Talk:New project process

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


I am under understanding that this draft does not apply to the current Wikitravel inclusion process. I think if we are as a Comittee (not just as individual members) want to play any role in the process, we need somehow define the role.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - we need an alternate set of intro steps for Adopting an existing project into Wikimedia. SJ talk  21:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my recent comment on the SPComm talk page. SJ talk  00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Past examples of other sorts of 'new project' ideas : copyright wishlist[edit]

See the copyright wishlist (talk) from 2006. SJ talk  00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell people to go away, they aren't wanted here[edit]

Call me extremely cynical, but I think it is best if pages like this simply stated flat out:

Don't bother trying to submit any proposals for new Wikimedia sister projects. They won't ever be considered and the work you need to put into developing them is by far and away better for you to simply go elsewhere. Have a nice day.

To the contrary, there seems to be a decent small list of significant knowledge-projects that could become sister projects, and I would be surprised if we do not start accepting at least one every year, including this one. SJ talk 

For those who may not be aware, I've been heavily involved with new project proposals for some time and was even involved more directly with the creation of one Wikimedia sister project (Wikiversity). I was extremely disheartened when I saw New project policy be marked as a historical page, but all things considered I thought it was appropriate. See also the discussion at Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2010-12#New_Wikimedia_Sister_Projects...._R._I._P.

I won't get into other reasons for my cynicism here as they are documented here: Talk:New project policy/Archive 1 In that archived discussion, I also go into detail how projects really get done with the WMF, where IMHO the only way you can get a new project started at this level is to first get elected to the WMF board of trustees, and preferably become the chair. Please convince me otherwise, but I don't believe it at the moment. I sure don't believe the words of Sue Gardner when she suggests the WMF is open to new project ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth and actions speak louder than words on this issue too.

I'm glad to see that somebody is at least trying, and I've known User:Sj for some time and appreciated his support in the past. If there is a decided change in heart on the part of the WMF board of trustees and the WMF developer team compared to reactions I've seen in the past, I might even become engaged in working with those who would create new project ideas again. --Roberth (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal: Tell cynics to relax, and come back when we are done :)[edit]

Hello Robert, I was hoping you would weigh in. It's good to know that despite some unfortunate experiences you would consider helping new project ideas if we get something sensible off the ground. This process is not the only way to start new projects, but should serve as a a default fallback process through which we will give all proposers reasonable feedback - including specific feedback on possibilities for hosting outside of WMF, other free knowledge projects in the space worth merging with, &c.

If you look at the last few of major projects created or supported -- Commons, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Incubator, Wikidata -- all took a different course towards sister-project-hood. All shared one thing in common: a persistent and passionate primary proponent (or group of proponents). If you have a good idea that is important to global knowledge and not covered by existing projects, you should be able to get a sister project started -- whether you go through this process or not. SJ talk  07:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is really a process that needs to happen here, and indeed I found the creation process of Wikiversity far too bureaucratic in the way it was handled. An earlier concept of the Wikimedia Incubator (not the one that ended up being developed that was sort of a shot out of the blue when it was created) was something I had envisioned to help out by giving room for people with some interesting ideas to develop. My thought was something more like what Wikia has become where almost anybody could create a time-limited wiki where you could develop your thoughts on what might be a major sister project by actually doing it rather than discussing in committee if the idea could be done at all. Perhaps a few more barriers and steps could be put into the process compared to Wikia (it shouldn't be a free hosting service or even perceived as one), but the steps needed just to unlock shouldn't be done by another project. It wasn't just difficult, it was insanely impossible where it was like needing the services of a proctologist to perform a root canal without anesthesia... and seemingly just as silly of a procedure for getting it done in the first place. I consider it to be an utter miracle that Wikiversity as a sister project even happened at all.
I wasn't even aware that Wikidata was a sister project at all or even remotely considered one. I knew that there were many Wikimedia users participating with the concept and that some massive shifts in what the concept even was about had changed over the years. If it is considered a sister project, that is true news to me. I think a whole bunch of people have kicked the name around for a great many years, so it is good to see something come from it, even though it appears other groups have grabbed onto the name as well perhaps even turning it into a generic term.
I was also involved with Wikinews and Commons getting launched so many years ago (in admittedly a very minor and forgettable role) so I'm aware of their history including stuff that isn't written down. You are correct that each one took a different path, including Wikibooks and Wikisource I might add as well (even though both of those projects were started more directly with an appeal to Jimmy Wales when he was still footing the server bill out of his own pocket and co-located with Bomis).
There have been some outstanding project proposals offered over the years, some by very well meaning people who simply didn't understand the politics of the WMF, and others that had a core group that simply gave up even dealing with the WMF so they went their own direction. A few of those projects also gave up and simply folded because the resistance was simply too strong. I'll even dare say that by pushing back and throwing away these projects, it also threw away the leavening seed of creative people that made Wikipedia in the first place and is one of the reasons why editor retention is such a huge problem now. It may not even be possible to get them back now because they've moved onto other projects. It is an intangible quality but something none the less important that made the Wikimedia projects grow and become the phenomena that they are today. My hope is that by open up to genuinely new ideas that perhaps some of that spirit which created Wikipedia in the first place could be recaptured, including a capture of the youth mindshare into hopefully contributing to Wikipedia again instead of feeling alienated from the editorial process as is the case right now. --Roberth (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approval of test projects in incubator[edit]

Hi, I started a test project in incubator Wt/ig Please i need to understand what it takes (requirements) to get the test project approved and published. --Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to create is not a new project. It is a new language version of the existing project. For detailed instruction see Language proposal policy. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ruslik for your clarification. I would do the needful.

-- 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]