Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

WikiFocus

This is a proposal for a new Wikimedia sister project.
WikiFocus
Status of the proposal
Statusrejected
ReasonNo consensus reached in four years.--GZWDer (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Details of the proposal
Project descriptionThe purpose of this wiki is to describe everything related to Wiki technology (wikis and their members, wiki softwares and their capabilities).
Is it a multilingual wiki?many
Potential number of languagesmany
Proposed taglineWiki about wiki(s)
Proposed URLhttp://wikifocus.org/
Technical requirements
New features to requireno
Development wikiThis project has been created already by Vladimir Medeyko
Interested participants
If you have been interested about the project and if you want it to join Wikimedia Foundation, please subscribe at the end of this list clicking "Join!" under it.
  1. Maxtirdatov (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vade Parvis (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dimetr (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Saint Johann (ru) 08:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --VAP VYK (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Mikhail V. (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Abarmot (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vald (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Serebr (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AstroNomer-ru (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Pierpao (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Econterms (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Nature Protector (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. MIVP (May I be of assistance?)) 15:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 85.26.231.153 19:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Evachan39 (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

edit
 
Russian WikiFocus logo:
WikiFocus
wiki about wiki

The purpose of WikiFocus is to describe everything related to Wiki technology (wikis and their members, wiki softwares and their capabilities, etc.). Meta-Wiki also describes wikis, but only belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation or planed to join to Wikimedia and not really for informational purposes. And there is not articles about users at all.

The creation of the most of such articles in Wikipedia is impossible because it will break the notability rule. But WikiFocus may and should contain such articles.

The wiki have been created already. Creator of it is Vladimir Medeyko. There are 472 articles in WikiFocus now. The wiki's URL is http://wikifocus.org/ now and it's good because it match corresponds to its name.

So far it is available only in Russian and Ukrainian languages, but jointly we'll organize the others language versions. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To do

edit
  • Make WikiFocus open: anonymous users cannot edit pages of project now, and for registration you should to contact administrator and talk with him/her. Such projects cannot be WMF's, so we must be ready to open it.
  • Make WikiFocus multilingual: jointly we can create some basic language version. English, for example. The others will create in the Wikimedia Incubator. By the same, there is Ukrainian articles in WikiFocus, but there is not Ukrainin website version: WikiFocus has namespaces "uk:", "Обговорення:", "ВiкiФокус:" and "Обговорення ВiкiФокуса:", but I think any language needs "under-domain" (http://uk.wikifocus.org/, for example).
  • WMF's wikis have vector design by default, and I think WikiFocus should it, too. I think it easy to setup, but don't know how and can't do it. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

