casually" organised and we could improve the structure & work on there quite simply I think. -- Herby herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class _______________________________________________ Wikimediameta-l mailing list Wikimediameta-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l _______________________________________________ Wikimediameta-l mailing list Wikimediameta-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l

-- Herby herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service

Reply

Herby

11 Jun 11 Jun

6:12 a.m.

New subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:14:55 -0700, "Michael Snow" <wikipedia(a)verizon.net> said:

...

Guillaume Paumier wrote:

Could this be hosted on meta ? Yes, certainly. At least for a while. But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the main page.

In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation all gather. Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g. [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just like on other Wikimedia projects).

This sounds much more like potential progress than shifting things to a new wiki. I can see Florence's point about the challenges with Meta's main page making it not just a working environment, but a very strange-looking one. I think a more public-facing main page and separate working portal would be beneficial. I note that while I frequently visit Meta (much more than I edit there), I almost never go there through what is now the main page. I usually arrive through links to other pages, and then navigate to anything else I need to look at. I would almost say that its main page, by not knowing which of these purposes it serves, is presently failing at both. --Michael Snow

I have now posted on Meta Babel here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Meta_namespaces about this. I hope people will contribute to "improving" Meta. If anyone would forward this to Foundation-l that would be great. Thanks -- Herby herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web

Reply