RFC: A Wikipedia/etc.-like Web Directory (e.g: dmoz.org, the old dir.yahoo.com , etc)

Hi all!

This is a request-for-comments (RFC) about an idea that had surfaced on
#wikipedia at the time about creating an open web directory similar to
http://www.dmoz.org/ only world-editable and with a more convenient interface.
This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
directory" section of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

History of Web Directories:
---------------------------

I'm not sure how many of the younger folks here are very familiar with the
history and motivation behind web directories, so I'll explain a little to the
best of my knowledge.

Back when the Internet and the World Wide Web started to become popular,
search engines were much less accurate than Google, or the search engines that
now compete with it, using similar algorithms. As a result, it was often hard
to find stuff on the Internet using Lycos or different search engines. As a
result, people have actively used web-directories and especially yahoo.com
(which started as a hand-maintained directory by two Stanford students, and
grew into a successful Internet company), as a way to find resources that were
considered high-quality by human editors.

Yahoo and similar directories organised the content in a tree of categories,
with some stuff like "symbolic links", etc. Part of the problem with Yahoo was
that it was closed for edits only by human editors, which caused it to quickly
grow out-of-date. As a result, it was eventually surpassed in
comprehensiveness and accuracy by dmoz.org:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project

dmoz.org gained some notoriety after Google periodically mirrored it as the
Google directory (with some enhancements like sort-by-page-rank and a faster
load time, and a better search). Eventually, Google removed it from their
front page and search results in favour of Froogle and other stuff which were
in my (possibly non-representative) opinion much less useful than their
Directory, and dmoz.org went into much greater obscurity. Soon afterwards, the
English wikipedia and other wikimedia projects started gaining a lot of
momentum, popularity and page rank, which caused it to rank high among many
search engine searches (although to the defence of Google and other search
engines, one should note that they do seem to have a diversification
algorithm, which makes the search results not be dominated by a single source
- whether wikipedia.org or whatever).

Why a Web Directory:
--------------------

While I enjoy the English wikipedia a lot (and have contributed to it - see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shlomif ), I still think that web
directories have been having (or possibly and unfortunately "had been having")
their advantages and appeal. The primary reason is because they list any site
of interest, including many that would be considered as not "notable" enough
for inclusion under the relevant "External Links" in the Wikipedia, but still
may prove of interest. They also serve a similar purpose to the wikipedias'
category pseudo-trees of allowing to find similar articles of interest.

A lot of techno-geeks are now saying "Category trees are dead! Tags are the
future". It is true that traditionally the filesystems of popular operating
systems such as UNIX (e.g: Linux, Mac OS X, etc.), DOS/Windows, etc. are
organised in a directory tree and not a tag, which inspired a lot of Internet-
stuff to be similar (as the protocols mirrored the semantics of the UNIX file
system). However, there are many good reasons (besides ease-of-implementation)
why they are organised in a hierarchy, instead of in free-form tags. (You can
see the Google Reader feeds-organised-in-tags or the Flock browser huge tag-
based bookmarks menu for why they sometimes fail). Not to mention that like in
wikipedia, a certain resource can be tagged with more than one category like
Isaac Newton ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton ) belongs to "17th-
century English people" , "Fellows of the Royal Society" , "English
alchemists", etc.

So I still think the idea of a web directory appeals to me.

The problems with ODP/dmoz.org:
-------------------------------

As someone who used to be a dmoz.org editor, I found two main problems with
it:

1. Too much red-tape: an editor could only edit the categories he was given
permissions for, and not anything above. There were some meta-editors who can
edit anything and can also give permissions for more categories which take
time, but I still have been thinking that the best thing would be a wikipedia-
like "everyone can edit everything unless explicitly forbidden" thing.

Another thing I didn't like about this red-tape and authority was an incident
where as I edited the Perl "FAQs, Tutorials and Helps" category and added a
sub-category of "Tutorials" where I placed some stuff. Then when an editor
reviewed my work when I asked for another category, they didn't like the fact
that one of the texts for the mission statement only reflected my thoughts,
and so deleted the category and moved everything I wrote their to the parent
category. This naturally was a destructive change that made me frustrated, as
I would have been happy to change the mission statement or guidelines of the
category after the fact.

2. The UI was lacking: there were many forms required to review, submit and/or
edit a single link, the editing server was kinda slow, there was very little
AJAX, and editing in general was much less convenient than the wikipedia edit
link which gives a gigantic textarea with a convenient and concise syntax.

