Wait, wait. The risk to shut down to get enough consensus to shut down a project with an active community which is not systematically violating any fundamental principle is zero.
Vito Il giorno gio 18 apr 2019 alle ore 10:45 Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto: > The difference here being that it is not a professional system. If you > mess with the crowd the crowd does not generally go where you prefer it to, > it goes home. > Other potential contributors see what has been done, and decide not to > waste their efforts where outsiders can throw their work away. (outsiders > meaning people not from the project that is being closed). > Preserving as read only in another place is far more acceptable and > indicates respect for one's efforts, even when times have changed. Internal > deletion, change and general editing is a completely different issue. It is > a given when you start. It is implied by CC-by-sa licence. > Cheers, > Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Andy Mabbett > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:50 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand > system for our 2030 goals] > > On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood > <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all > volunteers > > that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day. > > For some value of "lost" - it's likely, in this case, that all the > content would be preserved, either by making the wiki read-only, or > perhaps migrating articles to, say, Wikisource. > > Sure, things like some portal pages, templates and categories might be > discarded, but that can happen to the work of any of us, on any > project, anyway. > > We have a related, but different, issue at Wikispecies .Technically at > least, that project is now (or could soon be, with a few tweaks) > wholly redundant to Wikidata, and could be populated using > Listeria-like scripts or templates, from what is held in Wikidata. > > The Wikispecies community vehemently resist this, and respond with > suggestions that data in Wikispecies (held in a variety of templates, > as well as much unstructured prose) should be what is edited, and > should be used in a reverse of the above process to somehow magically > populate Wikidata. > > So we continue to maintain versions of the same data on two (or more: > Wikipedias and Commons also do their own things with biological > taxonomy) vastly different projects, diluting the impact of all of our > volunteer-hours. Anyone who commissioned a system like this in a > professional capacity would be sacked for incompetence. > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>