[Foundation-l] Proposing New Projects (was Proposal for a new project: Wikisomething)

Tue Sep 27 11:56:35 UTC 2005

--- Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>
a écrit :

> Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> 
> > I want to propose a new idea for a new project:
> Wikisomething. 
> > Wikisomething is dedicated to contain multilingual
> somethings of all 
> > different sorts, therefore it spares us the need
> to found any new 
> > different projects for speficic things. Moreover,
> we could also 
> > integrate our current projects into Wikisomething.
> >
> > cordially,
> > Elian
> 
> I know this was in jest, but I would like to know if
> people on this 
> mailing are fed up with all of these sort of
> proposals or if they need 
> to be encouraged more.  I've been vocal about this
> in the past, but my 
> impression is that no new major project will ever be
> started.  Period. 
>  If you take a look at the "No" votes for
> Wikiversity, for example
> 
> (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiversity/Vote
> )
> 
> the #1 reason I find credible is that there are some
> technical issues 
> that seem to be preventing new projects from being
> started.  What are 
> those incredible technical issues that are going to
> force any new 
> project from starting for more than a year from now?
>  Is there any 
> reason at all to even encourage anybody to start a
> new project of any 
> kind?  Is a general concensus that new proposals
> should not even be 
> brought up on Foundation-l?
> 
> I do believe that at the very least there needs to
> be a few more steps 
> in the development process of a new project proposal
> before it gets to 
> Foundation-l.  I've been a regular contributor to
> this mailing list now 
> for close to a year, and I've seen a dozen or so new
> project proposals 
> get posted, most by very well-meaning people and
> some of them are very 
> well thought out.  There are some proposals that are
> "not ready for 
> prime-time" and perhaps they should be more thought
> out before they come 
> up here.  For most new project ideas, Foundation-l
> is the very last 
> place that anything will be heard about the idea,
> not the first.
> 
> Another related issue is more along the lines of how
> to publicize the 
> kernel of an idea that may be useful but needs a bit
> more work, such as 
> the Wikimemory proposal that has been debated
> recently.  Requesting help 
> for such proposals on this mailing list is throwing
> the idea before a 
> very hostile audience, perhaps unwittingly and
> certainly without the 
> knowledge of new Wikimedia users who happen to come
> across this mailing 
> list as suggested by the New Project Policy. 
> Perhaps instead of 
> announcing the formal new project proposal here,
> there should be some 
> development effort at some Wikiproject or some other
> sub-community of 
> Wikimedia users that are much more receptive of the
> idea, and can give 
> some depth to the idea before it comes here.
> 
> At the very least, if there is to be a moritorium on
> new sister 
> projects, please make that official policy on the
> part of the Wikimedia 
> Foundation Board and get that stated on the New
> Project page, and 
> perhaps even on the front page of Meta as well.  On
> the other hand, if 
> the board does intend to allow some new projects to
> be started if they 
> are well thought out and have a support community
> behind them, there 
> should be an official policy to silence the critics
> who seem to speak in 
> a semi-official capacity on behalf of the board
> (even though I know they 
> are not board members).  
> 
> If there are genuine technical issues that need to
> be addressed so that 
> starting en.wikiversity.org is somehow harder than
> to.wikibooks.org, I 
> would like to know what those issues are that
> developers seem to be 
> screaming about.  Get technical and don't sugar coat
> it either, and if 
> possible give hard examples.  If the concern is
> purely social and 
> getting the new project community organized, that
> may be a legitimate 
> concern.  I don't think it is in as many cases as
> the critics seems to 
> believe it may be, and most new projects tend to
> recruit more people 
> than would normally be participating with Wikipedia
> alone, so I don't 
> think it necessarily bleeds other projects dry from
> volunteers.  This is 
> also an issue I would be more than willing to debate
> as well.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Scott Horning

I don't think people are against new projects, but
that people are searching for newness in the proposed
project. What is interesting in a project which
actually means to split Wikipedia in a lot of thematic
encyclopedies, like this "Wikicracy" or even
Wikispecies do ? does it do any sense ? I don't think
so. If anybody has a real new idea what can be done
with wiki-technology (the technology most easily
available for our projects, but other things must be
doable. Some kind of atlas could be great, but doesn't
seam to be doable for the moment), it should be great.
But wikicracy already exists : it's called wikipedia,
and it's collecting much more knowledge (except
politics, I mean) at the same time.
Interdisciplinarity is one of the things making
wikipedia so cool, in my opinion, so 'm not for
splitting it in subprojects, because this aspect will
else be lost.
Wikiversity is a great idea, and I voted for it, even
if it's maybe not doable with the means we have today.
It's an exciting project, and if we are able to do it,
it will be fantastic ! People learning freely and
efficiently knowledge able to change their life, maybe
one day acquiring a degree by that way, all over the
world.
The same for Wikimemories : a mankind rich of all
human experience. Long term consequences overstep
imagination.

Traroth

___________________________________________________________________________ 
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger 
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com