-------------

For a long time I felt guilty about not dedicating enough time to edit
dmoz.org, and had reminders to edit it occasionally (which I tended to ignore)
but eventually passively stopped editing. I now realise I could not be blamed
for my lack of enthusiasm.

Note that I still feel that dmoz.org is a useful resource which is often fun
and useful. As great as the Wikipedia is, I still think there's a place for a
high-profile web-directory. Maybe this is one of the trends that will become
retro, like push technology which was considered a fad was re-incarnated as
RSS/Atom feeds which seem to have gained a lot of popularity, and even proved
to have some business potential.

The Challenges of a more open / more free web directory:
--------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure that a wikimedia-sponsored web directory is a good idea yet. But
here are some thoughts about the challenges:

1. The three S's: Spam, spam, spam. A web directory is likely to be a huge
spam target and will need good anti-spam controls. However, I personally think
that while spam should be a factor we take into consideration, it should not
prevent us from creating new and exciting user-contributed web sites.

One of the reasons I hate spam is not so much that I am bothered by it
arriving in my inbox, but rather because it makes some people paranoid. My
personal web-site contains an <a href="mailto:shlomif@..."
rel="webmaster">shlomif@...</a> E-mail at the bottom of each page, but
lately most sites I visited either had it obscured under many ways, or even
just had a contact form. Some people have even told me that I should hide my
web address to reduce the amount of spam I receive because "prevention is
better than the cure".

I'm sorry, but I'd rather not destroy paradise just so I can save it. I'd
rather see some spam on blogs and in E-mail than destroy their
usability/accessibility, and by corrollary think that a more open web-
directory should not have fear of spam as the main obstacle in its way.

2. We may wish to build upon the existing data of the ODP which is syndicated
as machine-readable data under this licence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_License

Which:

<<<<<<<<
The Free Software Foundation describes the ODL as a non-free license, citing
the right to redistribute a given version not being permanent, and the
requirement to check for changes to the license.
>>>>>>>>

Whether something is indeed free/open or not is a term of much debate as I
mention here in a somewhat different context:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/

Whether the interpretation of the FSF to the freeness of the licence is
correct here, and whether it matters much in this case (as RMS himself was
quoted as saying that commercial games can have "non-free" art and plots as
long as their engines are free and it was OK ethically and morally). Still it
may prove to be a problem if we want to gain some public acceptance for the
directory.

3. Shouldn't we try to convince dmoz.org to remedy the two problems I've
mentioned, rather than starting our own competing and diverging effort?

-----------------------

Like I said earlier, I'm still very sceptical about whether this idea will
work and be a good one. At the moment, I'm unemployed by choice, but still
have many other endeavours and different priorities and so cannot commit to
dedicating a lot of time to this wiki-directory. I'm already active in the
English wikipedia, the English wiktionary, used to edit the English wikiquote
and would like to work again, and naturally have my own web-sites and blogs
(not really wikis, though I have comments there), which often take greater
precedence and interest. So my expectation is that if such an effort is
started, it will need to grow organically in a similar way that wikinews or
wikibooks or some of the popular topical Wikia wikis have gained public
acceptance.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
"Star Trek: We, the Living Dead" - http://shlom.in/st-wtld

Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Samuel Klein-2]

Hello Shlomi,

Like most perennial ideas, there is certainly value in this one.  There are
two big wikis that do this that you might take a look at to hone your ideas
(you might even suggest changes to them directly):

http://www.wikiindex.org/WebsiteWiki  (german, 1M sites)
http://www.wikiindex.org/AboutUs   (english, 10M sites)

