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

Technical vs social experimentation[edit]

I think it's important to differentiate between technical experimentation and social experimentation. The Wikimedia production cluster is not ideal for technical experimentation because wikis are not segregated from each other so problems with an experimental wiki can easily spread to other wikis. (I gave a talk last Wikimania exploring this in more detail, along with possible solutions, but those would not be cheap.) So things like WikiCite or Lexeme or VideoWiki are probably not really viable. --Tgr (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree this should primarily be for social experimentation, although I do think there is room for some interesting low-tech innovation with templates and Wikidata/Wikibase integration.--Pharos (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions in comparison to Incubator[edit]

Having experienced the incubator I have some questions;

  1. Criteria for testing, what under lying conditions will there be...
  2. Will there be a background support team to ensure issues are raised and addressed, in a timely fashion.
  3. keeping it simple to edit, Incubator is the worst place to bring new contributors to as templates, links, and other features require far more complexity than a live wiki to work with
  4. how/who/when will decisions on next step be taken, is the path clear and easy to follow with honest, defined, and clear goals..
  5. what happens to information developed but not progressed,

I like the idea of a development space for sister projects, I have some concepts I'd like to bring to it but my bad experiences with the incubator is hard to shake. Gnangarra (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This proposal is still at an early stage, so I cannot give full answers and these will evolve over time, but here are my best approximations at the moment:
  1. For interim development, we will run an annual Community Wishlist-style contest to see which proposals will have real community support on Wikispore. Obviously we cannot govern the Wikimedia Foundation's final approval of a new sister project, but I think that with time, we can develop the credibility to begin recommending the "graduating" of one or two spores a year.
  2. We do not have a professional development staff, of course, but we will work on bringing together a volunteer team that can also work with WMF staff, who can help mentor us through this process.
  3. We will go with a namespace-based system rather than a subpage-paged system like Incubator. This is imperfect but an improvement, and may become functionally identical to independent wikis with the adaptation of a more suited namespace extension.
  4. I can help to provide some leadership and help to bring a group together, and I hope that we work out a consensus-driven path that also has modest and achievable goals.
  5. Information in namespaces will generally be retained on Wikispore, unless for some reason it is judged harmful. We will probably limit the number of wiki pages for proposals that do not have consensus to develop as a namespace (perhaps 10-100 pages), so grand personal efforts will not be wasted.

I'm hopeful we can evolve quite significantly on the Incubator model, and also provide a better experience for participants.--Pharos (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

More incubation vs. less incubation[edit]

Interestingly, there is a proposal in the opposite direction, to close Incubator and just set up new wikis instead: T228745 (kudos to Jdforrester for pointing it out). While for languages it is a bit different situation (the decision whether we want a project in a given language is made before starting to incubate it, while for new project types that might not be a good idea) the reasons listed there about why Incubator doesn't work well are very relevant. --Tgr (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Steps for setting up a new wiki[edit]

AIUI the process for setting up Wikispore would be:

  1. getting more supporters (also it's generally a good idea to differentiate between people who like the idea and support it in theory vs. people actually willing to spend time on the new wiki)
  2. meta RfC (since the new project proposal process doesn't really work)
  3. board vote on the proposal
  4. the wiki creation script must be fixed (see T212881), hopefully this will happen soon anyway

--Tgr (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Potential projects[edit]

A long, long time ago Jimbo gave a talk about what kind of new wikiprojects we should have most (with a follow-up a few years later from Erik Möller), and the 2010 strategy tried to turn that into a more complete list. It might be interesting to sort through the proposals with an eye towards that. --Tgr (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgr: Yes suddenly we have greater capacity to consider these things. With new technology, new social infrastructure, and massive new access to free and open media from external sources, our situation has changed and we have new options. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth omitting 'sci-hub' from the examples list. No matter its usefulness, it's the only one that is explicitly illegal so wmf would have to keep a distance from it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata strategy includes many Wikibase spin offs[edit]

This just out today -

When Wikimedia NYC proposed this WikiSpore idea they had hosted a Wikibase conference earlier this year. There was talk of more Wikibase instances but no one really knew the timescale - maybe 1-3 years? With these new strategy documents the schedule seems more rushed.

I see this Wikibase strategy and this Wikspore proposal as complementary.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)