Closing inactive Wikinewses

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Closing inactive Wikinewses

Erik Moeller-4
I suggest the following policy:

When a Wikinews edition has seen no new stories for 8 weeks, the wiki
is locked and a site notice is added: "This Wikinews edition is
currently inactive. If you are interested in working on it, please
indicate so on [[m:Wikinews/Reactivate an edition]]." (In the correct
language, of course.) Instead of just 5 votes, you would need 10
Wikimedians to sign the reactivation pledge.

Inactive editions could also be removed from the interlanguage link
list on the Main Pages, but that would be optional if it's too much
maintenance.

There are currently a few Wikinewses that meet this criterion. In
general our setup policy tends to at least determine whether there's a
general interest but that doesn't ensure that people keep posting.

Without such a policy, I think we are just turning these sites into
magnets for vandalism and spam, as well as making Wikinews look
unprofessional (a news site with news that are a year old isn't much
of one). An open recognition that an edition is dead seems preferable
to me.

Wikinews is of course very special in this regard because it doesn't
really matter that much if a Wikipedia edition is dead for a couple of
months, but for Wikinews, it is a very obvious sign that the critical
mass is not there.

Does this policy proposal sound reasonable?

--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing inactive Wikinewses

Ilya Haykinson
I would place a much shorter window on the inactivity threshold --
perhaps 1 month.

I second the suggestion for the higher reactivation requirement, as
well -- it encourages the redevelopment of a community. One must
notice though that the reactivating users may not at all be related to
the originating users, and yet they would have this higher burden of
rounding up members.  I would suggest that in response we should be
quicker at unlocking the wiki once the votes are in.

-ilya haykinson

On 10/16/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I suggest the following policy:
>
> When a Wikinews edition has seen no new stories for 8 weeks, the wiki
> is locked and a site notice is added: "This Wikinews edition is
> currently inactive. If you are interested in working on it, please
> indicate so on [[m:Wikinews/Reactivate an edition]]." (In the correct
> language, of course.) Instead of just 5 votes, you would need 10
> Wikimedians to sign the reactivation pledge.
>
> Inactive editions could also be removed from the interlanguage link
> list on the Main Pages, but that would be optional if it's too much
> maintenance.
>
> There are currently a few Wikinewses that meet this criterion. In
> general our setup policy tends to at least determine whether there's a
> general interest but that doesn't ensure that people keep posting.
>
> Without such a policy, I think we are just turning these sites into
> magnets for vandalism and spam, as well as making Wikinews look
> unprofessional (a news site with news that are a year old isn't much
> of one). An open recognition that an edition is dead seems preferable
> to me.
>
> Wikinews is of course very special in this regard because it doesn't
> really matter that much if a Wikipedia edition is dead for a couple of
> months, but for Wikinews, it is a very obvious sign that the critical
> mass is not there.
>
> Does this policy proposal sound reasonable?
>
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
>
> Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing inactive Wikinewses

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
It seems like a sensible idea; I particularly agree that Wikinews is
unique in this manner and would look rather bad if inactive. However,
I would like to suggest that the lock occurs at three months, and
perhaps the notice (or a similar one) is applied at one, giving people
on the project a chance to get it going again - a two-stage system.

S

On 17/10/06, Ilya Haykinson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would place a much shorter window on the inactivity threshold --
> perhaps 1 month.
>
> I second the suggestion for the higher reactivation requirement, as
> well -- it encourages the redevelopment of a community. One must
> notice though that the reactivating users may not at all be related to
> the originating users, and yet they would have this higher burden of
> rounding up members.  I would suggest that in response we should be
> quicker at unlocking the wiki once the votes are in.
>
> -ilya haykinson
>
> On 10/16/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I suggest the following policy:
> >
> > When a Wikinews edition has seen no new stories for 8 weeks, the wiki
> > is locked and a site notice is added: "This Wikinews edition is
> > currently inactive. If you are interested in working on it, please
> > indicate so on [[m:Wikinews/Reactivate an edition]]." (In the correct
> > language, of course.) Instead of just 5 votes, you would need 10
> > Wikimedians to sign the reactivation pledge.
> >
> > Inactive editions could also be removed from the interlanguage link
> > list on the Main Pages, but that would be optional if it's too much
> > maintenance.
> >
> > There are currently a few Wikinewses that meet this criterion. In
> > general our setup policy tends to at least determine whether there's a
> > general interest but that doesn't ensure that people keep posting.
> >
> > Without such a policy, I think we are just turning these sites into
> > magnets for vandalism and spam, as well as making Wikinews look
> > unprofessional (a news site with news that are a year old isn't much
> > of one). An open recognition that an edition is dead seems preferable
> > to me.
> >
> > Wikinews is of course very special in this regard because it doesn't
> > really matter that much if a Wikipedia edition is dead for a couple of
> > months, but for Wikinews, it is a very obvious sign that the critical
> > mass is not there.
> >
> > Does this policy proposal sound reasonable?
> >
> > --
> > Peace & Love,
> > Erik
> >
> > Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> > DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
> > in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
> > position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
        —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
                [hidden email] | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing inactive Wikinewses

