New Project Process

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New Project Process

Samuel Klein-4
With the launch of the WikiData effort, I am reminded that we should
return to our early willingness to experiment with new project ideas.
This means both starting new types of projects (like commons, like
wikidata!) and closing / archiving / spinning off projects (like the
sep11 wiki).

Two things I would love to see in the near future:
 - a fixed new-project process, and at least one proposal evaluated
through it.  Starting to work through the backlog of new project
ideas/requests that have existing active projects elsewhere
 - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we are
as a society towards reaching that goal

SJ


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>
Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>


I would love to see the new project process on Meta come back online.
(much of this email is posted to [[m:talk:new project proposals]])

I could use some help in making this happen - we need to start an
incubator process for ideas with support, and a separate process for
proposing existing projects that have been incubated elsewhere for
support or hosting.   The meta page for each proposed project should
track its progress, whether offsite or on the incubator...  a project
infobox should be designed... an interested group (if less formal than
langcom) should go through and review the backlog of proposals and
suggest the necessary next step for each.


On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Alec Conroy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.

A space to hold POV debates would be an interesting intermediate
ground between no-restraint edit wars and topic bans, for those in
heated argument.  Is Wikinfo designed for this?  I was thinking of
something more like 'Wikireason'.  There have been various proposals
for an 'argument wiki' over the years, but I've never seen a working
implementation.

> I have actually been independently trying to think of other wikis that
> should be "sister projects".   Some are really obvious and
> non-controversial--

> SNPedia, for example, an encyclopedia of single nucleotide polymorphisms and related studies
Yes.  Link:  http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/SNPedia

Genealogy:  WeRelate and Rodovid.  Both remarkable and lovely
projects.  Combinable, if all parties could be brought together.
Both could use support; I've touched on the possibility of becoming
WMF projects with each, and they are willing to discuss it.  The
result would be by far the largest free collection of genealogy
information, with support from one of the major libraries studyig and
archiving related data in the US

Children's encyclopedia: WikiKids, Vikidia, Grundschulwiki, Wikimini.
These projects could be coordinated better to share ideas and lessons,
and could use more visibility.  Some people active in these projects
are already Wikimedians.

Dictionaries: OmegaWiki.  This multilingual dictionary could help
revamp our toolchain for Wiktionary, which remains a bit broken.

Interface translation: TranslateWiki.  iirc it does not want to be a
WMF project per se, but could use more explicit support than we have
given so far.

Citations and bibliography: AcaWiki (and the budding WikiScholar).

Wikified maps: Wikimapia. currently profitable and popular; probably
fine on their own.  However they use a non-free map stack and use an
NC license; finding a way to help that project migrate to a free stack
and license  [now that there is a free orthorectified aerial map
available http://blog.stevecoast.com/im-working-at-microsoft-and-were-donating-ima]
would be of benefit to the whole world.


Other projects for which there is a supply of raw materials available
from content donors (which we cannot currently accept):
* Annotated source materials and their translations:  Part of Wikisource++ ?
* Translation memory:  Part of Translatewiki++ ?
* Public datasets: Wikidata
* Music scores: Wikimusic


> We're at the point where the lack of diversity of our English language
> project 'styles' may be a major factor dissuading new users from
> participation.

It is certainly one of the factors.


Sam.


--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Samuel Klein, 03/04/2012 06:40:
>   - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we are
> as a society towards reaching that goal

We had started a stub table about this:
https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Ziko van Dijk-2
In reply to this post by Samuel Klein-4
Hello,

Interesting. Please allow me to second that with the proposal to
reconsider existing projects. For example, what would a WMF evaluation
of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such a project, or
at least cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages? Or invest money
in promoting it?