edit

Perhaps the name of the wiki is not very suited it. If you want the wiki's name to be another, you can propose the new name here, but I think the founder of the wiki would not like to rename the project like me. And perhaps the word "Focus" should be written with a lowercase letter. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • Strong   Oppose. Everything (and everyone) that notable enought to be described neutral enought can be described in Wikipedia itself. Everything else will be non-neutral, and have a lot of original research, and such project will be used as hosting for attack-pages, as already happens with the same-goals-project wikireality.ru -- Vlsergey (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Vlsergey. AndyVolykhov (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Russian: ВикиФокус предерживается нейтральности, а наличие оригинальных исследований (которых в нашем проекте, по моему нет) — не аргумент для того, чтобы он не был проектом Фонда. Например, Викиновости могут содержать оригинальные исследования — такие новости там называются оригинальными репортажами. В любом случае, в нашем проекте я оригинальных иссделований не наблюдаю. А что касается Викиреальности - наш проект был создан из-за несогласия некоторых её участников с ненеётральностью и оскорблениями в адрес описываемых объектов и субъектов в этой «энциклопедии». --Maxtirdatov (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is possible to archive some point on per-sentence neutrality basing on primary sources, only secondary sources can give enough base for per-section or per-article neutrality, as specified in ru:ВП:ВЕС rule. If such sources exist then article can be created in Wikipedia itself. If none of such secondary sources exist, it would not be neutral enough in any kind of project, unless it is bot generated. (And in latest case we can just generate per-user cards using toolserver) -- Vlsergey (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiFocus must not use every Wikipedian rule. Yeah, I think any WMF's project should have neutrality texts, but every wiki has its own purpose that determine, must this project has secondary sources. Articles, backed them, can live in Wikipedia, but WikiFocus is place and for others. Sources in WikiFocus is wikipages, diffs and dependent web pages. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just a community-forced rule, but rather a required principle to create and provide neutral and precise content. Usage of secondary source is a must-be principle for every human-edited-content project (who wants to be neutral). There are exceptions like wikidata, where content may be based on primary sources. But such content is required to be fit in very strict per-item form and neutrality of single item (article) is preserved by such limitation. -- Vlsergey (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    То, что проект является энциклопедическим справочником ещё не значит, что он обязан придерживаться принципов Википедии. Если бы это было не так, в его существование не было бы никакого sense))) Потому что тогда написанные в нём статьи могли бы помещаться в Википедию, а тех, которые незначимы для Википедии в соответствие с консенсусом сообщества, было бы очень мало. Проект описывает историю вики-проектов, вики-движков, участия участников, даёт прочую информацию о них, опираясь на диффы, вики-страницы и их старые версии. В описаниях вики-движков и вики-проектов при отсутствие информации в вики-проектах или если информация в википроектах-источников дублирует указанную в примечаниях, указываются вторичные источники (во втором случае указанные в проектах). --Maxtirdatov (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Если, если... Я чётко указал, что неследование этим принципам создаст ненейтральный и неточный источник информации, который не будет следовать принципу "каждая правка улучшает", как это работает в Википедии. А раз так, я не вижу причин, по которым фонду нужен подобный проект. -- Vlsergey (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ссылки на диффы и страницы вклада в конкретный промежуток времени в статьях об участниках, к примеру, неточный источник истории их участия? --Maxtirdatov (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Вы пытаетесь опровергнуть не тот аргумент, который я высказываю. -- Vlsergey (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sergey, I guess that you don't understand what the project is about. However, no doubt, it's our fault that we still haven't elaborated formal vision statement. Its purpose is to gather and systematize primary facts in order to make it easier to find an information that one needs. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, see my comments on the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure disrespect to founder of the wiki is not argument for negative vote. Of course, I am sorry. You have not given any reasoned argument. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is good that you are sorry. First, I decide what is an argument for my vote and not you. Second, in my explanation I did not even mention Mr. Medeyko. Of course when he immediately showed up to repeat for the hundredth time that I hate him so much that I can not see anything, I had to respond to him. But Wikifocus should not be a sister project not because of Mr. Medeyko, but because it has an excellent potential for outing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you keep in mind, but when WikiFocus open we'll create a rule that will prohibit blocked users insult did it administrator. Maybe you talk about it. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop using automatic translate tools, some of your messages are unintelligible. I already provided this link at the discussion page. It shows very clearly how the project can be used for outing, and what is the vision of its founder in this respect.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your own opinion. In fact it is not the case. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, this is not my opinion. I did not participate in that discussion, and I did not suggest other users to collect all the diffs they do not like about a particular administrator and to publish this garbage in the project. I just merely pointed out that this activity is known as outing (and also canvassing, but this is a different story).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing of what? --Maxtirdatov (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear from the discussion (not only from you replies to me, but also to other users) that you often do not really know what you are talking about. Would you please familiarize yourself with the policies. If you unable to do it yourself may be you need a mentor.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Я прекрасно знаю, о чём я говорю, а что касается наставника — обойдусь и без него. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, Meta is to save father of Russian democracy. I believe, attack-like comments are normal on wikianalitic-wikipolitic sites, if you have hurt somewhere, just don't read about yourself, word must be free; but some people are very fond of running to court to grab some money from everyone who discusses them, so such projects should be created anonymously on free hostings, far away from main Fond's content repositories. Ignatus (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose The project often uses original research based on personal conjecture about the motives of people who are not reliably prove or disprove. Some of these findings is contained in the project, are not reliable and are actually attack-pages. --Wanderer777 (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • UPD. After the intervention of administrative neutrality was restored. However, I still believe that because of the articles are written based on original research, there are no existing mechanisms to maintain neutrality and accuracyty. Of course, except for the force intervention of the administration. --Wanderer777 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Несмотря на то, что голосовал я за в верхнем столбике только ради сброса диктатуры кое-кого, покажите мне, пожалуйста, где перечисленное вами здесь. И страницы-нападки тоже приведите, пожалуйста. Родина вас не забудет. Saint Johann (ru) 12:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • У меня нет особого желания указывать на то что там нужно исправить, разбирайтесь сами. Но даже здесь сразу, в первом же утверждении о моих первых правках имеется недостоверное оригинальное исследование, а затем делается неверное (и даже именно attack-page) предположение. Т.к. всё равно не догадаетась, даю подсказку - если видите странности с первыми правками, нужно смотреть удалённые правки, а вот с неверным предположением сложнее - его нельзя ни подтвердить, ни опровергнуть. --Wanderer777 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Вы правда считаете предположение о наличии опыта анонимного редактирования личными нападками?! Может, наличие такого опыта нарушает какие-то правила? А то я уж беспокоиться начал, у меня самого опыт анонимного редактирования есть. Что же до сомнительных предположений, то они много где есть, в том числе и в вашей реплике, на которую я сейчас отвечаю (это всё, разумеется, не отменяет того, что таких предположений надо избегать, а также того, что Викифокусу лучше не становиться проектом WMF как минимум в обозримом будущем). Altes (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Я правда считаю, что если я отрицаю опыт анонимного редактирования, то это фактически было обвинеие во лжи и предлог для некоторых неадекватов фантазировать о кукловодстве. Я считаю недопустимым раскрытие непубличной информации, особенно, если учасники недвусмысленно возражают против упоминаний их реальных фамилий. Да даже просто публикация этой информации из приватных источников - может стать поводом для судебного преследования. --Wanderer777 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Во-первых, Вы (я думаю) не допустили бы никаких нарушений при анонимном редактирование, так что это никакое не обвинение. Во-вторых, что Вас смущает в публикации реальных имени и фамилии? Если что, указанное в карточках не ищиться поисковыми системами, так как буквы являются изображениями. Да и вообще, публикя свои ФИО в проектах Фонда Викимедиа, он разрешает использовать их на условиях указанной лицензии. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Во-первых, часть фамилий взяты из приватных источников, во-вторых, некоторые участники разгласили свои фамилии, но они против их публичной публикации; в-третьих, "изображения" сделаны настолько корявым способом, что не представляет труда сделать соответствие Участник-Фамилия даже ботом (кто вообще придумал эти подстраницы?). --Wanderer777 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I would be grateful if you list the names in question in order to allow us to fix mistakes if they are confirmed. Thank you in advance! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Vladimir, I've already said above, I have no desire for your project. But unless you do not know that Victoria and aGra protest against any mention of their surnames? Or do you not see that your special rule (http://wikifocus.org/wiki/Правило:Персоналии) does not work? Do you not understand that the phrase "noted a radical ideological positions" - diffomatsiya as "noted" that users, which permanently blocked and in Russian and in English Wikipedia and there is no evidence for this assertion? Sorry, this is your project and your problems. --Wanderer777 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Victoria didn't opose the information that the Wikifocus article contained; however, I removed some information anyway, because it doesn't add a lot to the article. I haven't found any incorrect mentions of w:ru:user:Grebenkov, and I would be grateful if you point me to. As for the "radical ideological positions", the community discussion shown that statements like "communism=fascism" are considered "radical ideological positions"; however, I dared to change the wording anyway. And you know, wiki-projects (and more widely, user-generated content-projects) contain deficiencies by their very nature, and the best way to fix them is a counstructive and cooperative feedback. Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Вы ушли от ответа на вопрос. Мы обсуждали наличие не потенциально дискредитирующей информации, не информации, дающей поводы для "неадекватов", не слабообоснованных неподтверждённых догадок (или вы сомневаетесь, что всё это можно найти и в Википедии, и почти где угодно?), а статей-нападок, то есть статей, которые exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject. Предположение о том, что статья, написанная в целом в нейтральном ключе одним из добронамеренных и конструктивных участников Википедии (согласно информации из публично логируемого чата ВФ, автор статьи - Deinocheirus), была создана специально для того, чтобы оскорбить или дискредитировать вас, вы пока не подтвердили и сомневаюсь, что вам удастся подтвердить (а если считаете, что можете подтвердить, то будьте уж последовательны, поставьте вопрос о блокировке её автора в руВики за offwiki-преследование). И до тех пор, пока вы его не подтвердили, получается, что вы здесь и сейчас занимаетесь если не нападками, то во всяком случае распространением сомнительных догадок, прямо дискредитирующих участника Deinocheirus и косвенно всех прочих участников Викифокуса (при этом требуя, чтобы они не занимались этим же в Викифокусе). Cтатья Викифокуса отредактирована с учётом высказанных вами претензий; посмотрим, исправите ли вы утверждение о наличии в Викифокусе статей, главной целью существования которых являются оскорбления и/или угрозы. Altes (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • А ведь принципиальной разницы то как раз и нет - специально он это делал, случайно или искренне заблуждаясь. Результат то один - наличие диффамационных утверждений, которые использовались другими с вполне очевидными целями. Конкретно Deinocheirus'у я поверю, если он скажет что он написал это не с целью дискредитации. Но проблема то никуда не уходит - статьи в Викифокусе пишут на основании оригинальных исследований (анализ и синтез первичных источников), исключительно на субъективной интерпретации. По-этому восстановление нейтральности возможна только по обращению затронутых людей и с помощью силового вмешательства админов. --Wanderer777 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, it was unobserved mistake. I hope, our project community and me will verify articles and clean such mistakes if they are there. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • В любом случае, я считаю, что подобное высказывание не является ОРИССом, на мой взгляд, это сложение обстоятельств. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the above reasons. MaxBioHazard (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong   Oppose. What useful content that can not be published on other WMF sites can be published on WikiFocus? For notable wikis we may use Wikipedia, for wiki software MediaWiki already exists and has probably the most detailed information than anywhere else. The only difference are site that are not notable for the specific language version (something strange in my opinion, which can be especially strange if notability criteria are different in different language versions and in some Wikipedias the site will be not notable and thus eligible for WikiFocus only, and in some other Wikipedias the site will be notable, and thus we will have two parallel articles with similar content) and wiki-users (I can hardly imagine a WMF project with articles on users of WMF projects written by other users for WMF projects, it is not just a question of NPOV, it is at least a problem of ethics). Thus I can't see what is the use for WMF to include this site — NickK (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    «What useful content that can not be published on other WMF sites can be published on WikiFocus?» — считаю это высказывание абсолютно некорректным. Во-первых, недопустимость написания статей в других проектах не является обоснованием для того, чтобы голосовать против, IMHO. Во-вторых, если не надо создавать проекты, описывающие то, что нельзя описать в других, какой вообще смысл существования этой страницы? Ведь разве нам нужны проекты с содержанием, которое может быть в других проектах Фонда Викимедиа? --Maxtirdatov (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Если вы посмотрите на остальные предложения, то, как правило, они предлагают либо нечто совершенно не освещённое в Википедии и других проектах Фонда (например, OpenMeetings.org), либо нечто освещённое в других проектах, но описанное совершенно иначе (например, Wikivoyage). Вы же предлагаете описывать сайты абсолютно так же, как это делает Википедия (следовательно, этот проект будет иметь ценность только для сайтов, незначимых для Википедии), а также описывать деятельность пользователей сайтов Фонда на сайте самого Фонда (что, на мой взгляд, не совпадает с целями Фонда и не имеет никакой ценности для построннего читателя — скажем, вам интересно будет читать на русском статью об администраторе немецкого Викисловаря?). Следовательно, я не вижу нового ценного материала для Фонда
