Mailing List Archive

> 1. The current meta-wiki is dead.

No it is not. Look at the Recent Changes. If you are missing something
there, start a new page, hope that enough people (able to speak the
language you choose)are interrested in the topic, and see what happens.
Maybe announce it on one of the mailing lists.

Yes, there is a lot of crap. If something really annoys you, start a
page [[Pages that should be deleted]] and explain it there or ask on the
talk page for deletion.

The name meta.wikipedia sounds good to me. Where is the problem?


> 2. The meta-wikipedia is not multilingual at all and it
> cannot be.

Tomasz already answered this one.


> 3. Practically meta-wikipedia and maing lists segregate the
> majoriy of wikipedians from the decision-making.
>
> What is now happing is decision-making occurs in the place
> that most of people don't see. The recent changes in English-
> edition wikipedia is the critical place where most of people
> notice even minor changes. In the reality, meta-wikipedia
> practically separate people to express their voices.

So everything should be discussed in the English Wikipedia:-namespace? I
already overlook things on the German Wikipedia, how could I notice them
on the English one? Or should we start to discuss e.g. a new table
syntax also on the German Wikipedia? And on all the other Wikipedias? It
doesn't sound like a good idea.

BTW, I'd like to have every Wikipedia:-namespace page on my watchlist
automatically. Whould this be easy to implement?

The majority of users just aren't interrested in the software
developement and administration. Everybody who is can subscribe to our
lists and/or go to meta. It's just one click away (unlike Alaska) :-)

Kurt

>On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:38:36PM -0600, Takuya Murata
wrote:
>> 2. The meta-wikipedia is not multilingual at all and it
>> cannot be.
>>
>> I don't see any reason that the sole wiki site has
contents
>> written in several languages. Sure, technologically
>> speaking, meta-wiki is multilingual, but in practice, is
it
>> really? What if I started to post Japanese comments, who
>> will reply to them? If I did, I just only increase the
bunch
>> of mess. You can't discuss one theme in more than one
>> languages. That is for sure. The discussion
>>
>> So, there is no reason to have a multilingual wiki site,
>> hence there is no reason to separate English discussion
from
>> the English-edition wikipedia.
>
>[en]
>Because Japanese Wikipedia is small now and there aren't
many
>people who can understand Japanese here, it's not good idea
to use
>Japanese on meta. But there's nothing special about English,
>and any language understood by sufficient number of
Wikipedians is ok.
>And so will be Japanese in the future.
>
> ....
>
>(yes, i know that my japanese is no good)

No, it is good. I am impressed really. (Nihongo jyuzu desu
ne) Truely the linguistic diversity of wikipedia is great.

Anyway, I don't mean the discussion in non-English language
is meaningless, but I meant it doesn't make sense that the
same discussion conducted in more than one language unless
the participants are generally bilingual.

You may say Japanese speakers discuss in Japanese. Polish
speakers discuss in Polish (Polska?). But if discussions
occur in different language, why do we need to put them
together? The number doesn't matter.

Do you really believe debate in more than one lanugage makes
sense? UseNet, SlashDot, .... I don't see any successful
forum dedicated to discussion in more than one language.
SlashDot in Japanese is active, but it is seprated from
English SlashDot.

>> 1. The current meta-wiki is dead.
>
>No it is not. Look at the Recent Changes. If you are
missing something
>there, start a new page, hope that enough people (able to
speak the
>language you choose)are interrested in the topic, and see
what happens.
>Maybe announce it on one of the mailing lists.

Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of meta-wiki? I
am the one who advocates it. Meta-wikipedia can be better,
of course.

Actually both of I and you are right and wrong. This is the
exactly same discussion about some say usenet is dead, some
say no usenet has still good stuff and can have.

Saying meta-wikipedia is dead, I don't want to mean
dismissing the motivation of meta-wikipedia. I agree with
the idea that we need the place.

To make my arguments clear, I advocate proposals below.

1. Let's make discussion about policy in its native language
wikipedia. (What if there is no corresponding wikipedia? It
would be a problem. I don't know about such a case)

If a discussion takes place in the meta but it is not in
English, the problem is the same thing. Putting discussion
together really doesn't mean reflecting their voices.

