[Foundation-l] Re: a crazy idea...

Tue Sep 6 18:30:12 UTC 2005

Dan Grey wrote:

> On 30/08/05, Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de> wrote:
> 
>>Hi all,
>>
>>When I thought about some of the latest discussions on the list and
>>meta-wiki here, I had a little crazy idea.
>>
>>The Wikimedia Foundation website was created a few months ago because we
>>wanted something clean and clear to present to outside visitors. People
>>shouldn't have to dive in the mess on meta-wiki for getting information
>>about Wikimedia.
>>
>>However, this plan didn't work out in my opinion. WMF wiki isn't
>>regularly updated, people aren't sure what should be on meta and what on
>>wmf, content is duplicated on meta-wiki, translations have to be
>>regularly moved from meta to the wmf wiki and so on.
>>
>>In my opinion, there are three options:
>>* we can continue like this and try to make the best out of it
>>* we can drastically reduce the number of pages on WMF, limit the
>>translations and make it a very simple information site (similar to what
>>was done on http://www.wikimedia.de, the german associations site)
>>* or we can reunify meta-wiki and the WMF wiki under
>>http://www.wikimedia.org
>>
>>Before some of you call now "impossible", I'd like you to think about
>>it. We've managed to build an encyclopedia which is visited by thousands
>>of people daily in a wiki. Of course, sometimes you find goatze on the
>>main page - that's wikipedia. If an open wiki is acceptable for the most
>>famous encyclopedia on the internet, it isn't for the little
>>organization behind? Do we really need a classical website, with all its
>>failures? Can't we just be proud of what we do and say: Yes, we build an
>>encyclopedia in a wiki - and our organisation website is a wiki, too.
>>
>>and as wikipedia proves, you can organize a wiki in a way that visitors
>>are able to find the stuff they want to know - professional looking
>>mainpage etc. It just has to be done, and I think the community of
>>wikimedians which is populating meta-wiki is now big enough to do this.
>>  Important and official pages can be protected, inofficial opinion
>>pages can be marked with templates...
>>
>>If we want something not to be known, it should be done in a closed wiki
>>anyway - as the google case has shown, the press isn't able to
>>differentiate anyway between something said officially on the WMF
>>website and something on a page on meta. There are multiple ways to make
>>clear what is official or not, to lead the press to specifically
>>dedicated pages while also providing different information for the wiki
>>experienced community. And if a reporter finds the "List of wikipedians
>>by favoured ice-cream flavour", so what? that's our community.
>>
>>Test wikipedias would be moved from meta to somewhere else, as well as
>>the mediawiki documentation (there is now a dedicated mediawiki wiki) to
>>not clutter up recentchanges anymore.
>>
>>Unifying meta and wmf would also help to bridge the slowly growing gap
>>between the community and the organisation Wikimedia. Since Wikimedia
>>depends on the work of volunteers, I see this as a rather dangerous
>>thing. It more and more becomes "they and us" while it should be "we".
>>
>>Last but not least I have to admit, that I feel that there are simply
>>too many wikis and websites to keep track. On my list (incomplete):
>>* german wikipedia, english wikipedia, commons, mediawiki wiki,
>>developer wiki, meta-wiki, german board wiki, german wikimedia website,
>>wikimedia foundation website, chapter wiki, grants wiki (as good as
>>closed), otrs
>>
>>So, I propose this for consideration and for discussing the idea to
>>death, as usual ;-)
>>
>>greetings,
>>elian
> 
> 
> An excellent analysis with good ideas. However, I sense a general
> feeling of apathy about these matters, so I expect to see little done.
> 
> The situation is quite bizarre - there are probably around a dozen
> different sites or pages of sites giving information about Wikimedia
> and the MediaWiki software. Some have been abandoned and some haven't.
> It's practically impossible to tell which is correct and up-to-date,
> and which is fossil.
> 
> Part of this is of course down to the fact that if anyone did try and
> change anything, someone else would revert straight away. It's a bit
> like instruction creep: people have added their own little sites and
> ideas on how things should be over time, and now we have the sprawling
> network outlined above.
> 
> Possibly the only group with enough clout to resolve this issue is the board. 
> 
> 
> Dan

I have not been able to make up my mind. So I wait for feedback :-)

ant