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Erik Moeller wrote:

>I suggest the following policy:
>
>When a Wikinews edition has seen no new stories for 8 weeks, the wiki
>is locked and a site notice is added: "This Wikinews edition is
>currently inactive. If you are interested in working on it, please
>indicate so on [[m:Wikinews/Reactivate an edition]]." (In the correct
>language, of course.) Instead of just 5 votes, you would need 10
>Wikimedians to sign the reactivation pledge.
>
>  
>
<*snip*>

>Does this policy proposal sound reasonable?
>
>  
>
I am curious about what the rationale is for trying to increase the
threshold for reactivating an older edition rather than establishing a
brand-new language edition.  It seems to me that it ought to be the
other way around, where if a language edition already exists (presumably
with some substantial content already) that the threshold for support to
reactive ought to be lower than creating yet another new language.  This
could even be just for maintainence of the existing content alone.

I would, however, also put an additional restriction that the 5 or 10
(or whatever) votes that are needed for reactivation should happen
within a specified period of time, like 2-3 months at most.  The purpose
of this is to demonstrate that there is an active community of people
who would be willing to keep a sustained effort going once it is
reactivated, which seems like the point of the whole exercise.
 Proposals to reactivate that languish longer than this specified period
of time will simply be archived although a new proposal can certainly be
made almost immediately (with new votes) if there is still a small group
willing to participate.  I have seen some of these proposals for things
like this go on and on for years at a time... just look at the new
project proposals page on Meta as an example of some proposals that are
more than 2 years old, some as old as Meta itself seemingly.

I'm still not exactly sure what the threshold ought to be in terms of
time to declare a Wikinews language edition "inactive", but the main
goal ought to be to give the community who speaks that language the
benefit of the doubt.  In addition, I would strongly recommend that if a
Wikinews language edition is to be closed down, then the related "sister
projects" of the same langauge ought to have a notification put in the
Village Pump pages (even if in English... with an appeal for
translation) that "their" language edition of Wikinews is being shut
down due to inactivity.  Perhaps also a notification of any related
mailing list that is specific to that language, if it is listed as an
"official" Wikimedia mailing list.  I know that this seems like a lot of
work, but the point here is to try and give a final effort to simply let
speakers of that language know that Wikinews is even something that they
could participate with.  

We might be surprised and get a few people to turn out without having to
shut the project down in the first place.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing inactive Wikinewses

magiske prosesser
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:30:59 -0600
  Robert Scott Horning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm still not exactly sure what the threshold ought to
>be in terms of
> time to declare a Wikinews language edition "inactive",
>but the main
> goal ought to be to give the community who speaks that
>language the
> benefit of the doubt.  In addition, I would strongly
>recommend that if a
> Wikinews language edition is to be closed down, then the
>related "sister
> projects" of the same langauge ought to have a
>notification put in the
> Village Pump pages (even if in English... with an appeal
>for
> translation) that "their" language edition of Wikinews
>is being shut
> down due to inactivity.  Perhaps also a notification of
>any related
> mailing list that is specific to that language, if it is
>listed as an
> "official" Wikimedia mailing list.  I know that this
>seems like a lot of
> work, but the point here is to try and give a final
>effort to simply let
> speakers of that language know that Wikinews is even
>something that they
> could participate with.  
>
> We might be surprised and get a few people to turn out
>without having to
> shut the project down in the first place.

On my local Wikipedia (the no: Norwegian) I have
previously on a couple of occasions raised issues
regarding local sister projects only to be told in no
uncertain terms that "this is Wikipedia. Matters relating
to sister projects should be discussed at meta." Of
course, that's not very helpful as very few local
contributors read meta. Seeing as this reveals a void when
it comes to adequate forums for local Wikimedia projects
coordination, I think an effort, perhaps from these parts
of the woods, to assist local chapters in finding
constructive solutions to this problem might be valuable.
Maybe a suggestion from "someone on high" to allow for the
creation of local inter-project village punp solutions
would spark more involvement in these projects.

Halvor  (User:meco)

--
email to and from this person will be subject to public
availability
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing inactive Wikinewses

dan harp
In reply to this post by Robert S. Horning
my vote would be 12 weeks.... it just seems that
adding an extra month would be good.