2. Quit sourceforge. Objections?

3. Publishing wiki sourcecode in wiki and make it editable
just like wikipedia articles.

I don't know if this works but we can try. Probably the
first step is publishing "language.php"s and probably sysop
applies them.

>Yes, there is a lot of crap. If something really annoys
you, start a
>page [[Pages that should be deleted]] and explain it there
or ask on the
>talk page for deletion.
>

> The name meta.wikipedia sounds good to me. Where is the
problem?

Because if meta is the place for development and
administration, the name like admin, develop should make
more sense. Don't you think?

>> 3. Practically meta-wikipedia and maing lists segregate
the
>> majoriy of wikipedians from the decision-making.
>
>So everything should be discussed in the English Wikipedia:-
namespace?

No, no no at all. Discussion about the policy should occur
in the native language.

>The majority of users just aren't interrested in the
software
>developement and administration. Everybody who is can
subscribe to our
>lists and/or go to meta.

Probably. If meta is the place only for those who are
interested in development and administration, I would like
to participate in meta.

On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-30 at 21:20, Takuya Murata wrote:
> 2. Quit sourceforge. Objections?

Not until everything in that bug report list is fixed! :)

We can take the CVS backup tarball and move it elsewhere if desired.

> 3. Publishing wiki sourcecode in wiki and make it editable
> just like wikipedia articles.
>
> I don't know if this works but we can try.

Source is fragile enough that I'd be very wary of this. That, and I
really do want a better editor than Mozilla when working with code. ;)

> Probably the
> first step is publishing "language.php"s and probably sysop
> applies them.

The current format of those files (a bunch of arrays and a class
definition in a PHP source file!) is horrible, arcane, and very very
fragile. (About half the updates I get submitted to me ends up with a
missing comma, an extra quotation mark, whatever, and hence syntax
error. And that includes the ones I make myself!)

What we need is a human-friendly interface for editing the messages,
being able to compare all or selected language versions of each one
side-by-side. The ability to incrementally and safely update 99% of this
stuff without waiting for a developer's intervention will be a big help
for newer language sections being established.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

>> 3. Publishing wiki sourcecode in wiki and make it
editable
>> just like wikipedia articles.
>>
>> I don't know if this works but we can try.
>
>Source is fragile enough that I'd be very wary of this.
That, and I
>really do want a better editor than Mozilla when working
with code. ;)
>
>> Probably the
>> first step is publishing "language.php"s and probably
sysop
>> applies them.
>
>The current format of those files (a bunch of arrays and a
class
>definition in a PHP source file!) is horrible, arcane, and
very very
>fragile. (About half the updates I get submitted to me ends
up with a
>missing comma, an extra quotation mark, whatever, and hence
syntax
>error. And that includes the ones I make myself!)
>
>What we need is a human-friendly interface for editing the
messages,
>being able to compare all or selected language versions of
each one
>side-by-side. The ability to incrementally and safely
update 99% of this
>stuff without waiting for a developer's intervention will
be a big help
>for newer language sections being established.

I totally agree with that. Then why don't we employ wiki to
improve the sourcecode? Also, I don't know if it will work.
Then why don't we try?

> Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of meta-wiki?

From the MainPage:
"Meta-Wikipedia is a site meant to work alongside the main Wikipedia
project. Here Wikipedians can post essays and discussions about
Wikipedia-related topics. You can also post about other topics."

Hmm, it seems everything is on topic, including software developement
and administration :-)

I guess we don't need dev.wikipedia.org but trashcan.wikipedia.org for
things people don't dare to delete completely from wikipedia. Be bolder!
;-)

Kurt

> I totally agree with that. Then why don't we employ wiki to
> improve the sourcecode? Also, I don't know if it will work.
> Then why don't we try?

I've already replied to this:

http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-January/002384.html

It would help if you would read the arguments instead of constantly
repeating yourself.

Regards,

Erik

Takuya Murata wrote:
> 2. Quit sourceforge. Objections?
>
> 3. Publishing wiki sourcecode in wiki and make it editable
> just like wikipedia articles.

These are little bit nervewracking to me. Sourceforge tools, and CVS,
and so forth, are standard development tools that have grown up and
been tested and refined by social processes for many years now for
*exactly* this mission: development of open source software by
geographically separated volunteers.