    If you look at other proposals, usually they propose either something completely new which is not described in WMF projects by te moment (e.g. OpenMeetings.org) or to describe something already available in other WMF projects, but in a completely different way (e.g. Wikivoyage). You propose to describe websites exactly like in Wikipedia (thus it will be useful only for sites not considered notable for Wikipedia) and to werite about WMF users on a WMF website (which, in my opinion, does not meet the mission of WMF and is useless for average reader — are you interested in article in Russian about, say, a sysop of German Wiktionary?). Thus I see no valuable material which can be added to WMF wikis — NickK (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's quite interesting and important to find information about practices and peculiarities of different projects in order to understand how they are functioning, and what could be done to improve them even more. WikiFocus is mostly targeted to "Wikimedia professionals" and researchers; it's a kind of supplimentary project, like Meta or TranslateWiki. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vlsergey. In addition. Yes, Wikinews allows original work under the form of original reporting and interviews: but they are generally based on outside and reliable sources. Wikifocus articles about wikipedians are generally based on inside/wikipedia sources. Alex Spade (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys! Please give an example of not neutral content in WikiFocus. --Maxtirdatov (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ghirlandajo" -- not precise in several points, since based on primary sources without generalization (i.e. "significant omission"). Drbug -- everything about problems with AC is missing from article ("significant omission" again), "Yaroslav Blanter" - "ex-member..." -- lol, what? Maxtirdatov -- "по собственному утверждению — не курит, не ругается матом, любит сладкое " -- is it neutral? One more point for someone, who doesn't distinguish "positive only" and "neutral". For neutrality we need to add negative things to project. And I personally believe, any kind of "pro" having such information will not override having "contra" conflicts all across ru-projects. -- Vlsergey (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex Spade" -- what is it about? Is it about real me (real person) or about my activity under Alex Spade nickname in ru-wiki (and wikimedia projects)? The article was created after April-1 incident and as I see only for description of respective incident - that action is very typical for attack page. Are there data about my activity in other Wikimedia projects? Are there more detailed data about both ru-wiki-incidents and ru-wiki-work with my participation and collaboration? The article asserts that I am on indefinite wiki-vacation since April 1. This is false, outdated statement. That wiki-vacation is over. My current indefinite wiki-vacation has another reason. The article asserts that Alex Spade is always very serious. "Always" is typical no-neutral word. The article asserts that I am copyright expert. I am not. I takes a great interest to copyright and intellectual property only. Alex Spade (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiFocus uses critical POVs selectively. They uses my critical POV for articles "OpenGlobe" (without first clause on September 17, 2011) and "Russian Wikipedia Cluster Conflict", but they does not use my very POV (without first clause) about theirself (on September 19, 2011). Alex Spade (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since apparently legends are spread in Russian Wikipedia that Drbug was not involved with this proposal - well, this proves that he really was. Not that I care so much about Russian Wikipedia, but there are multiple legends spread there - another one is for instance that Wikimedia.ru does not participate in WMF funding scheme because of the Russian prohibitive law. In fact, it does not participate in the WMF funding scheme because it was ruled to be ineligible for funding due to the failure of reporting on time (and it was ruled as such before the law was adopted). Most of what is written in Russian Wikipedia about meta business is sheer bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anonymous trolling deleted, link --178.94.133.241 18:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Судя по утончённой интеллектуальности вашего комментария, убогие у вас не только "знания английского" :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly   Support. Feels like this is the project wiki needs in the most. When users would be able to describe and honour other significant members, that would become a very good inducement to work for wiki more. Let wiki users write their own history for themselves!