Kind regards
Ziko




2012/4/3 Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>:

> With the launch of the WikiData effort, I am reminded that we should
> return to our early willingness to experiment with new project ideas.
> This means both starting new types of projects (like commons, like
> wikidata!) and closing / archiving / spinning off projects (like the
> sep11 wiki).
>
> Two things I would love to see in the near future:
>  - a fixed new-project process, and at least one proposal evaluated
> through it.  Starting to work through the backlog of new project
> ideas/requests that have existing active projects elsewhere
>  - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we are
> as a society towards reaching that goal
>
> SJ
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>
>
> I would love to see the new project process on Meta come back online.
> (much of this email is posted to [[m:talk:new project proposals]])
>
> I could use some help in making this happen - we need to start an
> incubator process for ideas with support, and a separate process for
> proposing existing projects that have been incubated elsewhere for
> support or hosting.   The meta page for each proposed project should
> track its progress, whether offsite or on the incubator...  a project
> infobox should be designed... an interested group (if less formal than
> langcom) should go through and review the backlog of proposals and
> suggest the necessary next step for each.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Alec Conroy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
>
> A space to hold POV debates would be an interesting intermediate
> ground between no-restraint edit wars and topic bans, for those in
> heated argument.  Is Wikinfo designed for this?  I was thinking of
> something more like 'Wikireason'.  There have been various proposals
> for an 'argument wiki' over the years, but I've never seen a working
> implementation.
>
>> I have actually been independently trying to think of other wikis that
>> should be "sister projects".   Some are really obvious and
>> non-controversial--
>
>> SNPedia, for example, an encyclopedia of single nucleotide polymorphisms and related studies
> Yes.  Link:  http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/SNPedia
>
> Genealogy:  WeRelate and Rodovid.  Both remarkable and lovely
> projects.  Combinable, if all parties could be brought together.
> Both could use support; I've touched on the possibility of becoming
> WMF projects with each, and they are willing to discuss it.  The
> result would be by far the largest free collection of genealogy
> information, with support from one of the major libraries studyig and
> archiving related data in the US
>
> Children's encyclopedia: WikiKids, Vikidia, Grundschulwiki, Wikimini.
> These projects could be coordinated better to share ideas and lessons,
> and could use more visibility.  Some people active in these projects
> are already Wikimedians.
>
> Dictionaries: OmegaWiki.  This multilingual dictionary could help
> revamp our toolchain for Wiktionary, which remains a bit broken.
>
> Interface translation: TranslateWiki.  iirc it does not want to be a
> WMF project per se, but could use more explicit support than we have
> given so far.
>
> Citations and bibliography: AcaWiki (and the budding WikiScholar).
>
> Wikified maps: Wikimapia. currently profitable and popular; probably
> fine on their own.  However they use a non-free map stack and use an
> NC license; finding a way to help that project migrate to a free stack
> and license  [now that there is a free orthorectified aerial map
> available http://blog.stevecoast.com/im-working-at-microsoft-and-were-donating-ima]
> would be of benefit to the whole world.
>
>
> Other projects for which there is a supply of raw materials available
> from content donors (which we cannot currently accept):
> * Annotated source materials and their translations:  Part of Wikisource++ ?
> * Translation memory:  Part of Translatewiki++ ?
> * Public datasets: Wikidata
> * Music scores: Wikimusic
>
>
>> We're at the point where the lack of diversity of our English language
>> project 'styles' may be a major factor dissuading new users from
>> participation.
>
> It is certainly one of the factors.
>
>
> Sam.
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We had started a stub table about this:
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free


This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Liam Wyatt
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk-2
On 3 April 2012 06:50, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Interesting. Please allow me to second that with the proposal to
> reconsider existing projects. For example, what would a WMF evaluation
> of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such a project, or
> at least cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages? Or invest money
> in promoting it?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
Interesting examples Ziko - and allow me to go a bit further...
- I'd love to see some kind of "project review" to identify what the
communities of all the different sister-projects and language editions
believe to be the minimum standards of technical support that they expect
from the WMF. We all often hear that everything-other-than-en.WP-is-ignored
but if we had some published/agreed expectations that would make it much
easier to see what was needed.
- Similar to Erik Moeller's presentation at Wikimania 2010 (starting slide
17) I'd like to see some specific focus put on "easy improvements with high
value". In my mind Wiktionary seems to be the logical place where a little
bit of attention could have massive impacts on the project.
https://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Beyondencyclopediawikimania2010-100714133959-phpapp02.pdf&page=17
- I've often wondered if there has been any formal discussion about the
name "Wikimedia Commons" and whether it should be renamed "WikiCommons" for
consistency with the rest of the projects. This is especially so now that
it is a public-facing project not merely the "service project" it was
originally designed to be.
- Perhaps WikiSpieces should be merged into WikiData (once it's built)
since taxonomic information is most definitely a type of structured data.
- Also, could we look at merging the OutreachWiki, the StrategyWiki and
MetaWiki? Maybe they could all live at the (currently extremely
under-utilised) domain of http://www.wikimedia.org/
- Finally, and more generally, could we make an assessment of the kind of
software changes that could be made to make connecting between different
wikis easier - both for readers and for editors. Now we have
SingleUserLogin, global userpages and watchlists would seem an obvious step
to making it easier for editors to work across projects.

