On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:45:34 +0200, "Florence Devouard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> 
> Fair enough :-) I would support the development of two main pages (main 
> and  community portal) as well as new workspace "historical" as a start.
> 
> Ant
> 
> 

The idea of looking at Meta's namespces with a view to creating clarity
seems very worthwhile.  For example Translations: would make some sense
to me & doubtless others can come up with good ones too.

Meta is a little "casually" organised and we could improve the structure
& work on there quite simply I think.
-- 
  Herby
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class


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

Reply via email to