Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
I would like to see this become an open part of Meta. It is traditional meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly. Sam. On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: On 8/11/2012 8:05 PM, Mono wrote: Should we lock StrategyWiki as historical? Some options: A) Prevent all editing and keep content at current address. B) Restrict editing to admins and keep content at current address. C) Move content to Meta and mark as historical, lock editing. D) Move content to Meta and leave it open. E) Do nothing. I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to say nothing of interim updates to the current plan). I wouldn't mind having the content migrate to Meta. I know there were well-considered reasons why the strategy wiki and various others were created as separate sites, but I'd like to see us do that more as dedicated spaces within a common site. As to marking content as historical, I'm not sure that's really the best use of the material. Many strategic questions do not really go away, and they can and should be revisited as part of the next planning process. I would favor refactoring and merging, it should become a living space again, not an archive. --Michael Snow ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to see this become an open part of Meta. It is traditional meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly. Sam. I disagree. Strategy work is Wikimedia Foundation's focus planning. Meta is Wikimedia projects. I think it's important to delineate the two. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
I'd also support this sort of thing going to meta. Perhaps not marking everything as historical, but certainly a slow move to a central location that's easy for newbies to find. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 12 August 2012 11:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 August 2012 04:37, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to say nothing of interim updates to the current plan). I would hope the next plan is prepared on meta. I think we've learned that new wikis for things like this don't generally work very well (the strategy wiki was one of the more successful ones, probably because it was so well publicised, but I think the evidence says that putting things on meta works better). ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
On 12 August 2012 13:04, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: I'd also support this sort of thing going to meta. Perhaps not marking everything as historical, but certainly a slow move to a central location that's easy for newbies to find. Strategy Wiki has already been configured as an import source for Meta-Wiki, so any admins on Meta (there are plenty) will be able to import pages cross-wiki with full history via https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Import. Perhaps we could put things into a new Strategy: namespace? -- Thehelpfulone http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was popular to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta. Kind regards Ziko 2012/8/12 Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com: On 12 August 2012 13:04, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: I'd also support this sort of thing going to meta. Perhaps not marking everything as historical, but certainly a slow move to a central location that's easy for newbies to find. Strategy Wiki has already been configured as an import source for Meta-Wiki, so any admins on Meta (there are plenty) will be able to import pages cross-wiki with full history via https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Import. Perhaps we could put things into a new Strategy: namespace? -- Thehelpfulone http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht --- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
Thehelpfulone wrote: Strategy Wiki has already been configured as an import source for Meta-Wiki, so any admins on Meta (there are plenty) will be able to import pages cross-wiki with full history via https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Import. Perhaps we could put things into a new Strategy: namespace? Maybe, though I'd like to see a clearer definition of what would go in that namespace. Would the final Strategic Report go at Strategy:Report or Strategy:Strategic Report? Or what's wrong with just Strategic Report (in the main namespace)? Someone will need to audit strategy.wikimedia.org's content for what we want and don't want (there's likely some garbage) and then figure out where it best fits on Meta-Wiki. I don't think a flat Strategy namespace will do anything but duplicate work (pulling everything in, then sorting all of it in a year or two when we realize that we didn't want everything and it's not well classified). I imagine you'll want namespaces for Proposals or Workgroups or whatever kind of high-level content separation you can find that might also be helpful to Meta-Wiki generally. I thought there was some planning about this on Meta-Wiki already somewhere. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
Ziko van Dijk wrote: It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was popular to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta. I'm not sure what a WCA is. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_fragmentation discusses many of the reasons that people fragment what are otherwise sensible critical-mass communities or projects into multiple beautiful-but-subcritical communities which fade over time. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
On 12/08/2012 16:45, MZMcBride wrote: Ziko van Dijk wrote: It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was popular to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta. I'm not sure what a WCA is. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association? KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] reach of projects by geography
Speaking of moving strategy pages to meta... I was recently looking for the information that is contained in these pages: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Europe http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_and_North_Africa http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/South_Asia i.e. Wikipedia growth, by language, by geographic area. As far as I know a) the strategy pages were the first attempt at doing this; and b) they haven't been updated since they were created in 2009/10. So I think it would be good to update these pages and add them to meta, which currently has: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_language_family https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_language_group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_speakers_per_article and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias but not as far as I can tell a geographic breakdown. Thoughts? Suggestions on how to name the pages? Has someone already worked on this? I realize of course that any geographic grouping is an inexact science due to 2nd languages, world languages, diasporas, etc. But I still think it's an interesting and important view of our global work. cheers, phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
