Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:29, 24 February 2008

Latest revision as of 05:21, 22 January 2017

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 5:

==Wikipedia Lifecycle==

WikiProjects, and for that matter, "topical" articles in wikipediaWikipedia, share one thing in common with your average [[tribble]]: they're seemingly born pregnant. As soon as a project is created for any individual major subject, be it a nation, an academic field of study, or even a form of recreation, shortly thereafter at least one subproject is proposed. Similarly, as soon as any major significant article is made, be it [[Kosovo]], [[happiness]], or [[Satanic ritual abuse]], shortly thereafter the first subarticle will be created as well. And then the second. And so on, and so on, and so on, .... And, like tribbles, they will comparatively quickly consume all the energy of their editors, multiplying exponentially, eating up anything in sight that doesn't try to eat them back, and comparatively soon dying of overexertion and inactivity. And, by wikipediaWikipedia policies and guidelines, there's not a bloody thing any of us can do about it. Probably. That's where the proposal below may become useful. It, like the characters in ''Star Trek'', faces square in the face the unlovely appearance of those dear little entities that look like something the cat coughed up, and is willing to, at least potentially, watch some of them die without trying to prevent it.

==Types and Grades of projects==

Line 18:

Lastly, there are the cultural phenomena projects. The name really doesn't say much of anything, and I know that, but I can't think of anything else which would be roughly equivalent. This would encompass athletic activities, spectator sports, popular media, food and drink related subjects, fashion, leisure activities, and other subjects which perhaps relate to but aren't actually at the "academic discipline" level. Video games, individual broadcast or other popular media, other hobbies, and the like would be contained herein.

Clearly, not all the extant WikiProjects even come close to falling clearly into any of these groups. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject 24]], for example, is clearly about a specific program within the broadcast media, not about any broadcast medium per se. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Myrtle Beach]] deals with a region which is not an individual self-governing nation or physically isolated from its "parent" government, and I don't imagine it is particular likely to become either of those anytime in the near future, either. Projects on topics like these, while they might be valuable for improving a limited range of articles, are probably the ones which, as it were, have the highest maintenance/development ratios, and the ones which are in that sense perhaps least useful to wikipediaWikipedia as a whole. These are the projects I referred to above as "ancillary" projects, and they would be, according to this proposal, about the only ones which would ever have a chance of being deleted under ordinary conditions.

I should point out here that I would not include those entities which, whatever their name, are functionally still "subprojects" of a larger project. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney]], despite its name, is for all intents and purposes, at this point, a subproject of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia]]. Such subprojects, should, I believe, be considered to be entirely and solely the "business" of themselves and their parents. Beyond perhaps a few pages in project space for themselves, they don't particularly contribute to banner clutter or divisiveness, and should be recognized as what they apparently are, subordinate organizational entities of the parent project.

Line 27:

This question has, to this point, not yet been answered. Some answers, although they might not necessarily be the best answers, would be that, to a degree, these particular "ancillary" projects, considering that they are, in effect, being created on the basis of their being able to provide either greater focus or more concentrated effort than the larger "topical" etc. projects, should be held to living up to that goal. If they should become inactive or, after a considerable period of time, fail to bring any obvious improvement to the articles they seek to deal with, they can become eligible for deletion.

Several of these projects have already been accused of "crufting" wikipediaWikipedia with content which is, at best, dubiously qualified for inclusion. If it should become apparent that a given project is consistently contributing content which does not merit inclusion, or are not themselves contributing at all, then there would be no particularly reason for those projects to be kept, and they could be made at least eligible for deletion. Also, considering that they are, in a sense, "redundant" projects, I think it would make sense that their placement of a banner on a talk page is a de facto commitment to improve the attached article. So, if the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject 24]] were to place their banner on the [[Kiefer Sutherland]] page, it perhaps should be seen that the project in question is indicating a real commitment to improve and maintain the article according to wikipediaWikipedia's standards. Should they fail to do so, then that could be seen as being a "strike" against the project, and potentially either the banner or the project itself could be removed if they should fail in this apparent commitment.

==The Future of Collaboration==

Line 39:

==Banner placement==

Possibly one of the most contentious issues out there is banner placement. If this model were to be observed, we would, perhaps, effectively limit ourselves regarding most articles to only the the three types of projects above. While that might not limit the number of banners as much as some would like, I can and do see that there may well be a degree of consolidation in that regard as well, and am to a degree trying to help implement a few such changes myself. By following this model, and perhaps encouraging inactive projects to either merge into one of the projects from the three main areas above or being deleted if their pages provide no particular useful information for the future, we would help ensure that the article talk pages don't become too overburdened with banners, while at the same time not being too "warlike" and "dictatorial" regarding what would and would not qualify as a project.

Possibly one of the most contentious issues out there is banner placement. If this model were to be observed, we would,

perhaps, effectively limit ourselves regarding most articles to only the the three types of projects above. While that might not limit the number of banners as much as some would like, I can and do see that there may well be a degree of consolidation in that regard as well, and am to a degree trying to help implement a few such changes myself. By following this model, and perhaps encouraging inactive projects to either merge into one of the projects from the three main areas above or being deleted if their pages provide no particular useful information for the future, we would help ensure that the article talk pages don't become too overburdened with banners, while at the same time not being too "warlike" and "dictatorial" regarding what would and would not qualify as a project.

I would welcome any responses. Also, I know my writing is at times at least borderline incoherent. If there are any questions regarding what it is I am attempting to say in the above, please indicate as much and I will at least try to clarify.