Talk:Task force/Expanding Content

From Strategic Planning
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg
This page uses the LiquidThreads discussion system. Try discussing in sandbox. Click "Start a new discussion" to begin a new discussion on this page.

A strong and dangerous limit in expanding Wikipedia (moved from front page)

A strong and dangerous limit in expanding Wikipedia may be found in the organized action of some national little groups. I know the situation in some European Wiki, outside the English language groups. They create little groups (five or ten members) in order to limit new entries through the use of a formal vote which use to cancel some items or impose their rules.{{citation needed}} I propose (i) to fix in almost 100 or 150 votes any decision to cancel an item. I propose also (ii) to open a procedure for the revision of the items cancelled in the past. Louiseblaklake 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

16:17, 1 April 2010


I moved your comment to the talk page as this is a more appropriate location for your comment.

Your comment is probably not going to get much discussion here either however unless you are a lot more specific. Which languages are you referring to? Can you give us a link to a specific discussion where you feel you were not treated fairly?

Please remember that these are encyclopedias and they have policies on what is and is not acceptable for inclusion. If they followed these policies then you are unlikely to get the decision reversed and you should consider contributing in a more appropriate venue.

16:27, 1 April 2010

Technical and policy needs for expanding to new projects

I see a lot of ideas for valuable knowledge Projects that haven't become part of Wikimedia's efforts for various reasons. It can be difficult to know how to start a new Project; or to know how to propose the incorporation of an existing project into a current Wikimedia project. It can be difficult to know how to address notability issues head-on (if you run a comprehensive educational reference for high schools or published books or landmarks around the world, with your own internal notion of what is notable enough for inclusion: can such a project merge with Wikipedia without having much of its carefully curated summarily deleted? Where is the forum for discussing the policy changes, perhaps across languages, that might be needed to accomodate a merge?)

I see two core questions that need to be resolved to clarify how we can expand into new content areas. One is about tools -- what sorts of projects can we undertake? and the other is about policy -- what policy options do we have when starting new projects or adopting existing ones?

19:35, 11 March 2010

Technical Needs

I'm trying to crystallize the concerns I hear (not my own) from people who are concerned by the growth and progress of smaller Projects, and see that as a potential cost rather than an opportunity. This is the predominant argument against starting new Projects; we do not lack for ideas for Projects within our mission scope.

One of the most predictable costs is one of development of interfaces, data models, &c necessary for new projects.

Two straightforward examples are OSM and Multilingual Wiktionary / OmegaWiki. Are they in line with our mission? Yes. Do they run on MediaWiki? No. Are they Wikimedia projects? No. If they had started life as Wikimedia projects, would we have supported their development as well as their independent grassroots efforts have?

If we are only willing to support current MediaWiki features and simple extensions, that affects how we frame the idea of what new Projects can look like or accomplish. If we can do more, then these are case studies to use in evaluating how we can improve our process.

19:36, 11 March 2010

Is there a reason for WP:NOTHOWTO?

As much as I like WikiHow (somewhat limited by the fact they don't allow commercial re-use of their crowdsourced content), is there any reason the Foundation should not recommend reversing WP:NOTHOWTWO?

Knowledge can be divided into three types: semantic, episodic, and procedural. Is there any reason that the first two are allowed in to Wikipedia but the third is not? Is claiming that Wikipedia strives to collect the sum total of all human knowledge simply false when excluding procedural information is a policy?

Encyclopedias have traditionally included procedural information. Why should ours be any different? Is there a way to refine the WP:NOTHOWTO policy which would include the most important procedural information (like notability standards)?

02:22, 14 February 2010

Actually, the Foundation does have two projects where how-to information is provided: Wikibooks and Wikiversity, especially the former (although neither are as nearly popular as their Wikipedia sibling or WikiHow). I'm of the opinion that "how-to" information isn't, strictly speaking, a totally encyclopedic topic, and probably is more appropriate to devote a separate wiki for it.