Just some very rough ideas!

-Liam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Samuel Klein-4
>  - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we are
> as a society towards reaching that goal
>
> SJ
>

Erik initiated the creation of such list at some point (I believe it
was 2010 and strategy wiki), I should be able to find it.

For the mechanism of creation new projects, may be we could use the
experience of langcom and appoint ten individuals who would recommend
new proposals to the Board.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:47:45 +0200, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Samuel Klein, 03/04/2012 06:40:
>>   - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we
>> are
>> as a society towards reaching that goal
>
> We had started a stub table about this:
>
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
>
> Nemo
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Thanks, exactly what I mentioned in the previous message.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Sam Klein
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> We had started a stub table about this:
>> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
>
> This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.

Thanks for the reminder, Nemo.  I was looking for this on Meta, but
forgot to check the stratwiki.
Embarrassing, since apparently I started the page... :) Liam: another
reason to consider merging meta wikis.

Ziko:
> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such
> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest money in promoting it?

Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
across two wikis.

Liam (paraphrased):
> - "project review" : identify support each project expects from the WMF.
> - "easy improvements with high value". Start with Wiktionary
> - rename Commons to "WikiCommons"? merge WikiSpecies w/ WikiData?
> - merge Outreach, Strategy and MetaWiki --> wikimedia.org
> - lower barriers b/t wikis: global userpages, talk, watchlists

This whole class of brainstorming is important; making it less of a
pain to travel between projects is good for all of them.

Yaroslav:
> may be we could use the experience of langcom and appoint ten individuals
> who would recommend new proposals to the Board.

That's not a bad idea.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Samuel Klein, 03/04/2012 06:40:
>
>>  - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we are
>> as a society towards reaching that goal
>
>
> We had started a stub table about this:
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free

The several topical subcategories of 'Proposed projects' that I've
played with also give a good idea of the variety of areas of free
knowledge (list-focused, citation-focused, DIY-focused, etc) that have
been proposed on meta:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_projects

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Sam Klein
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> We had started a stub table about this:
>>> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
>>
>> This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.
>
> Thanks for the reminder, Nemo.  I was looking for this on Meta, but
> forgot to check the stratwiki.
> Embarrassing, since apparently I started the page... :) Liam: another
> reason to consider merging meta wikis.
>
> Ziko:
>> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such
>> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest money in promoting it?
>
> Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
> might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
> wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
> benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
> relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
> across two wikis.
>
> Liam (paraphrased):
>> - "project review" : identify support each project expects from the WMF.
>> - "easy improvements with high value". Start with Wiktionary
>> - rename Commons to "WikiCommons"? merge WikiSpecies w/ WikiData?
>> - merge Outreach, Strategy and MetaWiki --> wikimedia.org
>> - lower barriers b/t wikis: global userpages, talk, watchlists
>
> This whole class of brainstorming is important; making it less of a
> pain to travel between projects is good for all of them.
>
> Yaroslav:
>> may be we could use the experience of langcom and appoint ten individuals
>> who would recommend new proposals to the Board.
>
> That's not a bad idea.
>
> SJ

Indeed, perhaps a 'Sister Projects Committee' could start looking into
some of Liam's type of questions.

(Of course, Wikipedia is a "sister project" too!)

