Reviewiki

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Languages: English
This page is a proposal for a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project.
Status Rejected
Reason Only two have supported it, but many more have opposed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Prompt Response
What is the proposed name for the project? Reviewiki
Proposed project tagline (if available) The free review collection
Project description
What is the project purpose? What will be its scope? How would it benefit to be part of Wikimedia?
To review things, from music over movies to restaurants.
How many wikis?
Will there be many language versions or just on one multilingual wiki?
In some languages, maybe the ones of the five biggest Wikipedias
How many languages?
Is the project going to be in one language or in many?
Some, but not much
Proposed project website address http://review.wikimedia.org/
Proposed logo for the project (if available) In creation
Technical requirements
If the project requires any new features that the MediaWiki software currently doesn't have, please describe in detail. Are additional MediaWiki extensions needed for the project?
no
Development wiki
Interested Participants:

‎‎

Reviewiki, also called Wikimedia Reviewiki, Wikimedia Review or Wikireview, could be a project to review anything. I had the idea because I wanted something to not need the neutral point of view, but still give free information. That's why I came up with this. On Reviewiki, many things could be recensed. CDs or singles, or books, television shows, movies and even restaurants or hotels. But things like this. I just saw Wikireview, but that's not where I'm thinking about: things that are yours, being reviewed by other users... I don't think that's a good idea.

On the wiki, there are 3 sorts of users. Normal users, trusted users and admins. Everyone can create a review about something, also when it already exists. An example of a review page of a CD:


Xx album cover.svg
3.5 stars.svg

xx


The xx

(reviewed by Wolf Lambert)

This is not a real review. I even didn't choosed the star rating. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.


Normal users

The review page can be edited and deleted by the reviewer. Another user can't edit the page. So normal users can only create and edit their own pages.

Trusted users

Trusted users can edit another user's pages, but because they're trusted, they aren't allowed to change the review (just edit typos, wrong links or other things) because it's written by one person.

Admins

Administrators can edit everything, block users, protect pages,... Like always.

I'd first launch the project in the languages of the three or five biggest Wikipedias. On Wikipedia, there could be linked to the reviews, without needing to link to a professional review site.

People interested[edit]

  1. Wolf Lambert (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Opponents[edit]

  1. Oppose Oppose - The fact that this will not follow NPOV will doom it. If there's a negative review of, say, a television show that promotes LBGT, the reviewer will more than likely be branded a bigot and it will create a ton of unnecessary drama (Never mind the actual bigots a project like this will attract). So, no thanks. WMF projects already have enough problems. Nick1372 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose per Nick1372--TheMillionRabbit 06:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oppose Not what WMF is aimed to.Lsmll (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Oppose per nick1372. Alan (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose per Nick1372. --Ricordisamoa 05:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. Strongly Oppose Oppose Because of the Wikidata. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    @Liuxinyu970226: What does this have to do with Wikidata? Wikidata is for facts, this is for opinions. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Oppose. I do not think this project aligns with the mission of WMF. --Another Believer (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Oppose - Diamant (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Oppose -> I'm neither interested in this nor determined to localize it in our language. Super Wang (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Oppose Sadly, too NPOV.--Seonookim (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Oppose Sense. This makes none. Woodcutterty (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Oppose So as proposed, each page would consist of one person's opinion about something. Most users would not be allowed to change the opinions expressed on those pages, no matter how unfair or vile they were. This seems to be the complete opposite of what the Wikimedia Foundation is supposed to do. Instead of people working together to share their knowledge with the world, one person gets to force his or her opinions on everyone else. If that's what you want, get a blog. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Oppose no--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Oppose like Lsmll. --Timmaexx (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Oppose a reviewiki [sic]? :S Trijnsteltalk 17:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Oppose Per the first oppose and some of the others. Sven Manguard (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Oppose Definitely not. — ΛΧΣ21 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Oppose Because the Wikimedia Foundation projects as I see them are useful reference works. Forums like this are perfectly appropriate for Wikia, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Oppose WMF projects should always be neutral. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 20:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Oppose Per Koavf. LlamaAl (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Oppose Not successful project. Per whole of oppose. --►Cekli829 08:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Oppose it has not a NPOV . --Natuur12 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Oppose Southparkfan 15:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)