16:22, 19 February 2010

Positive correlation with number of editors

At the Quality Task Force we've been discussing how quality is positively correlated with the number of editors - and how it is being threatened. I'd think that expanding our coverage is subject to the same trends. As such, a major issue concerning expanding content would be the fact that our editors base is threatened. I am personally familiar with a lot of good content creation who left the project (for example, over my 5 years with WikiProject Poland, I've seen the recruitment being equal to burning out). Recovering burned out editors and reducing burn out rates should be a major priority (just as finding new ways to recruit other editors). I wonder if you'd agree with me? --Piotrus 01:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

01:01, 26 November 2009

I agree. My understanding is that it is more related to extended conflicts between editors than simple overwork. Also hasty deletionism seems to result in early withdrawals. Sloppy inclusionism might on the other hand dilute the average quality of content.

As wp gets older, it's harder to jump in. We've added many new rules and often can't even find the guide pages for all the customs we've internalized. Getting new content without requiring all stakeholders to actually edit could be a welcome change. For example Flickr's practice with licensing results in large volumes of Commons-compatible media. We should get people, esp. those with no desire to edit wikipedia themselves, to license their current media (incl. texts) with wp-compatible licenses. Our numerous copyeditors, wikifiers and uploaders would process the data. --Ras 07:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

07:45, 29 November 2009

I think the most crucial thing to avoid burning out editors is to develop stronger policies against just throwing away their work. We should have a policy that if you think sentence three has an unreliable source, you do not throw away the whole paragraph. Which is what people seem to do in the more contentious articles - in fact, they revert, and say nothing to the person whose work was deleted. Only if he happens to go back and look do they suggest a discussion, i.e. a discussion based on "this is too big a change to make without discussion" in the edit summary. The person trying to do good work in the article is the one who is supposed to beg and plead for the High King Reversionist to say that alright, his edit finally is up to whatever standard.

We also need better tools to answer basic questions like who the ---- deleted my edit? There's nothing more frustrating than going back over your work from two or three years ago and finding it gone, gone, gone, and you don't even really have a chance to bawl out the person responsible (who will only do it again in a month or two anyway, when you're not looking)

Perhaps I exaggerate a little, but the policy and the tools would be very welcome.

P.S. Remember that some of the drop-off is simply that the wiki was swarming with politically motivated editors leading up to the 2008 presidential election.

07:07, 6 February 2010

Arts: How should Wikimedia expand into covering the arts?

"The sum of all knowledge", in my view, would include knowledge about how to create works of art and knowledge coded in works of art. Right now, Wikipedia has a lot of explicit, verbal content about art, artists, history of art, particular works of art, and lots of media files in Wikimedia Commons. What forms might further expansion to cover the arts take? Drvestone 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

19:12, 23 November 2009

Depending on operating costs, I think we should consider accepting personal comments and reviews about artistic works, rather than dismissing them as "original research". Like memorabilia at auction, these comments seem very cheap to us today, but in fifty years or a century they will be quite valuable. Those who will look back at the history of film, books, and music should not be forced to rely on lost or potentially copyrighted transcripts of forums run by internet companies, when people would freely share these comments to the public domain.

06:49, 6 February 2010

Wikipedia should have '''1 billion''' articles

I recently started an article Huáng bǎi, about one of the fifty best-known traditional Chinese medical herbs. I am no expert on the topic, but I wanted to learn. Right now, the vast majority of such herbs have no article at all, beyond perhaps a brief mention of a few properties under the species article if it exists. Most species of Phellodendron have no articles. Most of the chemical compounds isolated from huáng bǎi have no articles. The herbal formulations I find in PubMed have no articles (though Wikipedia does list five others). Only one of the ancient texts recommending these herbs has an article. These are things that no old-time encyclopedia on the bookshelf could find space for, but they are unquestionably things that belong in an encyclopedia if you had the labor force to compose it. And we do... eventually, anyway.

The way I see it, there is immediately room for a ten-fold expansion for just about any technical topic - chemicals, proteins, species, you name it. Once that is done I think we'll find reasons to make another ten-fold expansion based on the technical distinctions that come up. (The methods of measuring berberine and checking for toxic metals in huáng bǎi are just a line each in my article, but they are someone's livelihood; and I didn't even place any information about using it as a dye and preservative for books because the article concerns medical use, and so on) Add another three-fold expansion to allow for splits of the larger articles (even when offset by a hopefully generous increase in article length in the future), and I say we need one billion articles just in order to cover all the things an encyclopedia ought to cover.

For the next five years, plan a continued growth in articles that is directly proportional to the number of active editors, and don't even think about trying to slow it down.

01:29, 31 January 2010

I think this is a very well-said argument for the potential of Wikimedia projects over the next five years. It took English Wikipedia five years to go from 1 to 3 million articles. It seems fair to expect all Wikimedia projects to have 1 billion articles by 2015.

18:30, 2 February 2010

I don't really expect to get to the billion article mark in five years. But there are some who act as if Wikipedia already has enough articles, and seem to redirect their efforts more to trimming and deleting content, even validly sourced content, just because they think it is out of place. I think we need to keep going full speed ahead for a long, long time.

The true rate of Wikipedia growth will be proportional to the number of editors - and unfortunately, I don't think the statistics from Wikipedia have been updated since 2006. I get the feeling that it's not currently increasing - perhaps even decreasing - and personally I suspect it's because there are too many editors who use the delete button for everything. Wrong article? Don't bother moving, just delete it. Wrong section? Same thing. You don't like the wording? Delete, and then if the person puts it up again, delete it and say he has to talk first, so it takes ten times more talking than editing to get anything done. Too many references? Well, you get the idea... if people have more of a feeling that Wikipedia editing is productive, we should have progressively more editors and we could reach 1 billion by 2030. If laws like the proposal for open access to all federally funded research that's been discussed on go through, we could get there more quickly, and better editing tools will also help. But if we stay at the present size under present conditions, it could be many decades just to get 100 million, and we'll never really catch up to cultural events. Wnt 06:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

06:41, 6 February 2010

Proposed Strategy Task Force

Hi everyone,

Over the past few weeks, there's been some great discussions about the task force recommendations. There's some great energy here on this wiki, and I want to start moving toward completion. That includes:

To get this work done, I'm proposing the creation of a Strategy Task Force. I hope that you all will read and help refine the proposal, and I especially hope that many of you sign up for the Task Force. Let's also move the discussions there so that we can have a central place to discuss next steps for strategy. Thanks!

08:49, 3 February 2010

Proposal - Fusion_of_social_network_and_Wikimedia

Let me send for consideration our proposal.


We think it belongs to scope of this task force.

>What role does expansion into content beyond core encyclopedic information have in

>advancing Wikimedia's vision of "the sum of all knowledge"?

Purpose of proposal is

provide means to attach additional resource to wikipedia’s article: external URL, advertisement, news.

This idea is very old and there is no problem to implement it but...

The challenge is keep reasonable quality of attaching content.

Our idea is to use social network of “trusted adviser” for grading content. Idea is “social network of advisers instead of hierarchy of editors”. Details are in our proposal.

>How, if at all, could expansion into other content areas (both within Wikipedia and through

>sister projects) detract from the quality of the core encyclopedia and Wikimedia's brand? How

>could it improve the quality of the core encyclopedia and brand?

Content (url, advertisment, news) is attached to wikipedia articles. From other point of view each resource is tagged, and tags are wikipedia articles. From this point of view proposed solution is collaborative tagging system, where controlled vocabulary is wikipedia articles.

Requirements to wikipedia articles are reasonable requirements as well for tags of controlled vocabulary Wikipedia articles are from quite diverse areas and number of topics is growing

Other advantages:

Proposed system require some discipline and cooperative efforts. So community of wikipedia is best place to implement such idea.

>How could it improve the quality of the core encyclopedia and brand?

New content increase number of user and increase their motivation to improve articles

23:32, 9 January 2010

Grading the usefulness of external content with digg/reddit -style comes into mind. Clicking 1 button upvote would be fast and easy way to go. This would enable the needed quantity. But how to deal with all the vandalism, self-interested promotion etc. remains a complete mystery. One other thing which comes to mind is that we can't guarantee that the content on the other side of the link won't be changed. --Ras 09:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

09:40, 12 January 2010

Social network is used to deal with vandalism (and so on).

Anybody can attach external link to article. However these links will be seen only for friends of attached user (or probably to friends of his friends).

Nobody do vandal action against friend.

If some one grade the attachment good, this attachment will be seen for friend of graded user. Such spreading by recommendation of friend is good, I think.

We propose to use one-way relationship "trusted adviser" instead of bidirectional "friend" in typical social network. This mean user choose whom he is trusted too. For example he can choose thrust to some well known expert. User know expert, but expert need not to know user.

Also it is impossible to impose oneself on anybody as expert.

Friends can be "trusted adviser" each no another. For example if my friend is keen on history I thrust to his grading. Also I can trust to any body he trust.

To avoid changing content it is possible to use CRC or digital signature. CRC of page can be stored by service together with link.

There are two opportunity to check CRC:

1. By service

Service can verify links in idle time

2. By user's browser.

Unfortunately it looks like plug-in required.

Additional information is on our collaboration server

20:30, 12 January 2010

Interesting. CRC and digital signature is easy enough for avoiding changing content. Trusted adviser is also easier than friending, which would require two-way connecting of profiles (less interactivity, less complexity). You could just get a set of recommendations and stay in anonymity by yourself. Just a matter of finding a way how these "advisers" should be marketed. Technically this wouldn't need to be a Wikimedia project (if it were a browser plug-in), but to ever become popular it might.

13:24, 13 January 2010

Apache Software Foundation for comparison

The Apache Software Foundation offers an interesting model for accepting new projects. Check out the page and feel free to comment there or here.

23:56, 12 January 2010

Interesting thoughts from an anon

23:17, 14 December 2009

The idea of placing latest and updated information about countries, topics is interesting but there are setbacks as WP is done on volunteerism. If everything is done manual editing, it takes a long time.

But if it is done using search engine query system that updates automatically based on information from the Internet like Wolfarm Alpha or Google I think it would be a good idea. Perhaps more bots should be develop to update specific WP information automatically.

07:44, 21 December 2009

Discussion on task force mandate

Edited by author.
Last edit: 01:08, 24 November 2009

This is moved from the project page, just for the sake of keeping it consistent:

Discussion on each point in the task force mandate[edit]

1. What role does expansion into content beyond core encylopedic information have in advancing Wikimedia's vision of "the sum of all knowledge"? and
(part of) 4. Are there other types of content that Wikimedia should expand into?

Task force discussion of this point:
Here are some thoughts about the idea of "the sum of all knowledge": Different cultures have different ways to approach, store, update, and manage knowledge. An encyclopedia is one way of storing and managing knowledge, based on the idea that a group of people can arrive at a consensus on what that group "knows" about certain things. Encyclopedic knowledge is explicit and generally verbal, but there are kinds of knowledge that are neither explicit nor verbal. Knowledge can also be contained in, say, dance or painting, but someone who does not have specific training in a certain type of dance or painting would not be able to "decode" the implicit knowledge conveyed through the dance or painting. How-to knowledge is generally implicit and based on personal experience, though people try to turn it into explicit verbal content (e.g., in how-to books or on Many traditional cultures rely on elders to be "storehouses" of expertise and how-to knowledge [1][2][3].
How do implicit types of knowledge get represented in something like Wikipedia?

Wikipedia enacts the ideal that anyone on the planet could potentially be able to contribute to the storing and managing of knowledge, provided they abide by certain guidelines for quality control, and most importantly, that knowledge on Wikipedia should be freely available to anyone on the planet. Not all systems of knowledge share the ideal that all knowledge can or should be available to anybody. In many scientific specializations, for instance, some knowledge is not considered accessible until some previous level of knowledge has been mastered, or until some ethical proficiency has been demonstrated. E.g., physics students learn classical mechanics before quantum mechanics; organic chemistry doesn't make sense until one has mastered basic chemistry; psychology students are not allowed to gather knowledge by direct research with human participants until they have some training in ethical standards for research with people. Some systems of indigenous knowledge have similar restrictions, where not all knowledge is immediately available to a beginner/outsider/newcomer.[3]

If Wikimedians want to develop something that is "the sum of all knowledge", we will have to deal with questions of how different groups of people manage knowledge: who is considered an expert? what is considered a reliable basis for calling something a fact? (E.g., some languages don’t just have one word for "knowledge", but different words for, say, knowledge based on direct personal experience vs. knowledge based on what someone you trust told you vs. knowledge based on what a stranger told you.[2]) Are there kinds of knowledge that cannot or should not be freely accessible to any and all? Who are "elders" in certain kinds of knowledge? Who are gatekeepers for certain kinds of knowledge? How can digital media represent implicit, nonverbal types of knowledge? If not all types of knowledge are encyclopedia-like, which types of knowledge should Wikipedia expand into? Drvestone 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I will be doing some interviews to address these questions.Drvestone 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Does Wikimedia have a role to play in providing content in areas where it already has established projects (beyond Wikipedia)? Specifically: Topical information (Wikinews): Given that Wikipedia already provides topical content, does its presence precludes the need for Wikinews? If not why not? If so, what should be done with Wikinews?

Task force discussion of this point:
I would be interested in others' thoughts about how different Wikipedia and Wikinews really are. Both news and encyclopedic content are explicit, verbal, fact-based, and require citation of sources to be considered reliable. I've always thought Wikinews was sort of like "new knowledge", on its way to becoming part of encyclopedia entries ("old knowledge") on that topic. Drvestone 13:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. Template:Cite book
  2. 2.0 2.1 Template:Cite book Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "brody2000" defined multiple times with different content
  3. 3.0 3.1 Template:Cite book
15:34, 21 November 2009

One of the differences for me between Wikipedia and Wikinews is the way we present information, both timewise and in terms of audience.

Wikipedia is the "sum of all knowledge", that is, an aggregation of information as it is built up over time. It will by necessity include historical information, and in order to be relevant, be up to date. Wikinews, on the other hand, gives a snapshot in time, hopefully as close to real time as possible.

If one takes the example of the newly elected President of the European Union, then Wikipedia will contain all of the background information of what the role represents, who currently holds the position, and in the future, will include past presidents and the current president. Wikipedia is there to give the full background, for those with time to read the subject thoroughly. There is, however, no need for information about who was "the front runner for the position" at a given point in time.

Wikinews should fufill this role with an article about the selection. Given that the average news reader does not want to digest X pages of background information, but needs short, pertinent, consise information that is relevant at that moment in time, the Wikinews article(s) should be about the event (the selection).

What we should look at is the way to optimise editors' efforts between the two media. We need to avoid duplication of effort. An example is linking back from the Wikinews article (current practice) to the Wikipedia article for background information, with similarly, the Wikipedia article linking to the latest news on Wikinews.

This is true with regards to other sister projects—if one takes the example of Wiktionary there is no need to define the word neither in Wikipedia nor Wikinews, but intelligent use of technology will take the reader who is so inclined as to learn more to the appropriate venue.

22:22, 21 November 2009

Great ideas! I would encourage everyone reading this discussion to make other specific suggestions about how to avoid duplication of effort and optimise editors' efforts who want to contribute to both Wikinews and Wikipedia. 19:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

19:01, 23 November 2009

Whoops, thought I was logged in - that was me asking for more ideas. Valerie Stone Drvestone 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

19:04, 23 November 2009

Perhaps some time would be saved if it were possible to include some background material from pedia without actually having to re-type or copy+paste it into news. You're all familiar how templates work? Well, for example if you would be able to bring in the introduction from pedia article in the same way to news article, it could save some time.

Example new wikinews article

  • Template "{{w:en:XX/Intro}}" would display the first few lines of the wikipedia article about XX (no need to copy/paste or write again) in the wikinews article
  • Template "{{w:en:Miles Davis/Infobox}}" would display the infobox from the wikipedia article, see (wouldn't that box with Miles' picture be great in wikinews article?)
08:37, 29 November 2009

Just noting that the current licencing would need to be changed. As it stands, per Wikipedia:Wikinews "Moving pages to Wikinews is not possible, for legal reasons. Copying material to Wikinews would relicense it under the CC-BY license, which is incompatible with CC-By-SA and GFDL. However Wikinews articles can be moved to Wikipedia."

23:36, 11 December 2009

Content on different Wikipedias

For three years now I've been playing with analysing interwikis on pl wikipedia, and a list of missing Polish biographical entries on en Wikipedia (my findings). Interestingly, the while all wikis are increasing in size, the % gap between English and non-English wikipedias does not appear to be shrinking. As such, it appears that content of all Wikipedias could be significantly expanded by encouraging translation (roughly, I estimate that about 1/3 of Polish Wikipedia should be translated into English - and of course a much higher proportion of en Wikipedia should be translated into Polish). I'd suggest employing students learning foreign languages, as part of the Wikipedia:School and university projects initiative, by encouraging teachers to have the students translate articles. --Piotrus 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

21:06, 1 December 2009

Wikinews is useless, huh?

"Topical information (Wikinews): Given that Wikipedia already provides topical content, does its presence precludes the need for Wikinews? If not why not? If so, what should be done with Wikinews?" That reads to me as "Since Wikipedia already covers news, Wikinews really serves no purpose". I might be taking that a little harshly, but you might want to consider how WRONG that is. w:WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" and it says "News reports.". What about w:WP:BLP1E, where it says "Wikipedia is not a newspaper.". By their own policies they are neither news nor a newspaper.

22:45, 18 November 2009

It has — repeatedly — been said that Wikipedia is not the place for breaking news.

Forgive me for having little faith in the way things are being framed here; but, this is being framed as a "Wikinews is useless" meme. Yes, like more conventional media, such as CNN, Wikinews now has contributor-managed editorial control — Wacko Jacko's death probably made Wikinews around the same time as Wikipedia.

Again. Wikipedia is not the place to write the obituary (or as is more common, the wikt:hagiography) for the recently deceased.

There is a, shall we say, possessiveness contributors have about readers on Wikipedia. Attempts to cross-link the two projects, such as encouraging readers to contribute to the Wikinews obituary for Ted Kennedy, have been reverted out, and discussed into a ditch.

The draw between contributing to a top-10 website versus something down around 20-30k is obvious; the 'attitude' that accompanies apparently not wanting anyone else to be offered the choice is... not nice.

I'd say anyone working on this particular part of strategy should take the time to try and write an article on Wikinews. Then, come back 2-3 months later. It will still be the same. Wikipedia is the online successor to Britannica; Wikinews would like to be the successor to the archives of the New York Times and the Associated Press. --Brian McNeil 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

22:54, 18 November 2009

I agree with Brian. Too many people don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews. While the two arguably share more in common between each other than with any other two wikimedia projects, they are still entirely different entities. I disagree with the notion that Wikinews serves a limited purpose due to the existence of Wikipedia. (p.s.: Brian, I thought we were somewhere in the top 14-15ks visited sites, not 20-30k?) Cheers.

23:20, 18 November 2009

Tempo. I was guessing conservatively. IIRC en.wn is around 14k; not for visits, but the alexa most-popular list. Comscore — which has a deal with the WMF — doesn't break down Wikinews in their public stats. Everything is lumped under the WMF umbrella thus Wikinews - in a small way - contributes to everyone saying "Wikipiedia is a top-10 website".

