Wikipedia talk:The Problem with Projects
Comments
- This is basically an opening attempt to organize all Wikiprojects. The points need not be belabored. This has already been done de facto by/at Category:WikiProjects and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. From experience, Wikiprojects that are dormant or inactive for about a year are tagged as such with the {{historical}} template and categorized at Category:Inactive WikiProjects. Deleting Wikiprojects entirely is too radical and flies in the face of WP:NOT#PAPER as well, as are many of the concerns above. IZAK (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Responses: The editor above appears to completely and utterly miss the central point of the essay, and seems to fairly explicitly violate AGF in the process as well. He also displays a rather serious lack of knowledge of the subject of WikiProjects. Having been involved in the preparing the lists of WikiProjects, and at least trying to deal with the issues of banners, I am aware that similar points have been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. Evidently, he is completely unfamiliar with that page, as much of the content which he has decried is basically at least thematically related to that one. Also, I note once again that certain comments which I had added which related specifically to religion, one of the few areas that editor seems interested in, were pointedly removed. I believe the editor in question has once again displayed a certain tendency toward proprietorship which in and of itself flies in the face of wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate rationsl discussion of the points made, however, rather than presumptuous aspersions on the motivations of others which have no particular basis in the text itself, which is unfortunately what the comment above reads like. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- The casual reader would not suspect that this essay was written by Wikipedia's most prolific setter-up of projects, and one of its most busy banner-clutters! This attempt to set out what projects ought to exist and be busy is completely pointless. In practice the least essential projects are often, indeed usually, the busiest and most organised. That is the Wikipedia way. Certainly projects where nothing happens, which includes most of those set up by the writer, should be closed down. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nor would the casual reader know that both of the above editors are individuals who have recently attempted to have this editor blocked, without just cause, as blocks can only be handed out to prevent further actions, not in retaliation of previous ones. Neither would the casual reader know that the above editor is clearly putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say that this was a proposed policy essay. It is one editor's opinions. Nor did I ever say what such projects "ought" to do, despite his bolding of that word. This page was written for two purposes: One, as a place to perhaps discuss how to proceed with the increasingly unmanagable number of WikiProjects, and, more proximately, what to do regarding wikipedia-wide collaboration given the recent folding of the WP:ACID. Having said that, I honestly see neither comment above actually directly addresses the points made, but rather cast not necessarily founded aspersions on the motivation of the writer. How sad. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- As usual, completely inaccurate. My comment saying I disagreed with IZAK's suggestion that JC be blocked will be found just below it here. JC recently confused me with different other editors three times in 24 hours. What to do, other than ignore him? Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Johnbod, I apologize again for my error. However, your own insulting comments of late, here and elsewhere, do nothing to indicate that you have paid the slightest attention to the subject under discussion. If you want to ignore the essay, which is not as indicated a proposed guideline but rather an essay relating to matters which are proposed guidelines or activites, then please feel free to do so. In fact, considering you have yet to address it in any substantive way, I believe we would also encourage as much. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. One can make an argument that Wikipedia should have higher standards for approving new WikiProjects, should be quicker to disband dormant ones, and perhaps should have a more robust MfD process to disband WikiProjects if it is perceived that an entire WikiProject is in persistent violation of policy. However, Wikipedia's fundamental organizational approach is loose networks of like-minded individuals acting collaboratively, not hierarchical organizations dominated by chiefs. We have repeatedly rejected classifying editors into hierarchies, with reluctant exceptions to prevent vandalism. The same is true for topics. Featured articles are determined by the quality of the writing and sourcing, not perceptions of the importance of the topic. If topics are thought unencyclopedic, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia. If they are encyclopedic, we should not designate them or the editors who volunteer to support them as low-class. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)