SJ

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> This is a request-for-comments (RFC) about an idea that had surfaced on
> #wikipedia at the time about creating an open web directory similar to
> http://www.dmoz.org/ only world-editable and with a more convenient
> interface.
> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
> directory" section of:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>
> History of Web Directories:
> ---------------------------
>
> I'm not sure how many of the younger folks here are very familiar with the
> history and motivation behind web directories, so I'll explain a little to
> the
> best of my knowledge.
>
> Back when the Internet and the World Wide Web started to become popular,
> search engines were much less accurate than Google, or the search engines
> that
> now compete with it, using similar algorithms. As a result, it was often
> hard
> to find stuff on the Internet using Lycos or different search engines. As a
> result, people have actively used web-directories and especially yahoo.com
> (which started as a hand-maintained directory by two Stanford students, and
> grew into a successful Internet company), as a way to find resources that
> were
> considered high-quality by human editors.
>
> Yahoo and similar directories organised the content in a tree of
> categories,
> with some stuff like "symbolic links", etc. Part of the problem with Yahoo
> was
> that it was closed for edits only by human editors, which caused it to
> quickly
> grow out-of-date. As a result, it was eventually surpassed in
> comprehensiveness and accuracy by dmoz.org:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project
>
> dmoz.org gained some notoriety after Google periodically mirrored it as
> the
> Google directory (with some enhancements like sort-by-page-rank and a
> faster
> load time, and a better search). Eventually, Google removed it from their
> front page and search results in favour of Froogle and other stuff which
> were
> in my (possibly non-representative) opinion much less useful than their
> Directory, and dmoz.org went into much greater obscurity. Soon afterwards,
> the
> English wikipedia and other wikimedia projects started gaining a lot of
> momentum, popularity and page rank, which caused it to rank high among many
> search engine searches (although to the defence of Google and other search
> engines, one should note that they do seem to have a diversification
> algorithm, which makes the search results not be dominated by a single
> source
> - whether wikipedia.org or whatever).
>
> Why a Web Directory:
> --------------------
>
> While I enjoy the English wikipedia a lot (and have contributed to it -
> see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shlomif ), I still think that web
> directories have been having (or possibly and unfortunately "had been
> having")
> their advantages and appeal. The primary reason is because they list any
> site
> of interest, including many that would be considered as not "notable"
> enough
> for inclusion under the relevant "External Links" in the Wikipedia, but
> still
> may prove of interest. They also serve a similar purpose to the wikipedias'
> category pseudo-trees of allowing to find similar articles of interest.
>
> A lot of techno-geeks are now saying "Category trees are dead! Tags are the
> future". It is true that traditionally the filesystems of popular operating
> systems such as UNIX (e.g: Linux, Mac OS X, etc.), DOS/Windows, etc. are
> organised in a directory tree and not a tag, which inspired a lot of
> Internet-
> stuff to be similar (as the protocols mirrored the semantics of the UNIX
> file
> system). However, there are many good reasons (besides
> ease-of-implementation)
> why they are organised in a hierarchy, instead of in free-form tags. (You
> can
> see the Google Reader feeds-organised-in-tags or the Flock browser huge
> tag-
> based bookmarks menu for why they sometimes fail). Not to mention that like
> in
> wikipedia, a certain resource can be tagged with more than one category
> like
> Isaac Newton ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton ) belongs to
> "17th-
> century English people" , "Fellows of the Royal Society" , "English
> alchemists", etc.
>
> So I still think the idea of a web directory appeals to me.
>
> The problems with ODP/dmoz.org:
> -------------------------------
>
> As someone who used to be a dmoz.org editor, I found two main problems
> with
> it:
>
> 1. Too much red-tape: an editor could only edit the categories he was given
> permissions for, and not anything above. There were some meta-editors who
> can
> edit anything and can also give permissions for more categories which take
> time, but I still have been thinking that the best thing would be a
> wikipedia-
> like "everyone can edit everything unless explicitly forbidden" thing.
>
> Another thing I didn't like about this red-tape and authority was an
> incident
> where as I edited the Perl "FAQs, Tutorials and Helps" category and added a
> sub-category of "Tutorials" where I placed some stuff. Then when an editor
