User talk:Jc37/Proposals/WikiWorks

"WikiWorks"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 Wikipedia, their "works" (and associated templates, lists, categories, etc.) go to WikiWorks, which would obviously be easy to link to from wikipedia articles.

It would have it's own rules for "in universe" and "fancruft" etc. (with the associated wikipedia: pages and talk pages transwikied as well.)

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 least a year (with stewards able to make exceptions, of course).

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).

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...

Anyway, there's a lot more as far as how it would "work", but that should explain the "basics".

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).

If anyone would like to help me with this proposal, I would LOVE help : ) - jc37 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've had similar thoughts--WikiWikiWeb 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 UseMod, supports the concept of "sister sites", which exchange topic lists and thus have inter-wiki linking; MediaWiki is far more sophisticated]]. The main issues with this were:
  • Many considered being articles being moved to the annex to be a "demotion".
  • Some went as far as to suggest that the whole idea was a deletionist ruse to en masse 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 never occurred; and the annex is still up and running. Of course, it gets far less traffic than WikiWikiWeb itself.
• Eventually the WikiWikiWeb community came to accept the idea.
• Were this to occur, I would imagine that the AfD process could be modified to have migration to WikiWorks as an outcome--WikiWorks could host topics like bar bands who meet WP:V but not WP:MUSIC. A reverse process could promote articles to Wikipedia, should a topic become notable enough.
• 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 Wikipedia), etc.
• The name I had thought about, though WikiWorks might be better (fewer connotations of second-class status), was Appendix A.
• 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 both.

--EngineerScotty 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for all the information. A couple thoughts:

• 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 only for created works (of art). Things such as: Mona Lisa; Simpsons; Lord of the Rings; Pietà; Everquest. As opposed to Isaac Asimov; Michelangelo; Matt Groening; Windows 3.1; Moses; 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).
• 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. Allowing them to be focused where their interest level lies. Plus, these are the best people to help with the transwiki move.
• 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.

Please keep the comments and thoughts coming : ) - jc37 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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 :( LinaMishima 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

For the first, see: m:Help:Interwiki linking. 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. - jc37 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikia a MetaWiki project, anyone?207.164.4.52 20:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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! LinaMishima 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, looks much more wikia than mediawiki. Electrawn 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider that all the content would be transwikied from Wikipedia. Since (I presume) you consider such content to be "less than Wikipedia standards", would you agree that moving it from Wikipedia (irregardless of where to) would be a good thing in your opinion? - jc37 23:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From my recent focus on BLPP, I think WP:BLP 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. Divide and rule likely will not go over well if it is perceived as divide and rule. Forking Wikipedia is a bad thing, Splitting Wikipedia 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 thing. Acheiving critical mass for the idea, navigating wikimedia politics and metapedian political science is an almost insurmountable wall. Have you the energy? :) Electrawn 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And here I thought I reigned supreme in the run-on sentence : )

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?

As for energy, shrugs, I think that this will be good for everyone. What better motivation is there than that? : ) - jc37 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.