--- Robert Scott Horning <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >I suggest the following policy:
> >
> >When a Wikinews edition has seen no new stories for
> 8 weeks, the wiki
> >is locked and a site notice is added: "This
> Wikinews edition is
> >currently inactive. If you are interested in
> working on it, please
> >indicate so on [[m:Wikinews/Reactivate an
> edition]]." (In the correct
> >language, of course.) Instead of just 5 votes, you
> would need 10
> >Wikimedians to sign the reactivation pledge.
> >
> >  
> >
> <*snip*>
>
> >Does this policy proposal sound reasonable?
> >
> >  
> >
> I am curious about what the rationale is for trying
> to increase the
> threshold for reactivating an older edition rather
> than establishing a
> brand-new language edition.  It seems to me that it
> ought to be the
> other way around, where if a language edition
> already exists (presumably
> with some substantial content already) that the
> threshold for support to
> reactive ought to be lower than creating yet another
> new language.  This
> could even be just for maintainence of the existing
> content alone.
>
> I would, however, also put an additional restriction
> that the 5 or 10
> (or whatever) votes that are needed for reactivation
> should happen
> within a specified period of time, like 2-3 months
> at most.  The purpose
> of this is to demonstrate that there is an active
> community of people
> who would be willing to keep a sustained effort
> going once it is
> reactivated, which seems like the point of the whole
> exercise.
>  Proposals to reactivate that languish longer than
> this specified period
> of time will simply be archived although a new
> proposal can certainly be
> made almost immediately (with new votes) if there is
> still a small group
> willing to participate.  I have seen some of these
> proposals for things
> like this go on and on for years at a time... just
> look at the new
> project proposals page on Meta as an example of some
> proposals that are
> more than 2 years old, some as old as Meta itself
> seemingly.
>
> I'm still not exactly sure what the threshold ought
> to be in terms of
> time to declare a Wikinews language edition
> "inactive", but the main
> goal ought to be to give the community who speaks
> that language the
> benefit of the doubt.  In addition, I would strongly
> recommend that if a
> Wikinews language edition is to be closed down, then
> the related "sister
> projects" of the same langauge ought to have a
> notification put in the
> Village Pump pages (even if in English... with an
> appeal for
> translation) that "their" language edition of
> Wikinews is being shut
> down due to inactivity.  Perhaps also a notification
> of any related
> mailing list that is specific to that language, if
> it is listed as an
> "official" Wikimedia mailing list.  I know that this
> seems like a lot of
> work, but the point here is to try and give a final
> effort to simply let
> speakers of that language know that Wikinews is even
> something that they
> could participate with.  
>
> We might be surprised and get a few people to turn
> out without having to
> shut the project down in the first place.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Closing inactive Wikinewses

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by magiske prosesser
magiske prosesser wrote:

>On my local Wikipedia (the no: Norwegian) I have
>previously on a couple of occasions raised issues
>regarding local sister projects only to be told in no
>uncertain terms that "this is Wikipedia. Matters relating
>to sister projects should be discussed at meta." Of
>course, that's not very helpful as very few local
>contributors read meta. Seeing as this reveals a void when
>it comes to adequate forums for local Wikimedia projects
>coordination, I think an effort, perhaps from these parts
>of the woods, to assist local chapters in finding
>constructive solutions to this problem might be valuable.
>Maybe a suggestion from "someone on high" to allow for the
>creation of local inter-project village punp solutions
>would spark more involvement in these projects.
>
>Halvor  (User:meco)
>  
>
I will say that even with English langauge projects, Meta doesn't always
offer the best possible solution for significant announcements that need
to be made across multiple projects.  This was a very unhelpful
sentiment that Meta is the exclusive place to discuss projects other
than Wikipedia, particularly when there are inter-project issues that
need to be brought up.

I have in the past, and I anticipate that in the future I will also do
this, sent postings on the various "Village Pumps" (Scriptorium, Staff
Lounge, etc.) of English language projects when I felt some significant
input was needed by regular users of various projects.  In particular
that I've dealt with, some semi-recent activity relating between
Wikisource and Wikibooks has occured, particularly when there were some
significant number of pages being transwikied or to help define the
boudaries between the two projects.

Where Meta tends to excell is when there is some signifcant
organizational activity that needs to take place that goes beyond the
scope of a particular sister project.  In this case, an annoucement on
the village pump on Wikipedia making a notice about such activity would
be reasonable, but requesting that a follow-up and subsequent
discussions take place on Meta, noting the specific page on Meta where
that is taking place.  The discussions about Wikiversity, for example,
proved to be particularly well suited for Meta rather than being on
Wikipedia or Wikibooks.

I still fail to see how a request on a Wikipedia Village Pump requesting
interested parties to keep a particular language edition of Wikinews,
for example, is out of place.

BTW, as far as a "Meta" village pump for a particular language is
concerned, it would be reasonable to begin one on Meta if one doesn't
already exist.  My experience with the Meta Babel (English) page,
however, is that it is very seldom visited for much of anything, and
even then it is usually regarding issues that are about the Meta wiki
itself rather than issues that involve multiple projects.  That isn't to
say it couldn't be used more, but from experience it is seldom
frequented that much.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l