On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:36:03 +0200, "Guillaume Paumier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
> 
> [CCing to wikimediameta-l]
> 
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Florence Devouard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Given that I was the one who originally suggested that it would be a
> > good idea to open wmf editing thanks to flaggued revisions, I am not
> > going to say it is a bad idea.
> >
> > However, considering wmf site as the official hosting of information
> > regarding all of our organization would be a huge mistake.
> >
> > WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate website.
> 
> I concur ; wikimediafoundation.org is the website of the Foundation,
> and that's all.
> 
> > Could this be hosted on meta ?
> >
> > Yes, certainly. At least for a while.
> > But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of
> > meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the
> > main page.
> 
> In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement
> / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where
> people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation
> all gather.
> 
> Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for
> content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g.
> [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to
> have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just
> like on other Wikimedia projects).
> 
> I agree that meta tends to be a mess and it should be cleaned up. It's
> not a new idea (see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta ) but
> the project was abandoned. Some months ago I was thinking about
> creating a new namespace (say Historical:) to archive all the old
> stuff and clean up the wiki a bit.
> 
> In a word, we shouldn't open a brand new community wiki just because
> we're too lazy to clean up the one we've already got for years.
> 
> -- 
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> "Scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum." Quintilian
> 

I certainly agree with much of what Guillaume says here.

The idea of the new namespace (& I agree Historical:) would be very good
indeed.  Most new people to Meta find rather strange pages which they
tag for deletion only to be told that they are "historical" - I may have
been one of them :).

A problem with Meta is that quite a few people find it, some edit a bit
but few stay & work there.  I know we all have limited time and have to
decide where we can best/most rewardingly allocate it however Meta
really could do with less visitors & more workers.  I do not see how
creating what appears to be a new meta (in the true sense of the word)
site is going to help.  Those who deal with meta aspects will then move
or whatever & Meta as a whole could be tagged as "historical"?

If I can I would certainly help with a clear up of Meta - most of my
time there has been devoted to the blacklist & we now finally have
rather more people committed to that than in the past.  It would be good
if this topic continued to be posted to the Meta list as well as
foundation for the benefit of those of us who are not currently
subscribers to foundation.

Thanks
-- 
  Herby
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but differentÂ…


_______________________________________________
Wikimediameta-l mailing list
Wikimediameta-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l

Reply via email to