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Lodewijk
I totally second SJ's poke for more new projects! Although our flagship
project is highly successful, it would be good if we try to keep creating
new communities. I have been sad for quite a while now that we don't create
new projects any more. It would be great to see one new project every year
:)

Best,
Lodewijk

No dia 4 de Abril de 2012 05:53, Pharos <[hidden email]>escreveu:

> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We had started a stub table about this:
> >>>
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
> >>
> >> This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.
> >
> > Thanks for the reminder, Nemo.  I was looking for this on Meta, but
> > forgot to check the stratwiki.
> > Embarrassing, since apparently I started the page... :) Liam: another
> > reason to consider merging meta wikis.
> >
> > Ziko:
> >> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we
> shut down such
> >> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest
> money in promoting it?
> >
> > Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
> > might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
> > wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
> > benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
> > relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
> > across two wikis.
> >
> > Liam (paraphrased):
> >> - "project review" : identify support each project expects from the WMF.
> >> - "easy improvements with high value". Start with Wiktionary
> >> - rename Commons to "WikiCommons"? merge WikiSpecies w/ WikiData?
> >> - merge Outreach, Strategy and MetaWiki --> wikimedia.org
> >> - lower barriers b/t wikis: global userpages, talk, watchlists
> >
> > This whole class of brainstorming is important; making it less of a
> > pain to travel between projects is good for all of them.
> >
> > Yaroslav:
> >> may be we could use the experience of langcom and appoint ten
> individuals
> >> who would recommend new proposals to the Board.
> >
> > That's not a bad idea.
> >
> > SJ
>
> Indeed, perhaps a 'Sister Projects Committee' could start looking into
> some of Liam's type of questions.
>
> (Of course, Wikipedia is a "sister project" too!)
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> (User:Pharos)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Juergen Fenn-3
In reply to this post by Sam Klein
Am 3. April 2012 22:22 schrieb Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>:

> Ziko:
>> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such
>> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest money in promoting it?
>
> Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
> might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
> wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
> benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
> relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
> across two wikis.

I would like to add another option: Who not merge all projects into
Wikipedia proper? The lack in participation in the sister projects is
largely due to the fact that hardly anyone knows about them. Wikipedia
is the only Wikimedia brand people know of. There is nothing you can
do about it. If the sister projects were living in their own
namespaces within Wikipedia this would be different. We would have,
say, a Wikipedia dictionary. They would become part of Wikipedia and,
hence, partaking in Wikipedia's popularity. Putting money in sister
projects just means wasting funds. The future lies in integrating them
into Wikipedia. Five years of experience is enough to tell.

Regards,
Jürgen.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I totally second SJ's poke for more new projects! Although our flagship
> project is highly successful, it would be good if we try to keep creating
> new communities. I have been sad for quite a while now that we don't create
> new projects any more. It would be great to see one new project every year
> :)

I had suggested earlier that we might even run this as an annual
thing, with a Wikimania-style bidding process for the new sister
projects.

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

> No dia 4 de Abril de 2012 05:53, Pharos <[hidden email]>escreveu:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> We had started a stub table about this:
>> >>>
>> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
>> >>
>> >> This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the reminder, Nemo.  I was looking for this on Meta, but
>> > forgot to check the stratwiki.
>> > Embarrassing, since apparently I started the page... :) Liam: another
>> > reason to consider merging meta wikis.
>> >
>> > Ziko:
>> >> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we
>> shut down such
>> >> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest
>> money in promoting it?
>> >
>> > Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
>> > might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
>> > wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
>> > benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
>> > relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
>> > across two wikis.
>> >
>> > Liam (paraphrased):
>> >> - "project review" : identify support each project expects from the WMF.
>> >> - "easy improvements with high value". Start with Wiktionary
>> >> - rename Commons to "WikiCommons"? merge WikiSpecies w/ WikiData?
>> >> - merge Outreach, Strategy and MetaWiki --> wikimedia.org
>> >> - lower barriers b/t wikis: global userpages, talk, watchlists
>> >
>> > This whole class of brainstorming is important; making it less of a
>> > pain to travel between projects is good for all of them.
>> >
>> > Yaroslav:
>> >> may be we could use the experience of langcom and appoint ten
>> individuals
>> >> who would recommend new proposals to the Board.
>> >
>> > That's not a bad idea.
>> >
>> > SJ
>>
>> Indeed, perhaps a 'Sister Projects Committee' could start looking into
>> some of Liam's type of questions.
>>
>> (Of course, Wikipedia is a "sister project" too!)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>> (User:Pharos)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Carlos Felipe Antonorsi
In reply to this post by Juergen Fenn-3
Hi everyone, I'm "new" on the list and this is my fist email, but I've been
reading for a while(I'm from es.wiki). I support what Jürgen said, Most of
the Wikimedia projects are not very popular (with the exception of
Wikipedia and maybe commons). I talk about what I've read and listened to
people totally ignorant about what the wiki is, If there could be a way we
could incorporate other projects to wikipedia it would be perfect.

