Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
I'll weigh in on wiki later today or tomorrow (I've been very sick and haven't been on much) but I did want to put in a couple of my thoughts: - Part of me doesn't have an enormous issue with merging content into meta if people really want it though I don't think it helps much - I think creating StrategyWiki as it's own entity when it was done was necessary and important. I don't think the strategy process would have been as successful without doing it. - I don't think that creating strategyWiki was part of a 'fad' by the foundation or others to create new wikis. We have certainly created separate wikis which I do not think needed to be made (and hurt their purpose) but Strategy was not one of them and, if anything, was the 'start' of the fad and, like most fad starters, was the one with the most legitimate reasons. Everyone follows the trendsetter because they want their results, but forget that they're different. - There are many reasons the separate wiki was/is good but to keep it short I'll give the biggest one: The StrategyWiki required a fresh community with as much activity and new blood as possible from around the projects and the movement as a whole. Meta was not, and is not, a fresh community. It does many things well but it is still it's own community with it's own rules and structure. Sadly you just can't invite a fresh, new community into an old community (it's the same reason the travelWiki proposers were saying that it would be best to start off with a fresh, new, name etc). I don't think it would have done as well if it didn't have the flexibility that a new community allowed (turning on liquid threads for example etc). Overall I think the strategy project actually showed that splitting off to a new wiki can be helpful at times and I think that it should be done for the new strategy plan (likely to start next year, at the latest, I'd imagine) should do the same and either use Strategy or a new wiki. Using Strategy would probably be best and keeping the historic pages could be helpful. James On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote: Please weigh in at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Strategy_Wiki On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l 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 -- James Alexander Manager, Merchandise Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur ___ 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?
(e) I don't see any reason for changes... On 13 August 2012 22:18, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'll weigh in on wiki later today or tomorrow (I've been very sick and haven't been on much) but I did want to put in a couple of my thoughts: - Part of me doesn't have an enormous issue with merging content into meta if people really want it though I don't think it helps much - I think creating StrategyWiki as it's own entity when it was done was necessary and important. I don't think the strategy process would have been as successful without doing it. - I don't think that creating strategyWiki was part of a 'fad' by the foundation or others to create new wikis. We have certainly created separate wikis which I do not think needed to be made (and hurt their purpose) but Strategy was not one of them and, if anything, was the 'start' of the fad and, like most fad starters, was the one with the most legitimate reasons. Everyone follows the trendsetter because they want their results, but forget that they're different. - There are many reasons the separate wiki was/is good but to keep it short I'll give the biggest one: The StrategyWiki required a fresh community with as much activity and new blood as possible from around the projects and the movement as a whole. Meta was not, and is not, a fresh community. It does many things well but it is still it's own community with it's own rules and structure. Sadly you just can't invite a fresh, new community into an old community (it's the same reason the travelWiki proposers were saying that it would be best to start off with a fresh, new, name etc). I don't think it would have done as well if it didn't have the flexibility that a new community allowed (turning on liquid threads for example etc). Overall I think the strategy project actually showed that splitting off to a new wiki can be helpful at times and I think that it should be done for the new strategy plan (likely to start next year, at the latest, I'd imagine) should do the same and either use Strategy or a new wiki. Using Strategy would probably be best and keeping the historic pages could be helpful. James On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote: Please weigh in at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Strategy_Wiki On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l 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 -- James Alexander Manager, Merchandise Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ 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 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?
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