> reviewed my work when I asked for another category, they didn't like the
> fact
> that one of the texts for the mission statement only reflected my thoughts,
> and so deleted the category and moved everything I wrote their to the
> parent
> category. This naturally was a destructive change that made me frustrated,
> as
> I would have been happy to change the mission statement or guidelines of
> the
> category after the fact.
>
> 2. The UI was lacking: there were many forms required to review, submit
> and/or
> edit a single link, the editing server was kinda slow, there was very
> little
> AJAX, and editing in general was much less convenient than the wikipedia
> edit
> link which gives a gigantic textarea with a convenient and concise syntax.
>
> -------------
>
> For a long time I felt guilty about not dedicating enough time to edit
> dmoz.org, and had reminders to edit it occasionally (which I tended to
> ignore)
> but eventually passively stopped editing. I now realise I could not be
> blamed
> for my lack of enthusiasm.
>
> Note that I still feel that dmoz.org is a useful resource which is often
> fun
> and useful. As great as the Wikipedia is, I still think there's a place for
> a
> high-profile web-directory. Maybe this is one of the trends that will
> become
> retro, like push technology which was considered a fad was re-incarnated as
> RSS/Atom feeds which seem to have gained a lot of popularity, and even
> proved
> to have some business potential.
>
> The Challenges of a more open / more free web directory:
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure that a wikimedia-sponsored web directory is a good idea yet.
> But
> here are some thoughts about the challenges:
>
> 1. The three S's: Spam, spam, spam. A web directory is likely to be a huge
> spam target and will need good anti-spam controls. However, I personally
> think
> that while spam should be a factor we take into consideration, it should
> not
> prevent us from creating new and exciting user-contributed web sites.
>
> One of the reasons I hate spam is not so much that I am bothered by it
> arriving in my inbox, but rather because it makes some people paranoid. My
> personal web-site contains an <a href="mailto:shlomif@..."
> rel="webmaster">shlomif@...</a> E-mail at the bottom of each page,
> but
> lately most sites I visited either had it obscured under many ways, or even
> just had a contact form. Some people have even told me that I should hide
> my
> web address to reduce the amount of spam I receive because "prevention is
> better than the cure".
>
> I'm sorry, but I'd rather not destroy paradise just so I can save it. I'd
> rather see some spam on blogs and in E-mail than destroy their
> usability/accessibility, and by corrollary think that a more open web-
> directory should not have fear of spam as the main obstacle in its way.
>
> 2. We may wish to build upon the existing data of the ODP which is
> syndicated
> as machine-readable data under this licence:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_License
>
> Which:
>
> <<<<<<<<
> The Free Software Foundation describes the ODL as a non-free license,
> citing
> the right to redistribute a given version not being permanent, and the
> requirement to check for changes to the license.
> >>>>>>>>
>
> Whether something is indeed free/open or not is a term of much debate as I
> mention here in a somewhat different context:
>
>
> http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/open-source/foss-licences-wars/
>
> Whether the interpretation of the FSF to the freeness of the licence is
> correct here, and whether it matters much in this case (as RMS himself was
> quoted as saying that commercial games can have "non-free" art and plots as
> long as their engines are free and it was OK ethically and morally). Still
> it
> may prove to be a problem if we want to gain some public acceptance for the
> directory.
>
> 3. Shouldn't we try to convince dmoz.org to remedy the two problems I've
> mentioned, rather than starting our own competing and diverging effort?
>
> -----------------------
>
> Like I said earlier, I'm still very sceptical about whether this idea will
> work and be a good one. At the moment, I'm unemployed by choice, but still
> have many other endeavours and different priorities and so cannot commit to
> dedicating a lot of time to this wiki-directory. I'm already active in the
> English wikipedia, the English wiktionary, used to edit the English
> wikiquote
> and would like to work again, and naturally have my own web-sites and blogs
> (not really wikis, though I have comments there), which often take greater
> precedence and interest. So my expectation is that if such an effort is
> started, it will need to grow organically in a similar way that wikinews or
> wikibooks or some of the popular topical Wikia wikis have gained public
> acceptance.
>
> Regards,
>
>        Shlomi Fish
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
> "Star Trek: We, the Living Dead" - http://shlom.in/st-wtld
>
> Chuck Norris read the entire English Wikipedia in 24 hours. Twice.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Bod Notbod]

> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

>> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
>> directory" section of:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

One workaround I've found is to add a "resources" section to the
/talk/ page and list sites there. I've been responsible for a few
rather long 'external links' sections and have been disappointed to
see them trimmed because I felt all of the links I provided were valid
(in that they provided substantial information not easily included in
the article [for example, on an article about an author including
links to articles written by them] or hosted images that we couldn't
use [particularly useful for modern artists]).

With the section on the talk page I added my recommendation that the
section should not be archived when the talk page grew large as I felt
the section would remain of value to editors and ought to remain
relatively prominent.

It's not an ideal solution because there's not much you can do with
the section other than edit/add to it. But I felt it was a good
compromise for those times when I was in disagreement with another
editor over the external links section.

I tend towards the "argh, no, not another project" view on things. I
think because, and perhaps this is unfair, I dislike that they may
drain talent and resources away from the encyclopedias.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Ziko van Dijk]

I have just seen a list of the Wikimedia projects and noticed that the
last one was created in 2006, is that right?
In spite of all sympathy for a Wiki-directory I am afraid that
partially Wikipedia already has taken over that part. When I am
looking for the web site of a museum I tend to go to the Wikipedia
article about that museum and look there under "Weblinks".
Kind regards
Ziko


2009/10/27 Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...>:

>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
>
>>> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
>>> directory" section of:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>
> One workaround I've found is to add a "resources" section to the
> /talk/ page and list sites there. I've been responsible for a few
> rather long 'external links' sections and have been disappointed to
> see them trimmed because I felt all of the links I provided were valid
> (in that they provided substantial information not easily included in
> the article [for example, on an article about an author including
> links to articles written by them] or hosted images that we couldn't
> use [particularly useful for modern artists]).
>
> With the section on the talk page I added my recommendation that the
> section should not be archived when the talk page grew large as I felt
> the section would remain of value to editors and ought to remain
> relatively prominent.
>
> It's not an ideal solution because there's not much you can do with
> the section other than edit/add to it. But I felt it was a good
> compromise for those times when I was in disagreement with another
> editor over the external links section.
>
> I tend towards the "argh, no, not another project" view on things. I
> think because, and perhaps this is unfair, I dislike that they may
> drain talent and resources away from the encyclopedias.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Goodman]

This works for the notable things that are in Wikipedia. The point of
a project like this would be to go one step further, and have a  open
content  directory, not  based on advertising , that would cover the
local and hobbyist material that either does not make it into
Wikipedia or that is frequently challenged there.  Names that i think
indicate the purpose would be Wikipedia2 or Wikilocal. Whether the
Wikimedia foundation is open to the possibilities of an additional
project would be another matter, but there could be another home for
it. I hope that they would consider doing it themselves, for it would
benefit greatly from their sponsorship, their established procedures,
and their commitment to both free copyright and freedom from
advertising.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@...> wrote:

> I have just seen a list of the Wikimedia projects and noticed that the
> last one was created in 2006, is that right?
> In spite of all sympathy for a Wiki-directory I am afraid that
> partially Wikipedia already has taken over that part. When I am
> looking for the web site of a museum I tend to go to the Wikipedia
> article about that museum and look there under "Weblinks".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> 2009/10/27 Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...>:
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
>>
>>>> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
>>>> directory" section of:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>>
>> One workaround I've found is to add a "resources" section to the
>> /talk/ page and list sites there. I've been responsible for a few
>> rather long 'external links' sections and have been disappointed to
>> see them trimmed because I felt all of the links I provided were valid
>> (in that they provided substantial information not easily included in
>> the article [for example, on an article about an author including
>> links to articles written by them] or hosted images that we couldn't
>> use [particularly useful for modern artists]).
>>
>> With the section on the talk page I added my recommendation that the
>> section should not be archived when the talk page grew large as I felt
>> the section would remain of value to editors and ought to remain
>> relatively prominent.
>>
>> It's not an ideal solution because there's not much you can do with
>> the section other than edit/add to it. But I felt it was a good
>> compromise for those times when I was in disagreement with another
>> editor over the external links section.
>>
>> I tend towards the "argh, no, not another project" view on things. I
>> think because, and perhaps this is unfair, I dislike that they may
>> drain talent and resources away from the encyclopedias.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@...
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Steven Walling]

David, there are many projects covering some or all of those ideas. There's
Wikia for "hobbyist" and popular culture content, the many city wikis
(attempts at creating a central repository of civic wikis has thus far
failed), AboutUs for domain-centric content, and the list goes on and on. As
SJ pointed to, WikiIndex.org gives one an idea of just how much there is
already outside Wikimedia.

While I think we're on to something good, I also think that a crystal clear
scope is necessary for a project like this, whether it's part of Wikimedia
or not. Overlap with other projects isn't necessarily a barrier to success,
but it requires more clarity of vision than what I'm getting from the
discussion so far.

Just my two cents.

