Seed Wiki... when?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Seed Wiki... when?

Robert S. Horning
Another VfD has come up on English Wikibooks that brings to mind the
issue again of having a seed wiki somewhere, and the sense that perhaps
Wikibooks is a logical place to host new projects.  For some specific
details see:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks%3AVotes_for_deletion#Errata

I think this is an ideal candidate for inclusion with a brand-new seed
wiki, with perhaps the Wiki for Standards proposal that successfully won
a vote on Meta and is technically going "before the board" as per the
new project policy.

My question again that I'm throwing up to the community (again) is if
the seed wiki should be started as a seperate project, or should
Wikibooks serve in that role.  I have heard opinion from four board
members (Angela, Anthere, Jimbo, and Tim) that this is inappropriate for
Wikibooks and they should be developed elsewhere.  Yet both this Errata
and the Wikimania proceedings were put on Wikibooks, both with the idea
that there was no other place to put content like this and it was simply
the "best fit" even if it didn't quite fit Wikibooks policies or match
Wikibooks content as being a textbook.  This has happened within the
past year for both of these projects.  Wikierrata was even proposed as a
new project on Meta about the same time this content was put on
Wikibooks BTW.

Is the real solution Wikicities?  Should we simply tell people that are
interested in setting things like these or the dozens of other projects
that have been proposed on Meta that their only option is to go to
Wikicities or start it on their own dime on a seperate server?  With
Wikiversity taking over seven months to go from proposal to still not
being turned on, even after an overwhelming vote of support from the
user community, nor really rejected by the board either and being in
limbo.  The sheer bureaucracy in trying to get it going has frustrated
many individuals, and in the case of Wikiversity they have a "seed wiki"
that they are working on:  Wikibooks.

Other projects are told to stay away, with the hint that some sort of
seed wiki is eventually going to be started to help deal with these
kinds of projects.  Projects like Wikitree have already been developed
as independent projects after the users involved decided the whole
Wikimedia new project process was just simply too much, even though that
went through at least the initial stages of becoming a new Wikimedia
project and followed the policy mentioned on Meta before going off on
their own.

I suggest this because it seems like Wikimedia community members are
going to Wikibooks with new projects even with the official
pronouncements that it shouldn't be done, and it being formally listed
as an official policy on Wikibooks this shouldn't be happening.   At
least six different projects of this nature have occured in this past
year alone, most removed through VfD processes or some sort of community
concensus that it shouldn't be on Wikibooks, or that the content
"mutated" into a textbook after policies were explained to the
participants.  There are others that are even starting on Wikibooks this
year, and it seems "oh no, not again".  I try to nip it right as it is
being created when I can catch it, but in the case of Errata the users
who have been developing the content have about 100 pages of content and
they justifibly are upset that they are told to pack their bags now.

I guess I'm asking what is the official policy going to be on this issue
as to the place for creating new Wikimedia projects, and what would the
guidelines be for starting a new project with a seed wiki?  Since a seed
wiki doesn't exist, what is going to be required to get one started?
 Should it simply be Wikibooks or Wikicities? (Good reasons for either
or both)  Should we instead try to go through the whole process of a
formal vote and new project creation for a Wikimedia seed wiki site?
(with hopefully a much better name as SeedWiki is already used
elsewhere).  As the need is already acknowledged by board members and
has even been discussed on the agenda of several board meetings, I'm not
sure if the need is there for going through the whole new project
creation process, but it might iron out some details before such a
project is started.

--
Robert Scott Horning


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