Is Metawikipedia a good thing

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The availability of MetaWikipedia has certainly had an intersting effect, and one that I would not have predicted a month ago.

For one thing, I've certainly noticed a dramatic increase in civility over at Wikpedia.

Now maybe this is just my perception, but the "inflamed and passionate harangues about Wikipedia policy" seem to have subsided considerably, even though there is no logical reason for them to have done so.

Either we are too lazy to hit the "Meta Wikipedia" button conveniently located on "Recent Changes", or perhaps those issues weren't so desperately important after all.

Or better yet, maybe we are all too busy writing articles now? Whatever the cause, I think that this makes MetaWikipedia a good thing.

MMGB


It seems that more effort is going into the articles over at Wikipedia Proper, so MetaWikipedia is good in that way. However, I'm finding that our current implementation of it is getting in the way of Wikipedia discussion, and since that is the purpose of this wiki that's a bad thing. For example, there is no easy way to link to Wikipedia pages. InterWiki links would help a lot. However, I'd like to see the meta discussion move to a separate namespace on Wikipedia, with a separate Recent Changes page. --Stephen Gilbert


I'm totally with you on the interwiki links - Magnus said he plans to implement something like that once he finishes his exams in late Dec 01. I don't think it really makes a difference whether it is on a separate domain or a separate namespace, as long as we can inter-link easily. - MMGB


I think having Metawikipedia in a separate namespace ("separate" meaning "with a different 'recent changes' page") is a good idea--I was never opposed to that. In the meantime, it's not hard to link to a page on Wikipedia. Just go to the Wikipedia page and do an "external link" to it. It's not hard.

I totally agree that Wikipedia seems more civilized now, and this is a very good thing. --Larry_Sanger


Now that Larry's gone, it seems to be the only form of governance left.24

I"m still here, 24, assuming the role that Larry had from before. Please log in. --Jimbo Wales

Not if you are interested in community and reputation. From my point of view, this is a market not a community, and it benefits from sharp trading not from groupthink. We do not have physical shared risk here, so there is no real reason to trust each other. In fact, a strict protocol that works so well that we never have to, seems to suit the encyclopedia form much better.
if you are assuming this role Larry had, then, please, outline how you think governance works.