Steven Walling

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:

> This works for the notable things that are in Wikipedia. The point of
> a project like this would be to go one step further, and have a  open
> content  directory, not  based on advertising , that would cover the
> local and hobbyist material that either does not make it into
> Wikipedia or that is frequently challenged there.  Names that i think
> indicate the purpose would be Wikipedia2 or Wikilocal. Whether the
> Wikimedia foundation is open to the possibilities of an additional
> project would be another matter, but there could be another home for
> it. I hope that they would consider doing it themselves, for it would
> benefit greatly from their sponsorship, their established procedures,
> and their commitment to both free copyright and freedom from
> advertising.
>
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@...>
> wrote:
> > I have just seen a list of the Wikimedia projects and noticed that the
> > last one was created in 2006, is that right?
> > In spite of all sympathy for a Wiki-directory I am afraid that
> > partially Wikipedia already has taken over that part. When I am
> > looking for the web site of a museum I tend to go to the Wikipedia
> > article about that museum and look there under "Weblinks".
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> > 2009/10/27 Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...>:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
> >>>> directory" section of:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
> >>
> >> One workaround I've found is to add a "resources" section to the
> >> /talk/ page and list sites there. I've been responsible for a few
> >> rather long 'external links' sections and have been disappointed to
> >> see them trimmed because I felt all of the links I provided were valid
> >> (in that they provided substantial information not easily included in
> >> the article [for example, on an article about an author including
> >> links to articles written by them] or hosted images that we couldn't
> >> use [particularly useful for modern artists]).
> >>
> >> With the section on the talk page I added my recommendation that the
> >> section should not be archived when the talk page grew large as I felt
> >> the section would remain of value to editors and ought to remain
> >> relatively prominent.
> >>
> >> It's not an ideal solution because there's not much you can do with
> >> the section other than edit/add to it. But I felt it was a good
> >> compromise for those times when I was in disagreement with another
> >> editor over the external links section.
> >>
> >> I tend towards the "argh, no, not another project" view on things. I
> >> think because, and perhaps this is unfair, I dislike that they may
> >> drain talent and resources away from the encyclopedias.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@...
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ziko van Dijk
> > NL-Silvolde
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@...
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[David Goodman]

We can do it right.
We can do it free of advertising. We can do it verified. We can do it
multi-national. We can do it in a single large open community. We can
do it without the uncertainty of  city wikis, with their small
contributor base.
We can use it not just for additional material, but to relieve some of
the disputes on Wikipedia about the inclusion of local information
such as bus routes and local dignitaries. It can satisfy the
inclusionists, because the material will be included. it will satisfy
the deletionists, because it won't be included in the primary layer.
It will help newcomers, because it will give them easy things to write
about.

There is a considerable hostility among many Wikipedia people with
respect to Wikia, partly for historical/interpersonal  reasons, and
partly because of their extreme contamination with advertisements, and
the almost total lack of standards of verifiability.

I agree it will take some planning: one basic question which you
allude to  is whether it is meant as Wikipedia Local, or to include
hobbyist material as well.

And perhaps it will be more used than some of the other splits.



David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Steven Walling
<steven.walling@...> wrote:

