322:
likely will not go over well if it is perceived as divide and rule. Forking
Knowledge (XXG) is a bad thing, Splitting Knowledge (XXG) is. To answer the question, wikipedia policies are not one size fit all, entreprenuerialship and newness by splitting something off will drive innovation and is a good
202:
My goal with the admins was not only to help WikiWorks, but to help the admins as well.. I would presume that many editors, including admins, primarily edit "works" articles on wikipedia, and so this would allow such editors/admins to retain their current, presumably well-earned, status on WikiWorks.
102:
delete material which was considered by some to be cruft (does that debate sound familiar?) Many suggested that creation of the Annex and migration of content there was part 1--that part 2 would eventually be to shut down the annex and effectively delete all the cruft in one stroke. Part 2 has
53:
Any admin who wanted to be an admin on WikiWorks could choose to "move" to WikiWorks by choosing to be desysopped on wikipedia. (At a later date - at least 6 months later, as per current policy - the admin could try for RfA on wikipedia again.) No "new" admins would be made on WikiWorks for at
46:
Hmm, it sounds like you would support a
Mediawiki Proposal that I've been thinking about / working on. Creating a new sister project called "WikiWorks". It would be for all fictional creations, works of art (paintings, sculpture, etc), songs, albums, etc. Authors and artists stay in Knowledge
303:
Consider that all the content would be transwikied from
Knowledge (XXG). Since (I presume) you consider such content to be "less than Knowledge (XXG) standards", would you agree that moving it from Knowledge (XXG) (irregardless of where to) would be a good thing in your opinion? -
66:
The main stumbling block I am having so far is "ease of use" in searching. We would have to update the search engine to include sister projects, at least partially. (like having the first 3 hits that are above 50% from each sister project placed at the bottom of the search page).
199:; etc. Obviously if any of the latter was used as a fictional character/device/object then that usage would also have an entry at WikiWorks (which would have an additional benefit of shortening articles, by removing the "X in fiction" sections).
220:
I'd agree with such an idea if it was possible to do seemless cross-wiki wikilinks, and then to allow metadata to flow freely between then (such as catagories, and other ideas not yet implimented). But that's a long way off, sadly :(
126:
This might be a hard sell, but we already have
Wiktionary for word definitions, WikiNews for news reports and eyewitness counts, WikiSpecies for biological taxonomy (though WS overlaps substantially with Knowledge (XXG)),
137:
One other note: While migrating admins as you propose might be a good way to seed such a site with knowledgeable admins, I see no reason that (long term) people cannot have accounts, or even be admins/bureaucrats, on
317:
articles may have to be split out of wikipedia to maintain higher standards of WP:RS, NPOV, Libel...etc. (Your proposed WikiWorks would require a lesser standard of NPOV, WP:RS, etc.) LiveBiography or the sort.
60:
In general, this would allow wikipedia to "focus". For example, so much of the xFDs are about such articles/categories, and related templates, etc. And when I see all the concerns on this page...
269:
Ah, yes, the suggested place for all non-notable material from wikipedia to go off to. And it just so happens to be the commercial fundraiser of the wikimedia foundation, too. What a coincidence!
84:
had some mixed success with creation of a sister wiki known as "The Annex", where many off-topic (for WikiWiki) articles were moved. (The WikiWikiWeb software, a predecessor to
238:. For the second, I don't see a reason/need for interwiki categories in this case. In addition, interwiki transclusion is possible, but is disabled atm, as far as I know. -
323:
thing. Acheiving critical mass for the idea, navigating wikimedia politics and metapedian political science is an almost insurmountable wall. Have you the energy? :)
206:
and finally, I think this will remove a LOT of the conflict on wikipedia, because this perception (what is encyclopedic) will be diffused for a fair chunk of editors.
155:
I'm not intending that WikiWorks would be a "second-class" place. Actually, I see it as rather useful to other sister projects as well (such as wikisource). It's
335:
I "think" I understood you, but there were several spots where I wondered if you meant "not", and others if the comma was a period... would you clarify a little?
47:(XXG), their "works" (and associated templates, lists, categories, etc.) go to WikiWorks, which would obviously be easy to link to from wikipedia articles.
57:
Anyone who wanted their user pages transwikied, could request that as well (just added to the already big task of moving the article and talk pages).