--Mikhail V. (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a reviewing member of the Sister Projects Committee, I'm having a look at this proposal. Thus far I'm struggling to understand how this proposed project is in line with the rest of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. I feel that we do not need a project that is a directory of wikis or "wiki softwares", indeed we have our own MediaWiki site which provides a lot of information on the MediaWiki software, and I imagine other "wiki softwares" will have documentation. Also, please can you explain what information you aim to provide about "members" of said wikis? Best, Thehelpfulone 19:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for undertaking this task. If you need to translate smth from Russian, I would be happy to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this project as a rather supplimentary one, like Meta. It's a project of documenting Wikimedia/Wiki/Mediawiki phenomenon that changed the world we live in. Wikimedia Foundation undertakes numerous attempts to document history of the Wikimedia projects and to research, what is the driving force that made this phenomemon possible - and Wikifocus is an attempt like this as well. We are interested in achievements, not faults; and we wish to provide information that would allow readers and researchers to understand what forms the beautiful and challenging wiki-world. I personally think, it's a bit early to discuss any integration of Wikifocus into Wikimedia umbrella (however, I will follow the community decision any time), but I would be happy to discuss the ideas behind the project if you are interested! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Господа, я в некотором роде тоже участник ВФ, и относительно активный - но создание этой страницы (если играть в благородных девиц - "как минимум преждевременное и непродуманное", если без этих глупостей - дурацкое) со мной согласовано не было :)) Ну, кто меня неплохо знает, вспомнит мою любимую цитатку из Платонова. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being one of rather active "WikiFocus" users, I suggest to close the discussion because the proposal certainly has not full support within WikiFocus community and there are some oppose comments on this page (I agree with them not entirely, but they certainly deserve attention). -- Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I thank for constructive criticism of the project; yes, for now it's underdeveloped and requires serious improvement, maybe some day later the project will become considerably better :) But idea to make it WMF "sister project" probably will not be a good idea - because of some reasons - at that time too :). --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Стирание комментариев людей, которые высказались против ВикиФокуса людьми, которые поддерживают ВикиФокус, не в пользу этого сайта. --94.179.244.91 12:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong   Support. Very useful project. New Wikitruth. Serebr (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a nice list of supporters - four indefinely blocked in ru.wp, one former admin of ru.wp deprived even of autoreviewer rights, three losers of last Arbitration Commettee elections of ru.wp with support level <20%... AndyVolykhov (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This "support" at current situation is either trolling (by first group of "supporters") or foolishness (second group), it's clear :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We're neither. We're errand boys sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.
    Seriously though, I'm not a politician to refrain from saying what I think because it may produce opposite effect. When I support something, I just say so. I think that's pretty fair and consistent with traditional way of inwiki discussion. AstroNomer-ru (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong   Oppose A wiki is just another program--92.202.26.147 16:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose, everything has been said. --A.Savin (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose, no purpose that isn't already being served by user pages, Meta and MediaWiki. Certainly opposing a project whose main function is gossip - a WikiTabloid has nothing to do with sharing knowledge. — Yerpo Eh? 12:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the function of the project never was and, I believe, never will be gossip. I don't know, where this fallacy goes from, and I surprised by this. The project is about technologies and people that brought this great Wikimedia universe into existence, and how they succeed in this. The project is something like chronicles that could be used to research the story of the great achievement of Wikimedia... However, I guess, only time will debunk the fallacy. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The view comes from my interpretation of what remains if you take away the functions that are already performed by other project spaces, and (for the small part) a gut feeling because of the discussions above. Simply labeling it fallacy actually reinforces this opinion. — Yerpo Eh? 07:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I don't see what could change your mind now, no matter what the project really is - that's why I think that only time will help - so I won't try to convince you now, especially considering I don't bother a lot :-).
