Proposal talk:Delete All Wikimedia Projects

From Strategic Planning
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talking about unrealistic proposals! In practice it is impossible to delete anything from Wikipedia. How would it be possible to delete the whole thing? - Brya 09:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You delete the database that contains the Wiki. You don't delete anything using a web browser. You log into MySQL and drop the database. Then, you format the hard drive of every Mediawiki server.--Kjlsgk;jh 21:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1) From a physical point of view: actually that would not do it.
2) More importantly is the social aspect: there is a considerable resistance to deleting anything that has popular appeal (often it looks like the sillier it is the more appeal it enjoys). - Brya 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You would be responsible to sending us back to the Dark Ages if you get rid of Wikipedia. It would be like living in the Stone Ages or 1980. GVnayR 03:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Impact?

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)

Lol

ok. we get the joke.

This is no joke. It is not even remotely amusing, either as satire or as an attempt at trolling. It should be removed immediately, as the user who tagged it to be speedily deleted pointed out in his comment on the tag.--Orthologist 16:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

this is not a comment ;-)

Please don't

feed the trolls. 87.194.39.109 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This proposal is a huge problem. It is disseminating unreliable and biased information and is hijacking the attention of hard-working strategist Wikimedians. The proposer is openly espousing trolling. The proposer is not rewarding contributors for their work, and should be banned. Whenever a Wikimedian volunteers on any Wikimedia project, they are thanked for their efforts, but by the proposer of this page, contributors are being treated like trash. --99.238.31.18 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This proposal is also completely impossible. Even if all of the servers were destroyed along with all of the databases the Wikipedia would still be available through hundreds of other sources. All of the thousands of copies of the Wikimedia projects throughout the world make it impossible for anything short of catastrophic global disaster cause any harm to the projects. --99.238.31.18 04:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is great. Exactly for this reason ! The many copies of Wikipedia projects would lead to many different, new and competing projects - which is exactly what we need. Wikipedia is a monopolist and will end up teaching us life. This is exactly the reason why Wikipedia should be deleted and the new, forking versions should become alife.

--93.207.223.94 17:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was treated more like trash than ever thanked.
The proposal definitely points out a big problem of, at least the German, Wikipedia.
Interesting it’s not already deleted. Would have been in the German Wikipedia after less than 5 minutes. --92.194.96.19 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete the proposal

time waster. Carolmooredc 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

instead of a waist timer94.222.136.0 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss it

I don't have a problem with such things, it can be the base for a healthy discussion about fundamental problems. But instead I'm just seeing the usual in Wikipedia "ban it, delete it" etc. pp. usus in today's Wikipedia. But fell free, just build another encyclopaedia like Britannica and so on.

--91.21.54.198 14:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also think this should be discussed. Initially, WIkipedia looked like a great project. Recently, the style, the quality and the political approach of Wikipedia / Wikimedia has deteriorated dramatically. I think (seriously, this is *not* ironic) that the proposal mentions quite a number of very valid aspects.

We urgently need a Wikipedia-like system, which

  • enables us to store diverging opinions (the concept of a single truth is as stupid as the concept of a NPOV)
  • works without admins and bureaucrats and similar Alpha-Wikianimals (already Orwell knew: All Wikipedians are equal but some are more equal than others)
  • does not abuse the naivete of users
  • values contributions of the authors instead of just sucking in money and money and more money
  • bans these stupid headlines calling for money, calling for solidarity and at the same time completely ignoring valid suggestions for an improvement of the system

--93.207.223.94 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia needs a major rebuild of its structure (and you know what i mean by that). A rewrite of the software and/or a sister project (for testing) runned by the Wikimedia Foundation would be worthy of discussion, too. Otherwise ... make way for the successor. --84.164.52.23 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Profit!

Sell the chance to delete everything to the Wikipedia admins in Germany. Two birds, one stone. zwei vögeln einstein

On deleting, or not

I see no reason to delete the proposal. It's not a viewpoint that I agree with, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be here. The position of the staff of the strategy project has been that as long as the proposal is assumed to have been made in good faith, and is not disruptive, there's no reason it shouldn't exist.

Obviously, this one is unlikely to be adopted. But the fact that it's an unpopular idea does not mean it should be deleted. ~Philippe 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Harsh words but...