You've never heard in the news things about Wikiquote or Wikiversity, it's
always about Wikipedia. It would seem that the best thing we could do to
help improve the participation on those projects would be to merge them in
to the most popular project: Wikipedia

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jürgen Fenn
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Am 3. April 2012 22:22 schrieb Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Ziko:
> >> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we
> shut down such
> >> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest
> money in promoting it?
> >
> > Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
> > might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
> > wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
> > benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
> > relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
> > across two wikis.
>
> I would like to add another option: Who not merge all projects into
> Wikipedia proper? The lack in participation in the sister projects is
> largely due to the fact that hardly anyone knows about them. Wikipedia
> is the only Wikimedia brand people know of. There is nothing you can
> do about it. If the sister projects were living in their own
> namespaces within Wikipedia this would be different. We would have,
> say, a Wikipedia dictionary. They would become part of Wikipedia and,
> hence, partaking in Wikipedia's popularity. Putting money in sister
> projects just means wasting funds. The future lies in integrating them
> into Wikipedia. Five years of experience is enough to tell.
>
> Regards,
> Jürgen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
-cfa

Carlos Felipe Antonorsi G.
0416-6852535
@antonorsi
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

John Mark Vandenberg
The policies of each project are different for a very good reason.

e.g. If English Wikiquote was merged into English Wikipedia, the vast
majority of the quote pages would be deleted very quickly, for good or
ill.  I know I would be the first to get out the sickle. :P

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Carlos Felipe Antonorsi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everyone, I'm "new" on the list and this is my fist email, but I've been
> reading for a while(I'm from es.wiki). I support what Jürgen said, Most of
> the Wikimedia projects are not very popular (with the exception of
> Wikipedia and maybe commons). I talk about what I've read and listened to
> people totally ignorant about what the wiki is, If there could be a way we
> could incorporate other projects to wikipedia it would be perfect.
>
> You've never heard in the news things about Wikiquote or Wikiversity, it's
> always about Wikipedia. It would seem that the best thing we could do to
> help improve the participation on those projects would be to merge them in
> to the most popular project: Wikipedia
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jürgen Fenn
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Am 3. April 2012 22:22 schrieb Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> > Ziko:
>> >> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we
>> shut down such
>> >> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest
>> money in promoting it?
>> >
>> > Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
>> > might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
>> > wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
>> > benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
>> > relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
>> > across two wikis.
>>
>> I would like to add another option: Who not merge all projects into
>> Wikipedia proper? The lack in participation in the sister projects is
>> largely due to the fact that hardly anyone knows about them. Wikipedia
>> is the only Wikimedia brand people know of. There is nothing you can
>> do about it. If the sister projects were living in their own
>> namespaces within Wikipedia this would be different. We would have,
>> say, a Wikipedia dictionary. They would become part of Wikipedia and,
>> hence, partaking in Wikipedia's popularity. Putting money in sister
>> projects just means wasting funds. The future lies in integrating them
>> into Wikipedia. Five years of experience is enough to tell.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jürgen.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -cfa
>
> Carlos Felipe Antonorsi G.
> 0416-6852535
> @antonorsi
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Samuel Klein-4
Hoi,
The WikiData project is at first very much technical. Software is developed
and as the software gains a certain level of maturity, a community will
start to grow. This community will slowly but surely become integrated with
other Wikimedia projects.

At this stage all eyes are on Wikipedia but Commons is another contender;
the current data on the pages is highly structured and this makes it an
obvious target. The quotes of Wikiquote can also be structured and made
into structured data. The information in Wiktionary can also be structured,
this  has been realised to a really large extend in OmegaWiki.

