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 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 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. They were not included specifically to address the idea of potentially "heirarchically arranging" religion projects, but simply because that's probably the easiest page of the directory to understand, and so the one I am most likely to refer to. 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)
 * Did I, or indeed IZAK, suggest it was a proposed guideline? Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Last response before WP:DNFT comes into effect. Yes, here. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is IZAK, not me, and you are stetching what he says. Your repeated threat is noted. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how I am misreading the phrase "proposed policy essay", used by that editor. Nowhere did I say that this was a proposed policy. Your own clear and obvious, and seemingly willful?, misrepresentation of facts is also noted. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, he says "essay", which as we know means "not a guideline". It is an essay on policy matters, so depending how the term is construed his comment is either accurate, or mildly slipshod in expression. Nothing to get worked up about, for most editors anyway. Tell me where ... oh don't bother. More to the point you are dodging your false accusation, yet again, of me. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 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)
 * I'm not entirely sure I disagree with the above, actually. If anything, the ideas proposed would do a few things.
 * I am personally aware of several new WikiProjects which have been created with the support of one or fewer editors. Yes, in a sense, regarding some of the newer national projects using the Template:Africa, I created them. Although there has been extensive discussion about creation of such projects for some time, no one had actually done anything before. What was done in that case seems to have been the only way to meet the concerns of all involved. And, certainly, as the creator, I don't see them as being necessarily separate projects, but, as indicated elsewhere, "bookkeeping" subprojects of an extant regional/continental WikiProject to allow individuals to keep track of articles relative to individual nations of interest. If I did see them as separate projects, I would have created separate banners, userboxes, which I don't think yet exist in many cases, etc.. However, there are and have been more than a few new WikiProjects regarding very limited subjects which have been created from the WikiProject Council/Proposals page with only supporter, or just created outright. I have trouble even finding these pages to be able to include them in the directory in several cases. These projects have, in some cases, gone on to create several new directly project-related templates, subpages, etc. Many of these newer projects get merged within months, or in some cases deleted outright, with the deletion of the new templates and the like.
 * And, if anything, with the active existence of most of the major "topical" projects, I am all but certain that we will see even more of the perhaps "peripheral" projects by individuals who wish to leave their mark on wikipedia, as it were. The suggestions for the smaller scope projects however are something which might perhaps be able to be integrated in some way into the WikiProject Council/Proposals page, to perhaps prevent some editors from too quickly creating very limited scope projects out of reckless enthusiasm.
 * One alternative, which would be rather hard to express, which is why I hadn't earlier, would be that maybe it might be possible to create, as an alternative to WikiProjects, Portals for the various "smaller scope" proposals which may arise. It might be possible to include separate article assessment for many of these portals, using their potential "parent" project's banner, which could be included either in the portal itself or on its talk page. Such a portal would have the function of a Project while at the same time combining the appearance of something which might be more likely to more quickly get regular attention from interested editors. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)