    But could you please point me any projects in the Wikimedia universe whose aims and/or functions are to systematically document and explore history, technologies and communities of the Wikimedia phenomemon? If there such projects exist, I will contact them in order to share our experience. Thank you in advance! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I didn't say there was a project exactly like your idea, just that other project spaces already perform its various functions. Techologies and processes are documented by MediaWiki, project namespaces and the Meta. Communities are explored by various Foundation initiatives (they even have researchers employed just for that) and documented in various reports (you can reach some in http://blog.wikimedia.org/ posts, for example), they also self-document on project namespaces in various Wikipedias. Users themselves are presented on their user pages (if they choose to do so) and by their activity record. And so on.
    Great! You listed a lot of places that contain different pieces of information, but none of them contain a scructured and complete picture. So saying that there's no need in WikiFocus because the information it contains may be found in other sources is like saying that there's no need in Wikipedia because the information it contains may be found in sources where this information is borrowed from. Ok, it means that I didn't miss anything, thank you!
    You're equating off-wiki with on-wiki resources, which is not really comparable. Of course gathering it in one place wouldn't be completely useless, but the benefit for the WMF's goal is questionable. — Yerpo Eh? 08:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note - for a person who "doesn't bother a lot", you are a very active promotor. This kind of weaseling is another indication to me that there is something fishy behind all of this, and, I bet, to other people as well. I don't know what's going on in the Russian Wikipedia community, but from the looks of it, I surely wouldn't like it spreading to more projects. — Yerpo Eh? 07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very interested in discussing the ideas behind the project, the real possible problems of the project, how to solve them and how to develop the project to make it as useful for the Wikimedia community and for the humankind as possible, but indeed I don't bother to convince you or to turn the project into a formal Wikimedia project now (because I think it's too early for both). As for Russian Wikipedia community, the situation is quite easy: there exists Wikireality project (founded by blocked Russian Wikipedia users) that pretended to describe the Wiki universe - and Wikireality contains (at least from my point of view) outing, harassment, whatever the people in the discussion above are afraid of. WikiFocus is quite different, but I asbolutely understand people that are overly cautious. On the other hand, most users that participate WikiFocus (including me) don't see what's good in turning it into a formal Wikimedia project right now. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, most users that participate WikiFocus (including me) don't see what's good in turning it into a formal Wikimedia project right now.
    Don't be a liar. Saint Johann (ru) 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tired of these personal attacks. I'm writing from the very beginning that I think it's a bit early to discuss turning WikiFocus into a formal Wikimedia project now. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 07:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by various people's responses elsewhere on this page, the situation isn't all that simple as you try to portray it. — Yerpo Eh? 08:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose, Because conception of this project is...--Анима (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Strong oppose, useless for WMF. --Stryn (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support. Полагаю, что проект был бы полезен для Фонда Викимедиа.--Nature Protector (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite disturbing to read English page on the subject, when much of the commentary is Russian. we can not move it to a Russian-language page, also let people lsæe the language they expect?--80.161.143.239 19:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Oppose. I do not see how the materials of the project can be considered educational content, that is, I do not believe that it aligns well with Wikimedia mission statement. Besides, incorporating or officially endorsing such a project may have serious ethical implications and provoke the internal tension within the community which is just not really worth it. vvvt 03:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose. Everything about WMF wikis belongs in Meta (which really needs to get its own newspaper, by the way), and everything about other wikis could go on Wikipedia. There's no need for a separate project for non-notable information. -- YPNYPN ✡ 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in, I think it's wonderful, so I support.

--Evachan39 (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

edit
Other languages:
English · русский
Help translate
fr • ar • ca • de • eo • es • ja • ko • pl • pt • nl • sv • zh
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiFocus&oldid=22557199"