On 9/28/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >On 9/26/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I recognize that, but I didn't work it properly. In order to comply, AND
> >>delete extremely old edits, we have to copy the older edit history over to
> >>the talk page. But space is not a pressing issue, so why don't we do what we
> >>have been doing, which has not been a problem? Hard disk drives are cheap.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >If the wiki is truly not within the scope of the mission of the
> >foundation, which *many* people feel is true, then having it on
> >Wikimedia's servers and domain names confuses people as to what is the
> >mission of the foundation.
> >
>
> This, to me, is an ex-post facto redefinition of the scope and mission
> of the Wikimedia Foundation, or something akin to backronyms. This is
> only outside of the scope of the WMF because those involved with the day
> to day affairs of the WMF just don't want to be bothered with this. It
> isn't part of some more noble and legalistic attitude that seems to be
> presented here.
>
Actually I don't think this is a redefinition of the Wikimedia
Foundation. By the time the Wikimedia Foundation the September 11th
wiki, which predated Wikimedia, had already become a ghost town.
There was talk at this time of expanding the scope, into a place for
memorials of all sorts, but this never came to happen. I made a
half-hearted effort to revive the wiki about this time, along with a
few other Wikipedians (many of whom made a better effort than me), and
in retrospect these efforts clearly failed.
All that said, I *still* don't think it's time to give up. Rather, I
think, we should make an effort to fit the September 11th wiki into
the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation. However, I don't this is
important enough to fight for, *if* there is someone else willing to
take over the project (and apparently there is).
> I am suggesting that I and some others have a contrary viewpoint here,
> and it shouldn't be assumed that this is an unanimous decision to shut
> down this project in this manner. I admit that sometimes decisions like
> this need to be made, but please be honest about why they are being made
> rather than trying to sugar coat them to be for reasons that really
> don't exist.
>
Pretty much everything on the wiki is GFDL. You don't need permission
from Erik or the foundation or anyone else to take everything and host
it on your own. That's why I don't really see this as that big of a
deal.
I don't think the reason for shutting down the wiki is dishonest,
though I suppose it is exaggerated. With a little bit of leadership I
think the wiki could be made to fit into the scope of Wikimedia.
However, over the past few years that leadership has not taken over.
But let me ask this. In what way do *you* feel the wiki currently
fits into the scope of Wikimedia? And how many others do you think
are willing to work with you on the project as you envision it? If
you can't get at least 10 or 20 people supporting this vision, I think
the project will probably be *better* outside the hands of Wikimedia.
In fact, in some ways I think it might be better outside the hands of
Wikimedia anyway.
Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l