> David, there are many projects covering some or all of those ideas. There's
> Wikia for "hobbyist" and popular culture content, the many city wikis
> (attempts at creating a central repository of civic wikis has thus far
> failed), AboutUs for domain-centric content, and the list goes on and on. As
> SJ pointed to, WikiIndex.org gives one an idea of just how much there is
> already outside Wikimedia.
>
> While I think we're on to something good, I also think that a crystal clear
> scope is necessary for a project like this, whether it's part of Wikimedia
> or not. Overlap with other projects isn't necessarily a barrier to success,
> but it requires more clarity of vision than what I'm getting from the
> discussion so far.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Steven Walling
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:
>
>> This works for the notable things that are in Wikipedia. The point of
>> a project like this would be to go one step further, and have a  open
>> content  directory, not  based on advertising , that would cover the
>> local and hobbyist material that either does not make it into
>> Wikipedia or that is frequently challenged there.  Names that i think
>> indicate the purpose would be Wikipedia2 or Wikilocal. Whether the
>> Wikimedia foundation is open to the possibilities of an additional
>> project would be another matter, but there could be another home for
>> it. I hope that they would consider doing it themselves, for it would
>> benefit greatly from their sponsorship, their established procedures,
>> and their commitment to both free copyright and freedom from
>> advertising.
>>
>>
>> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@...>
>> wrote:
>> > I have just seen a list of the Wikimedia projects and noticed that the
>> > last one was created in 2006, is that right?
>> > In spite of all sympathy for a Wiki-directory I am afraid that
>> > partially Wikipedia already has taken over that part. When I am
>> > looking for the web site of a museum I tend to go to the Wikipedia
>> > article about that museum and look there under "Weblinks".
>> > Kind regards
>> > Ziko
>> >
>> >
>> > 2009/10/27 Bod Notbod <bodnotbod@...>:
>> >>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> This was motivated after I was referred to the "Wikipedia is not a web
>> >>>> directory" section of:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>> >>
>> >> One workaround I've found is to add a "resources" section to the
>> >> /talk/ page and list sites there. I've been responsible for a few
>> >> rather long 'external links' sections and have been disappointed to
>> >> see them trimmed because I felt all of the links I provided were valid
>> >> (in that they provided substantial information not easily included in
>> >> the article [for example, on an article about an author including
>> >> links to articles written by them] or hosted images that we couldn't
>> >> use [particularly useful for modern artists]).
>> >>
>> >> With the section on the talk page I added my recommendation that the
>> >> section should not be archived when the talk page grew large as I felt
>> >> the section would remain of value to editors and ought to remain
>> >> relatively prominent.
>> >>
>> >> It's not an ideal solution because there's not much you can do with
>> >> the section other than edit/add to it. But I felt it was a good
>> >> compromise for those times when I was in disagreement with another
>> >> editor over the external links section.
>> >>
>> >> I tend towards the "argh, no, not another project" view on things. I
>> >> think because, and perhaps this is unfair, I dislike that they may
>> >> drain talent and resources away from the encyclopedias.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l@...
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ziko van Dijk
>> > NL-Silvolde
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@...
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@...
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@...
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Samuel Klein-2]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:23 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny@...> wrote:

> We can do it right.
> We can do it free of advertising. We can do it verified. We can do it
> multi-national. We can do it in a single large open community. We can
> do it without the uncertainty of  city wikis, with their small
> contributor base.
>

These are all excellent reasons to start new Wikimedia projects.


> We can use it not just for additional material, but to relieve some of
> the disputes on Wikipedia about the inclusion of local information
> such as bus routes and local dignitaries. It can satisfy the
> inclusionists, because the material will be included. it will satisfy
> the deletionists, because it won't be included in the primary layer.
> It will help newcomers, because it will give them easy things to write
> about.
>

The latter is also valuable.  Having young projects that meaningfully
contribute to the sum of all knowledge in your language is helpful; perhaps
we should actively send newbies to such projects to get their feet wet.


> There is a considerable hostility among many Wikipedia people with
> respect to Wikia, partly for historical/interpersonal  reasons, and
> partly because of their extreme contamination with advertisements, and
> the almost total lack of standards of verifiability.
>

For my part, I'm relieved that there is a free-content place where anyone
can start a wiki about anything - which also relieves many notability
disputes.  One value to having Wikias on topics not currently considered
notable or in scope for WM projects is that, if a new project is formed or
standards change, that body of existing work can be copied over (and
verified and cited) to seed it.


I agree it will take some planning: one basic question which you
> allude to  is whether it is meant as Wikipedia Local, or to include
> hobbyist material as well.
>
> And perhaps it will be more used than some of the other splits.
>

We are REALLY HARSH on our smaller projects.  New project topics are not
'splits'.  They are invitations to gather more and different kinds of
knowledge in a scalable way.   Even Wikispecies, which most people
acknowledge has a lot to learn from the shiny multimillion-dollar
pro-curated Encyclopedia of Life, gets 300,000 hits a day, more than its
more professional cousin.

So: people use Wikimedia sites a lot.  Our brand means something, as does
our comprenehsive and meaningful use of internal links.  We are a tremendous
force for dissemination of knowledge, and should be aware of that - adding a
new sphere of knowledge to the scope of what the Projects together try to
accomplish has implications for millions of future readers.

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Mohamed Magdy-2]

Morning *

I was thinking of something similar to make myself but didn't get to it.
I'm glad to see this RFC and I think it will be worthwhile project to have,
I don't know though how to convince them to create it.  I was going to use
Semantic forms (which means you also use Semantic MediaWiki (which means you
get the cool features that pro-SMW people are talking about)) (and add
duplicate link checker functionality to automatically redirect the user to
the existing profile) for website submissions and FlaggedRevs to make new
submissions invisible until it is reviewed by editors.  of course, nofollow
would be disabled on that wiki.

alnokta
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l