headers
Andre Engels | 1 Jan 2005 23:59
Picon

Forking the Wiki

Wikipedia and Wikimedia were once created to start an encyclopedia.
Now we have more, we have wikis for dictionaries, books, source
material, citations, multimedia files, biological species, victims of
9/11... Why?

The positive way to say it would be to state that we are extending our
reach. But is that the case? Looking at the history, I have the
feeling they are all weak compromises between deletionists and
inclusionists. Some wanted to delete dictionary definitions, others
wanted to keep them. No agreement. So we make a special wiki for that,
and both can be happy. They are not deleted, and they are not kept in
Wikipedia. Some want to delete source files, others don't. Another
Wiki. Some want to include how-tos and such, others don't. Another
Wiki. Some want to include all 9/11 victims, others don't. And indeed.

Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
we find a compromise. From another point of view, it just shows that
we cannot make any real decisions. I guess it's the wiki way. We are
good at making compromises, we are totally incapable at making
decisions.

What am I saying here? I don't really know. But I do want to have said
it. Do your advantage with it, or throw it away. Whatever.

Andre Engels
Permalink | Reply | 45 comments |
headers
Magosányi Árpád | 2 Jan 2005 10:38
Picon

Re: Forking the Wiki

A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Andre Engels a következőeket írta:
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia were once created to start an encyclopedia.
> Now we have more, we have wikis for dictionaries, books, source
> material, citations, multimedia files, biological species, victims of
> 9/11... Why?
> 
> The positive way to say it would be to state that we are extending our
> reach. But is that the case? Looking at the history, I have the
> feeling they are all weak compromises between deletionists and
> inclusionists. Some wanted to delete dictionary definitions, others
> wanted to keep them. No agreement. So we make a special wiki for that,
> and both can be happy.

I was thinking about the same. This is what I am thinking about it:

Each Wiki page can be viewed as describing a knowledge scheme. The
additions I have seen so far are of two types:

* "Structural" schemes, describing some kind of structure of other
schemes.

* "Informational" schemes, describing some information.

Examples of structural schemes are the species and the contents of
wiktionary. These both structure other schemes which are normally
entries of wikipedia. 

Examples of informational schemes are source material, citations,
multimedia files.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales | 2 Jan 2005 12:18
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Forking the Wiki

Andre Engels wrote:
> Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
> we find a compromise. From another point of view, it just shows that
> we cannot make any real decisions. I guess it's the wiki way. We are
> good at making compromises, we are totally incapable at making
> decisions.

I'm not so sure, but of course this is something for us all to keep in
mind.  Certainly, wiktionary is now maturing into something that it
could never have been without being separate from wikipedia, and so
having a separate reference work makes complete sense there.

For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
and we should do something about it.

--Jimbo
Permalink | Reply | 43 comments |
headers
Sj | 2 Jan 2005 17:45
Picon

Re: Forking the Wiki

> Andre Engels wrote:
> > Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
< > we find a compromise...

I agree with Andre's observations here; community discussions in the
past do not seem to have distinguished between [the need for separate
views for different contributors, and different policies for different
subprojects] and [the need for separate wikis/databases, technical
arrangements, lists of administrators, interlang links].

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 03:18:21 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales@...> wrote:
> Certainly, wiktionary is now maturing into something that it
> could never have been without being separate from wikipedia, and so
> having a separate reference work makes complete sense there.

Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
having a separate wiki.

There are a number of wiki subprojects that set their own local
policy, have their own microcosmic village pumps and portal pages,
have dedicated contributors who use their watchlists to efffectively
create a specialized Recentchanges list without losing the ability to
tap into the 'global' recentchantes, etc.

It makes a lot of sense to me, theoretically, to have the all projects
working on collective reference works share a single wiki [database]. 
Then to rethink namespaces in such a way that there is no extra fear
of naming conflicts; then to use URL-rewriting to take advantage of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Daniel Mayer | 2 Jan 2005 19:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: Forking the Wiki

--- Sj <2.718281828@...> wrote:
> Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
> community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
> having a separate wiki.

But being different types of reference works does. Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, Wikibooks is a collection of textbooks/manuals, Wiktionary is a
translating dictionary and thesaurus. Each has its own unique way of presenting
information to the reader (Wikibooks instructs, Wikipedia informs, Wikisource
regurgitates) and each has very different concepts about what goes onto a page
and linking (very few internal links in Wikibooks and Wikisource, for example).

The separation is both necessary and desirable. The only issue I see is the
abiltiy to link user accounts across wikis and maybe have the option of having
combined recent changes and watchlists. 

-- mav

		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. 
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Daniel Mayer | 2 Jan 2005 20:01
Picon
Favicon

Re: Forking the Wiki

--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@...> wrote:
> For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
> and we should do something about it.

Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
Wikipeople). 

-- mav

		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
Permalink | Reply | 35 comments |
headers
Fred Bauder | 2 Jan 2005 20:52
Gravatar

Re: Forking the Wiki

It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
dead, etc.

But would enough people actually work on it?

Fred

> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149@...>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@...>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@...>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
> 
> --- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@...> wrote:
>> For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>> and we should do something about it.
> 
> Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
> a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
> WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
> Wikipeople). 
> 
> -- mav
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
David Gerard | 2 Jan 2005 22:24
Picon
Picon

Re: Forking the Wiki

Fred Bauder (fredbaud@...) [050103 06:51]:

> It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
> dead, etc.
> But would enough people actually work on it?

Perhaps the many hardworking editors on the Israeli-Palestine conflict
would have their energies usefully diverted there, before we simply block
every IP in the Middle East out of frustration ...

- d.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robert Scott Horning | 2 Jan 2005 22:31
Favicon

Re: Forking the Wiki

Fred Bauder wrote:

>It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
>dead, etc.
>
>But would enough people actually work on it?
>
>Fred
>
>  
>
>>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149@...>
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@...>
>>Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@...>
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
>>
>>--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@...> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>>>and we should do something about it.
>>>      
>>>
>>Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
>>a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
>>WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
>>Wikipeople). 
>>    
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 2 Jan 2005 23:04

Re: Forking the Wiki

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>>and we should do something about it.
>>    
>>
>Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
>a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
>WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
>Wikipeople). 
>  
>
This was the gist of the Wikimorial idea.  It's about commemorating the 
otherwise "unnotable" people who happened to be at the wong place at the 
wrong time, and fell victims to historic events that overwhelmed them.  
The recent tsunami may well generate other stories that merit inclusion.

Not all people referenced there need to have died in the events.  The 
project could include significant survival stories.  I see it as a 
"human interest" kind of project.

Ec
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane