2011/1/29 phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com>: > Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it > would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for* > having separate sites?
Yes, and I think most people generally underestimate the complexity of the issue. The reasons for WMF to spin up separate sites have varied, but to try to put it as simply as possible, a dedicated wiki, in all technical and social respects, focuses collaborative activity, which can enhance productivity and reduce barriers to participation. In the case of e.g. StrategyWiki, it also allowed us to try some radical changes (like using LQT on all pages, or receiving hundreds of proposals as new page creations) without disrupting some surrounding context. I have absolutely no regrets about our decision to launch StrategyWiki, for example -- I think it was the right decision, with exactly the expected benefits. Meta itself has grown organically to support various community activities and interests that had no other place to go. It has never been significantly constrained by its mission statement. The "What Meta is not" page only enumerates two examples of unacceptable use: 1. A disposal site for uncorrectable articles from the different Wikipedias, and it is not a hosting service for personal essays of all types. 2. A place to describe the MediaWiki software. Its information architecture, in spite of many revisions, has never kept up with this organic growth, making Meta a very confusing and intimidating place for many, especially when one wants to explore or use the place beyond some specific reason to go there (vote in an election, nominate a URL for the spam blacklist, write a translation). So, let's take the example of OutreachWiki as a simple case study to describe the differences between the two wikis. 1) The wiki's main page and sidebar are optimized for its stated purpose; 2) As a new user, you receive a welcome message that's specifically about ways you can support public outreach ( http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome ) 3) All special pages remain useful to track relevant activity or content without applying further constraints; 4) Userboxes and user profiles can be optimized for the stated purpose (e.g. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Languages_and_skills ) 5) There's very little that's confusing or intimidating -- the content is clean, simple, and organized. 6) If the OutreachWiki community wants to activate some site-wide extension, it can do so, focusing only on its own needs. On the other hand: 1) Activity is very low; 2) The wiki is largely in English; 3) Meta has a long tradition of hosting outreach-related content, and many pages still reside there or are created there. 4) The existence of yet-another-wiki brings tons of baggage and frustration (more dispersed change-tracking for users who want to keep up with all activity, more creation of meta/user page/template structures, more setup of policies and cross-wiki tools, etc.). It's not a given that 1) and 2) are a function of having a separate wiki. As we've seen with StrategyWiki, activity is largely the result of focused activation of the community. The small sub-community that cares about public outreach on Meta is ridiculously tiny compared with the vast global community that could potentially be activated to get involved through centralnotices, village pumps, email announcements, etc. So the low level of activity on OutreachWiki is arguably "only" a failure of WMF to engage more people, not a failure of a separate wiki. (It certainly makes all the associated baggage much harder to justify.) But, I think the disadvantages of working within a single system can be rectified for at least the four most closely related backstage wikis (Meta/WMF/Strategy/Outreach). I do think working towards a www.wikimedia.org wiki is the way to do that, importing content in stages, with a carefully considered information architecture that's built around the needs of the Wikimedia movement, a very crisp mission statement and list of permitted and excluded activities, a WikiProject approach to organizing related activity, etc. But it also would need to include consideration for needed technological and configuration changes, in descending importance: - namespaces (e.g. for essays, proposals, public outreach resources, historical content) - template and JS setup to support multiple languages well (e.g. mirroring some of the enhancements made to Commons) - access controls (e.g. for HTML pages) - FlaggedRevs/Pending Changes (e.g. for official WMF or chapter information) - LiquidThreads (e.g. for a movement-wide forum that could increasingly subsume listservs) - Semantic MediaWiki/Semantic Forms (e.g. for event calendars) To simplify security considerations, we might want to have all fundraising-related content elsewhere (e.g. donate.wikimedia.org). An alternative strategy, of course, is to focus on making the distinction between different wikis as irrelevant as possible by vastly improving cross-wiki tools, but the former approach seems more viable in the not too distant future. I don't think "just move it all to Meta" is the correct answer. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
