Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
John Carter (talk | contribs) →Response from editors: comments |
John Carter (talk | contribs) restored removed content, clarified a little more |
||
Line 1:
{{essay}}
There are currently over 1000 active separate WikiProjects and subprojects. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, the multiplication of projects which we have recently seen may well be one. Perhaps the time has come to try to perhaps at least somewhat check the situation. What follows are a few suggestions as to how to accomplish this.
==Wikipedia lifecycle==
Line 10:
It is proposed that there be at least three different "types" of WikiProjects recognized. These would include the "national/subnational", the "academic discipline", and the "cultural phenomenon" projects. Poor names and if anyone has any better ones please say so. Why these in particular? The most central of these would be counted as "core" projects. The majority of the other projects, which, as it were, don't have recognition as being either nations or general academic fields, or are projects dealing only with a small area within one or more cultural phenomena, would be considered "ancillary" projects, or any other similar name.
Also, projects could be broken up into "core" and "ancillary" projects. A "Core" project would be one which directly relates to a standard academic discipline, has no obvious parent project which could take over its function, and/or has such a parent, but turning the smaller project into a subproject of the "parent" project would be less than productive. As an example of the latter, for instance, while [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity]] (and all its subprojects) are all clearly "descendant" projects of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion]], the logistics of such a merger, and the benefits thereafter, are such that there would be no reason to accomplish such a merger unless there were extremely serious, seemingly unsolvable, problems with the child project. The majority of the other projects, which, as it were, don't have recognition as being either nations or general academic fields, or are projects dealing only with a comparatively small area within one or more cultural phenomena, would be considered "ancillary" projects, or any other similar name.
Like it or not, much of the content we have relates to individual nation states, most specifically existing nations. There is an "Economy of" article for every individual nation on the planet. There are also countless articles about politicians from individual nations, the history, including military history, of individual nations, the physical and political geography of individual nations, and so on. Also, in all honesty, if we want photos of articles related to any number of individual articles, many of which can only or best be found by editors involved with certain states, it helps to have a central gathering place where they can converge. Similarly, if not perhaps as obviously, it would make some degree of sense that separate overseas territories of individual nations have separate articles. Despite his best intentions, for instance, a citizen of Liverpool isn't really likely to be hopping a bus to take photographs of [[Saint Helena]], nor is a citizen of Paris going to get one of [[Miquelon]]. Thus, although they might never be particularly active projects or subprojects, it makes sense to a degree to have individual subprojects for most of these major overseas territories as well.
Line 23 ⟶ 25:
==The rest of the WikiProjects==
There is a serious question which remains unanswered. Many extant WikiProjects, including [[Wikipedia:WikiProject IROC]], as one recent example, find that they the subject with which they deal is one which, in a sense, comes to end. The same can be said for any number of television shows, movie series, and the like. When interest in, and activity regarding, these topics dwindles to the point of inactivity, what if anything should be done with the now moribund projects?
This question has, to this point, not yet been answered. One editor's answers, although they may not clearly 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. ▼
▲This question has, to this point, not yet been answered. One
Several of these projects have already been accused of "crufting" Wikipedia with content which is, at best, dubiously qualified for inclusion. Some of the groups relataing to anime and manga and other forms of popular entertainment come to mind. If it should become apparent that they are 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, 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 would indicate a real commitment from that group to improve and maintain the article according to wikipedia'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.▼
It should be pointed out however that being eligible for deletion does not necessarily mean that that outcome would in fact be what would happen. More often than not, they would be merged back into the parent project. However, there can be, and have been, projects which, on the basis of a failure to produce content or other concerns, have been deleted. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dardania]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Amboseli PR Reserve Activities]], and others come to mind. In extreme cases, and probably almost exclusively in extreme cases, deletion might become an option.
▲Several of these projects have already been accused of "crufting" Wikipedia with content which is, at best, dubiously qualified for inclusion. If it should become apparent that they are 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, 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 would indicate a real commitment from that group to improve and maintain the article according to wikipedia'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 40 ⟶ 46:
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, there may well be a degree of consolidation in that regard as well, and some editors
==Response from editors==
| |||