"Whenever I volunteer at any other organization, I am thanked for my efforts, but at Wikipedia, contributors are treated like trash." names a real issue. I essentially stopped contributing to the German Wikipedia because of this habit. Some guys there make it impossible to follow the release early, release often principle.

I put the first version of a new article online, continue writing and extending it and perhaps 10 minutes later want to save the updated version only to notice that the article had already been removed. Mainly for lack of content.

So what do those people expect? That you install Wikimedia on your own computer and first write a lengthy article before copying it to Wikipedia? Writing several pages of text before first saving it with the obvious danger of losing all of it before saving it to Wikipedia?

It took me more time to get the article back online than actually writing on it. That definitely is not in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia.

Guess what happened soon afterwards? A guy from the Netherlands thanked me for writing that article. He had been translating it (and not the English one) for the Dutch article on the topic.

I am now under the impression, that the English Wikipedia is in the process of copying the bad habits that are already considerably troubling the German Wikipedia where things already seem to have started changing for the better.

I have noticed this too but that's why we now have this strategic planning to revise our current paths. My proposal aims to solve the experience that you've had. - Simeon 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed

Valid points. Some projects are quite corrupted. It's better to destroy everything than let the projects be filled with non-neutral and/or false information.

A better solution would be to prevent the corruption, but that seems quite unlikely for some reason. Cursarion 10:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The proposal clearly does not contribute to Wikimedia goals and therefore should be deleted. If the proposal contributes to the goals of some other group, then it is this group who should initiate the effort, not Wikimedia. Valid proposals for Wikimedia strategy should justify the benefits in achieving Wikimedia goals. Danilo128 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see my thoughts about this. Philippe 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I agree with the ACLU position that even Ku Klux Klan rallies should be allowed; and there's a reason: because when people espouse a doctrine that everyone knows is wrong, it makes the community take the time to reflect why it is wrong; and in this way creeping errors and lies are recruited, then dismantled, before they pose a real risk of some new injustice.

So let's take this apart.


"Delete All Wikimedia Projects. Fire all Wikimedia employees and apologize for wasting the world's time with such pointless projects. Also refund all money donated to the foundation."

We know this is wrong because good people stood up and voluntarily opened their wallets to fund Wikimedia. It is not some wasteful government spending program you can complain is wasting your tax dollars - it's what the people want. Even if it were government-funded, the cost would be trivial by their standards, and easily justifiable by comparison to most programs.
Besides, we know we can't delete Wikipedia, because so many mirrors exist and can continue the cause.

Wikipedia is a huge problem. It disseminates unreliable and biased information

The studies on this are already in. We aren't perfect but we do as well as commercial encyclopedias - if they even offer coverage for such content.

and hijacks Google searches.

We "hijack" nothing. Google could take us out of the results altogether tomorrow, and we have no recourse. But it would do us well to remember that.

Its administrators openly espouse trolling.

I don't think so, but the complaint could use elaboration.

Contributors are not rewarded for their work, and are often banned.

The reward is that you can build something - whatever you like, as long as it's verifiably true. I just started an article about a Chinese herbal medicine and after I finished (for now) I found I had some scientific results in there that isn't in Baide Baiku or Hudong let alone zh.wikipedia. I admit - their articles offer better overall coverage, but how often does one lone person get the chance to vie against a billion people on their home territory and score even a point?

Whenever I volunteer at any other organization, I am thanked for my efforts, but at Wikipedia, contributors are treated like trash.

Sometimes you get thanked, sometimes you get trashed. Depends on the person. Depends on you too. If you ever really want to see some volunteers go at each other with the long knives, try a pet shelter... (So I've heard, anyway)

Why should legitimate encyclopedias suffer because of Wikipedia?

Suffer? We let them read our stuff, we cite our sources, they could even use our content if they would accept the humiliation of crediting us, and in any case they can use our sources to revamp their own content. We've raised the bar but we're giving them a hand over it.

In the future, will we be forced to use Wikipedia?

Who's forced? You're free to go back to the days of pawing through search engine results getting an unorganized, random sample of everything said.

Why should we pay for a source that is less reliable than online databases and is written by teenagers?

So what if it's written by teenagers? Show me one company that honestly believes a 40-year-old man is as good as somebody fresh out of college. It's a miracle there aren't Logan's Run style culls by now. But I digress. The point is, there are all levels of skill at all ages. We trust the better contributors to pull in one direction, but the vandals have no higher calling.