"wiki-wiki" means "quick-quick"? Wikipedia is that less, and less; flagged revisions will creep out from BLPs to increase and solidify the project's credibility. Wikinews has already done it; we're credible enough for Google News, but it's a major accomplishment to get the wikinews link-to-article to stick more than a day on Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil 23:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

23:29, 18 November 2009

Yes Wikipedia does indeed cover some topical content, but often resulting in huge debates about its value on an encyclopedia. I invite anyone interested in researching a little further the reaction to a news story on Wikipedia (which was developed with no issues whatsoever on Wikinews) at this Article for Deletion discussion which had to be closed as no consensus with a lengthy explanation a long time before the usual seven days were up as it was generating endless arguments from both sides of the camp and was going nowhere extremely fast. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, painful and drama-infested debate of this kind on Wikipedia about news stories there.

23:18, 18 November 2009

Wow...where to start. For one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Period. There is no need for news on an encyclopedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the whole idea of Wikimedia to collaborate with each other? I don't recall reading anywhere that Wikipedia and Wikinews, or any other project are here to compete with each other. And with Wikipedia having news (on an encyclopedia) is competing with Wikinews. Heck Wikinews cannot even get anything more than a single link on the Wikipedia main page to Wikinews. Aside from that there is no real mention of us on Wikipedia (we cannot even get sourced for wikipedia articles). So if anything, Wikinews is being forced into this position/discussion because of that and nothing more. But to sit here and call us useless is an insult to me and every other contributor on the project. And to be honest, I cannot even believe this conversation is taking place. If i could, I would say that Wikinews is due an apology.

05:55, 19 November 2009

Wikipedia is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia and Wikinews wiki and news.

Where in Wikipedia is there a reason for news? I fail to find that. Like Dragon said, WMF projects should not compete. Period. This is in all honesty a disgrace to the project.

06:05, 19 November 2009

Eh, not an official action, so apology is probably overkill. That being said maybe our raging will prove a point to someone and they might consider leaning on Wikipedia a bit, maybe get them to actually enforce their own policies a bit. I know there is a template for 'words' on Wikipedia that reads something like "There is no article by this name on Wikipedia, but you might want to try Wiktionary", which is, of course, a link to the Wiktionary entry for that word. Why not do the same for news items, like...oh... the next "Balloon boy" type fiasco. Oh, and before the Wikipedians go "Wikinews is too slow", get your asses over to our playground and help out... it really doesn't take that long.

06:44, 19 November 2009
Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 07:26, 19 November 2009

I didn't read that anyone suggested Wikinews was useless. While I find the topic curious, and lacking in some knowledge about how both projects work, I think it's merely being a topic of discussion. "Let's talk about what Wikinews does that Wikipedia doesn't" might have been a better way to rephrase it, but I don't think anyone meant anything negative toward Wikinews for it. And it certainly got discussion going!

07:26, 19 November 2009

That was me, mkay?

07:29, 19 November 2009

I'm trying to organize discussion in a more list-related way to each point in the Task Force Mandate, above. So I suggest that general discussion of Mandate Item #3 should take place above in "Discussion on each point in the task force mandate", and this thread should contain only arguments about whether "Wikinews is useless". I've put some general thoughts about Wikinews and expanding content above. Drvestone 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

17:58, 21 November 2009

Well since ya'll didn't do it, I fixed the problem.

21:05, 29 November 2009

I've reverted you.

Obviously this is a difficult and emotionally charged discussion, but we shouldn't run from those. The mandate questions are not indicative of anything but that: they're questions to be discussed. We shouldn't close off the hard questions.

02:03, 30 November 2009

There is a difference between being "difficult and emotionally charged" and being an asshole. This, is the later of the two. We've proven, with a multiplicity of links, how WRONG this assertion is. So how about you re-write it? Or I will, and I'm sure you wont like what I say.

17:07, 30 November 2009

I'm open to a rewrite, but I'd like to see it proposed here before the mandate is changed. For the record, calling anyone an asshole is unacceptable, and won't be tolerated here. I appreciate that you're frustrated, but you simply can't engage in that manner. So let's back up, calm down, and talk through a suggested rewrite, okay?

17:15, 30 November 2009


What does Wikiversity provide that universities cannot? I take it as a given that it does provide things universities cannot, but I would like people's feedback about how, specifically, they see its value.