The most important notion as far as I am concerned is that WikiData will to
a large extend compete with the WikiText and content will migrate to
WikiData when it is appreciated what added value can be had as a result.

When you consider new projects for the Wikimedia Foundation, when you even
consider the existing projects, the key consideration is what is it that
you want to achieve in that project and how this can be best realised.
There are both technical, organisational and community issues. When you are
willing to tackle these issues, when the Wikimedia Foundation is to tackle
these issues it means that we will have to consider more than just business
as usual. It means that tools that support existing practices like the
recording of pronounced text can be either better documented maybe even
integrated. This is to prevent the recurring development of new tools with
the same purpose because older tools are unknown or not maintained.

In a nutshell; because of Wikidata our standard practices will change. This
will have an impact on new and old projects. Please consider the technical
requirements of a project and do not consider new projects when they will
not get the tools and the support they need.
Thanks,
     Gerard

On 3 April 2012 06:40, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> With the launch of the WikiData effort, I am reminded that we should
> return to our early willingness to experiment with new project ideas.
> This means both starting new types of projects (like commons, like
> wikidata!) and closing / archiving / spinning off projects (like the
> sep11 wiki).
>
> Two things I would love to see in the near future:
>  - a fixed new-project process, and at least one proposal evaluated
> through it.  Starting to work through the backlog of new project
> ideas/requests that have existing active projects elsewhere
>  - a global list of areas needing free knowledge, and how far we are
> as a society towards reaching that goal
>
> SJ
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>
> Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>
>
> I would love to see the new project process on Meta come back online.
> (much of this email is posted to [[m:talk:new project proposals]])
>
> I could use some help in making this happen - we need to start an
> incubator process for ideas with support, and a separate process for
> proposing existing projects that have been incubated elsewhere for
> support or hosting.   The meta page for each proposed project should
> track its progress, whether offsite or on the incubator...  a project
> infobox should be designed... an interested group (if less formal than
> langcom) should go through and review the backlog of proposals and
> suggest the necessary next step for each.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Alec Conroy <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
>
> A space to hold POV debates would be an interesting intermediate
> ground between no-restraint edit wars and topic bans, for those in
> heated argument.  Is Wikinfo designed for this?  I was thinking of
> something more like 'Wikireason'.  There have been various proposals
> for an 'argument wiki' over the years, but I've never seen a working
> implementation.
>
> > I have actually been independently trying to think of other wikis that
> > should be "sister projects".   Some are really obvious and
> > non-controversial--
>
> > SNPedia, for example, an encyclopedia of single nucleotide polymorphisms
> and related studies
> Yes.  Link:  http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/SNPedia
>
> Genealogy:  WeRelate and Rodovid.  Both remarkable and lovely
> projects.  Combinable, if all parties could be brought together.
> Both could use support; I've touched on the possibility of becoming
> WMF projects with each, and they are willing to discuss it.  The
> result would be by far the largest free collection of genealogy
> information, with support from one of the major libraries studyig and
> archiving related data in the US
>
> Children's encyclopedia: WikiKids, Vikidia, Grundschulwiki, Wikimini.
> These projects could be coordinated better to share ideas and lessons,
> and could use more visibility.  Some people active in these projects
> are already Wikimedians.
>
> Dictionaries: OmegaWiki.  This multilingual dictionary could help
> revamp our toolchain for Wiktionary, which remains a bit broken.
>
> Interface translation: TranslateWiki.  iirc it does not want to be a
> WMF project per se, but could use more explicit support than we have
> given so far.
>
> Citations and bibliography: AcaWiki (and the budding WikiScholar).
>
> Wikified maps: Wikimapia. currently profitable and popular; probably
> fine on their own.  However they use a non-free map stack and use an
> NC license; finding a way to help that project migrate to a free stack
> and license  [now that there is a free orthorectified aerial map
> available
> http://blog.stevecoast.com/im-working-at-microsoft-and-were-donating-ima]
> would be of benefit to the whole world.
>
>
> Other projects for which there is a supply of raw materials available
> from content donors (which we cannot currently accept):
> * Annotated source materials and their translations:  Part of Wikisource++
> ?
> * Translation memory:  Part of Translatewiki++ ?
> * Public datasets: Wikidata
> * Music scores: Wikimusic
>
>
> > We're at the point where the lack of diversity of our English language
> > project 'styles' may be a major factor dissuading new users from
> > participation.
>
> It is certainly one of the factors.
>
>
> Sam.
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617
> 529 4266
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Fajro
In reply to this post by Juergen Fenn-3
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Jürgen Fenn
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Am 3. April 2012 22:22 schrieb Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>:
>
> I would like to add another option: Who not merge all projects into
> Wikipedia proper? The lack in participation in the sister projects is
> largely due to the fact that hardly anyone knows about them. Wikipedia
> is the only Wikimedia brand people know of.