50:
It would have it's own rules for "in universe" and "fancruft" etc. (with the associated wikipedia: pages and talk pages transwikied as well.)
203:
Allowing them to be focused where their interest level lies. Plus, these are the best people to help with the transwiki move.
41:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
366:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
338:
As for energy, shrugs, I think that this will be good for everyone. What better motivation is there than that? : ) -
103:
never occurred; and the annex is still up and running. Of course, it gets far less traffic than WikiWikiWeb itself.
130:
The name I had thought about, though WikiWorks might be better (fewer connotations of second-class status), was
21:
115:
be modified to have migration to WikiWorks as an outcome--WikiWorks could host topics like bar bands who meet
172:
261:
88:, supports the concept of "sister sites", which exchange topic lists and thus have inter-wiki linking;
235:
123:. A reverse process could promote articles to Knowledge (XXG), should a topic become notable enough.
143:
120:
63:
Anyway, there's a lot more as far as how it would "work", but that should explain the "basics".
168:
270:
222:
342:
327:
314:
308:
298:
273:
264:
242:
225:
214:
146:
74:
319:
324:
295:
17:
116:
188:
184:
180:
192:
81:
98:
Some went as far as to suggest that the whole idea was a deletionist ruse to
339:
305:
239:
211:
176:
160:
89:
71:
70:
If anyone would like to help me with this proposal, I would LOVE help : ) -
95:
Many considered being articles being moved to the annex to be a "demotion".
164:
85:
196:
54:
least a year (with stewards able to make exceptions, of course).
332:
And here I thought I reigned supreme in the run-on sentence : )
92:
is far more sophisticated]]. The main issues with this were:
256:
108:
Eventually the WikiWikiWeb community came to accept the idea.
151:
Wow! Thank you for all the information. A couple thoughts:
111:
Were this to occur, I would imagine that the AfD process
210:Please keep the comments and thoughts coming : ) -
294:Still, looks much more wikia than mediawiki.
8:
159:for created works (of art). Things such as:
313:From my recent focus on BLPP, I think
7:
37:The following discussion is closed.
28:
362:The discussion above is closed.
343:04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
328:04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
309:23:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
299:23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
274:20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
265:20:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
243:20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
226:20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
215:20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
147:19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
75:19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
259:a MetaWiki project, anyone?
80:I've had similar thoughts--
381:
364:Please do not modify it.
236:m:Help:Interwiki linking
39:Please do not modify it.
234:For the first, see:
40:
179:. As opposed to
169:Lord of the Rings
38:
372:
380:
379:
375:
374:
373:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
320:Divide and rule
43:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
378:
376:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
336:
333:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
248:
247:
246:
245:
229:
228:
208:
207:
204:
200:
144:EngineerScotty
140:
139:
135:
128:
124:
109:
106:
105:
104:
96:
44:
35:
34:
32:
29:
27:
18:User talk:Jc37
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
377:
365:
344:
341:
337:
334:
331:
330:
329:
326:
321:
316:
312:
311:
310:
307:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
275:
272:
268:
267:
266:
263:
260:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
244:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
227:
224:
219:
218:
217:
216:
213:
205:
201:
198:
194:
190:
189:Matt Groening
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
136:
133:
129:
125:
122:
118:
114:
110:
107:
101:
97:
94:
93:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
77:
76:
73:
68:
64:
61:
58:
55:
51:
48:
42:
30:
23:
19:
363:
262:207.164.4.52
255:
209:
185:Michelangelo
181:Isaac Asimov
156:
150:
141:
131:
112:
99:
69:
65:
62:
59:
56:
52:
49:
45:
36:
271:LinaMishima
223:LinaMishima
193:Windows 3.1
82:WikiWikiWeb
31:"WikiWorks"
132:Appendix A
325:Electrawn
296:Electrawn
177:Everquest
161:Mona Lisa
90:MediaWiki
22:Proposals
165:Simpsons
121:WP:MUSIC
119:but not
100:en masse
20: |
315:WP:BLP
86:UseMod
257:Wikia
197:Moses
173:PietĂ
138:both.
113:could
16:<
340:jc37
306:jc37
240:jc37
212:jc37
157:only
127:etc.
117:WP:V
72:jc37
195:;
191:;
187:;
183:;
175:;
171:;
167:;
163:;
142:--
134:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.