What role do you think the planet's universities do, can, or should play in the Wikiversity project? Drvestone 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

19:16, 23 November 2009

What content beyond encyclopedic content can/should Wikimedia offer in the area of educational content? Drvestone 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

01:10, 24 November 2009


Example (great user interface):

  • But all of ours would be CC-licensed!
  • Our presentations could also be translated into several languages! We have the advantage of Wikimedia's huge global community.
08:13, 29 November 2009

Are there other types of content that Wikimedia should expand into?

Are there other types of content that Wikimedia should expand into? Should this expansion happen within Wikipedia or through new projects? What process, tools, and supports would be needed to make this happen? Drvestone 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

01:12, 24 November 2009

Relax notability restrictions? I've always thought that it's sad that we have articles deleted and (sometimes) transwikified to other wikis. --Piotrus 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

00:56, 26 November 2009

Interactive infographics? Logical evolution of presenting data (text -> pictures -> X). Large dataset wikipedia-articles would become possible (or more usable) with these.

Commons could serve as the database. New MediaWiki extension might be required (would MW play well with this kind of media?). Or should they be flash-based or...? The New York Times and IBM already have their own projects. NYT's project actually uses IBM's technology.

Please, take a look at these:

08:02, 29 November 2009

where did "supporting reference content" mandate go?

I notice that "supporting reference content" (WikiQuote, WikTionary, WikiSource, and Commons) has been removed[1] from the task force mandate to explore the potential for Wikimedia to play a role in providing content in areas where it already has established projects. Has this subject area been reassigned to a different task force and, if so, which one? Or has it been determined that such content lies outside the purview of strategic planning and, if so, what is the consequence of this finding?

13:31, 28 October 2009

It wasn't removed, just rewritten. I think supporting reference content outside of Wikipedia is extremely important, and it falls under the purview of the Expanding Content Task Force. Hope you'll take some time to explore some of those questions and have your opinions heard.

04:45, 29 October 2009

Thanks for the invitation. I have already been offering opinions at Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions#Supporting Reference Content (and elsewhere), where I have suggested answers to some questions, sought clarification of the purport of others. Perhaps the loose coupling between ESP questions and questions in task force mandates is a source of confusion. Anyway:
Given that prior analysis of the encompassing ESP raises the question whether Wikimedia should support this specific type of content, and includes a finding (non-finding?) that there is no data showing the relevance of this specific type of project to Wikimedia's mission, there may be a need for more explicit resolution than simply taking it off the table.

18:25, 29 October 2009

You're right about the loose coupling. It's a constant challenge to try not to let content diverge too much on this wiki. The transition to LiquidThreads has made this kind of thing a bit more difficult, because LiquidThreads does not support importing pre-existing Talk threads. Thoughts on how to improve this?

You make some excellent points about framing. I responded at Talk:Emerging strategic priorities/ESP 3 key questions#Supporting Reference Content, but I'll repeat the point here. Expansion is probably the wrong framing. Moreover, one of the key questions we should think seriously about is reduction.

16:41, 30 October 2009
  • Re. Divergence – I posted some thoughts at the Village Pump.
  • Re. LiquidThreads – It also does not support structured discussion very well. This has been raised at LiquidThreads Feedback a couple times (e.g. [1]) but I don't think the development team sees the value in it yet.
  • Re. Framing – The questions in the task force mandate are better framed than the ESP questions (some of which look like leading questions with ulterior purpose) but could probably be better still. I have some opinions on this that I will add to the ESP questions, but it may make an even greater muddle of what is already there.
23:40, 30 October 2009

I followed up to your thread on Village Pump about Divergence. I'm very concerned about this, and I want to move to a solution quickly.

Regarding LiquidThreads: You can still edit Talk pages, and so structuring can happen that way. In other words, people can create subheaders and point to specific threads. I do get your overall point, though. The great potential for LiquidThreads (different from traditional forums) is the integration between wiki and forum capabilities. The ability to refactor a conversation is one of those.

00:49, 18 November 2009