That is because there has been no serious attempt to
promote/visibilize the other brands.

I think all the sister projects should be displayed at the top of the
site like the Google products in their new black bar.

Also, the Wikimedia brand / logo should not be hidden at the bottom of
the footer in every page!

I made some suggestions about this some time ago:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/063014.html

> If the sister projects were living in their own
> namespaces within Wikipedia this would be different.

Maybe... or maybe they will be namespaces that hardly anyone knows
about because no one linked them in visible places.

And the "In the news" section of the Main Page of Wikipedia should be
a Wikinews one.

--
Fajro

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Juergen Fenn-3
Hi,

Le 5 avril 2012 05:04, Jürgen Fenn <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Am 3. April 2012 22:22 schrieb Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Ziko:
>>> what would a WMF evaluation of Wikinews or Wikispecies say? Should we shut down such
>>> a project... cease to mention it on Wikipedia main pages... or invest money in promoting it?
>>
>> Good questions, subtle answers.  Those are not the only options; we
>> might help them merge with a similar project.  For instance,
>> wikieducator and wikiversity have almost identical missions, and might
>> benefit from being merged; the question of 'who hosts the site' is
>> relatively minor compared to the loss of splitting energy and focus
>> across two wikis.
>
> I would like to add another option: Who not merge all projects into
> Wikipedia proper? The lack in participation in the sister projects is
> largely due to the fact that hardly anyone knows about them. Wikipedia
> is the only Wikimedia brand people know of. There is nothing you can
> do about it. If the sister projects were living in their own
> namespaces within Wikipedia this would be different. We would have,
> say, a Wikipedia dictionary. They would become part of Wikipedia and,
> hence, partaking in Wikipedia's popularity. Putting money in sister
> projects just means wasting funds. The future lies in integrating them
> into Wikipedia. Five years of experience is enough to tell.

I beg to disagree on all this.
Yes, people do not know about the sister projects, but you can do a
lot about that.
First, start by promoting them, instead of only promoting Wikipedia.
There are very good reasons why these projects are separate: different
scopes, different rules, etc.
Merging them at this point would be the worst idea: they would sink in
the sea of controversy.

No, the future does not lie in making one for binding them all in the
darkness. ;o)
The future lies in diversity. Five years of indifference do not prove anything.

> Regards,
> Jürgen.

Regards,
Yann

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Tarc Meridian
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg

In some respects, that change would be quite good. My experience on Wikiquote has been unfavorable, to put it mildly, where the en.wiki concept of BLP is non-existent.


> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 14:42:41 +1000
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New Project Process
>
> The policies of each project are different for a very good reason.
>
> e.g. If English Wikiquote was merged into English Wikipedia, the vast
> majority of the quote pages would be deleted very quickly, for good or
> ill.  I know I would be the first to get out the sickle. :P
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Carlos Felipe Antonorsi
>
>
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Project Process

Pharos-3
Indeed, I would expect for the 'Sister Projects Committee' to have
both the options of project fission and project fusion within its
toolbag.

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Tarc Meridian <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In some respects, that change would be quite good. My experience on Wikiquote has been unfavorable, to put it mildly, where the en.wiki concept of BLP is non-existent.
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 14:42:41 +1000
>> From: [hidden email]
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] New Project Process
>>
>> The policies of each project are different for a very good reason.
>>
>> e.g. If English Wikiquote was merged into English Wikipedia, the vast
>> majority of the quote pages would be deleted very quickly, for good or
>> ill.  I know I would be the first to get out the sickle. :P
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Carlos Felipe Antonorsi
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12