Proposal talk:Create new projects and put them for sale

From Strategic Planning

any comments?Mahitgar 10:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really see a need for non-wiki websites using wikimedia software. And the volunteer programmers most likely prefer working for the wikimedia projects then for the sites the proposal is about. For that task commercial dovelopers are a better choice. And for projects the wikimedia software is suitable, is simply can be used. --Jackson 15:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm! Thanks for comment, I am sitting fingures crossed, to see further coments and discussion.Mahitgar 05:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

«But Mediawiki Software is more versatile and can be put to use for more no. of purposes [...]»: that's why w:Wikia exists. Wikia is not Wikimedia. Nemo 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And than there are thousands of wikies used for different purposes. From the time (from the beggining) MediaWiki software is and open source there are wikies of NGO´s, governmental institutions or companies. So I am missing the contribution of this proposal.--Juan de Vojníkov 06:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My impression was, to allow Wikimedia to create and host other wiki's for an appropriate fee. (As opposed to Wikia hosting them for "Free", supported by advertising.) While technically, people can take the Wikimedia software, hire server-space, and develop their own site, it doesn't mean they have the knowledge to do so. So they'd still need to hire someone else to develop and run it. Who better than Wikimedia itself? (Wikimedia's servers are powerful enough to survive being "Slashdotted" or "Dugg", how many organisations can afford servers with that capacity?) -- 18:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahitgar, would you like to add another part to your proposal? That Wikimedia volunteers who contribute to the development of these paid wikis get a share of the fee. Many have developed wonderful skills, very specialised to this software, all for no financial reward. -- 18:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for above replies, some of us have claimed that there are other avenues like wikia.But I do not agree any substantial impact of media wiki as a content management software in our daily lives in rest sphere.

Is it not possible that People draft their own laws with collaborative participation. But I could not find any such wiki. I know some government body in US is using the software for its staff but where is people inclusive governance ? My nearby residential coloney can have its own page on a wiki but it does not.

The point here is for making people know that editing on a wikipedia is easy and intresting and beneficial to youre daily life is far difficult than that his residential coloney has got its own wiki page where he is being told by his neighbour how to edit a wiki.

Today if a new person writes some thing for creating a new page for some nonencyclopedic purpose he is not guided that ok you can go to wikia for this purpose , but he is treated as a spammer and edit gets deleted before he understand concept of an encyclopedia. knowing availability of other farms is very long way.

Another purpose certainly is bringing it to people attension that media wiki has potential to be used effectively in more sphere where still it is not in use.People inclusive Governance,Law,new small scale enterprenuership and business development,Portal Pages for Small Co-operatives and NGOs,Social Marketing proposals etc

Ofcourse I suppose this proposal making is also colaabotrative and you can make changes in this proposal

Regards Mahitgar 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]