It strikes me as very likely that if we try to "roll our own" by using
a wiki to edit code, we are going to end up with something
significantly worse, and for no good purpose.

It is true, I guess, that CVS and all the rest provides a barrier to
entry for developers. But not much of one, since it's easy to learn
and since most developers will already know about it.

> Probably. If meta is the place only for those who are
> interested in development and administration, I would like
> to participate in meta.

The best place for discussion of development and administration, the
technical aspects, is right here on wikitech-l.

--Jimbo

>> Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of meta-wiki?

>Hmm, it seems everything is on topic, including software
developement
>and administration :-)

I meant if I deleted contents that are personal and not
related to development and administration, doesn't it mean I
am against the policy of meta-wiki, which says everything is
acceptable as the name meta implies?

>I guess we don't need dev.wikipedia.org but
trashcan.wikipedia.org for
>things people don't dare to delete completely from
wikipedia. Be bolder!

Again, if meat becomes anything but trashcan I would love to
contribute to meta. But can we do that without the
agreement? Actually, I am not only talking to Kurl but just
asking anyone who objects to clean up meta-wikipedia.

I don't aim to discuss which one is better CVS or wiki.

First of all, again I am not so sure developing in wiki
works. Some think it won't work and some (including me, only
me?) think it might.

But think of the reality. Don't we need better mechanism for
development? Wiki might not work I know that. But I am not
sure yet.

Why don't we try? Is there any technical trouble to publish
wikipedia software sourcecode? It seems to me that it is
possible to publish sourcecode and some sysops apply them
regularly. If it didn't yield good result, it doesn't hurt
anything anyway.

Oh, maybe am I only one who believes development in wiki
might work? If so, I should do that in my own.

>> Probably. If meta is the place only for those who are
>> interested in development and administration, I would
like
>> to participate in meta.
>
>The best place for discussion of development and
administration, the
>technical aspects, is right here on wikitech-l.

What about the rest of stuff? Like documentation, testing,
bug reports and so on. Sourceforge?

I understand CVS seems better than wiki. Does anyone give
the opinion that the bug reports system of sourceforge is
better than meta-wikipedia. If I remember, there is none. I
would like to move bug reports in sourceforge to meta-wiki
(gradually). Objections?

I probably am going to post more detailed documents to meta-
wikipedia. (and hopefully more people will help
documentation)

I know my proposal is not good enough, what else we can do
to encourage more people to partipicate development?

>It would help if you would read the arguments instead of
constantly
>repeating yourself.

Sorry for annoying you and the rest of everyone. I read the
arguments and I don't disagree with that. I think you
thought I didn't read your arugment because I didn't post a
mail arguing against your point.

Also, you have to notice that the fact is you believe wiki
might not help, and I believe it might. Then what do we do?.
Do I always have to convice you to try something new?
Consensus? Can we always reach the sole agreement?

Actually this is why I hate to partipate in the debate,
which is always endless and counterproductive. See Biography
standard in English wikipedia.

On Fre, 2003-01-31 at 17:29, Takuya Murata wrote:

Wiki instead of CVS:
> Why don't we try?

Because it doesn't work. CVS is a lot more than just an editing system.
Please familiarize yourself with it before suggesting this yet another
time:
http://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs.html

> I know my proposal is not good enough, what else we can do
> to encourage more people to partipicate development?

Generally, give higher exposure to the open source side of Wikipedia.
Most people who come to the Wikipedia project simply don't do so from a
software development perspective, so we need to highlight more that this
side exists as well.

We need to make the Wikipedia-code Wikipedia-independent. This isn't
very hard, but some stuff needs to be fixed before Wikipedia can really
be recommended as a general wiki, especially in the interlanguage links
department (fortunately for us, most other wikis don't have
multilanguage support at all).

The fact that with OpenFacts there will soon be another Wikipedia
specifically for open source documentation should also help in
attracting new developers.

Regards,

Erik
--
FOKUS - Fraunhofer Insitute for Open Communication Systems
Project BerliOS - http://www.berlios.de

Takuya Murata wrote:

> I don't aim to discuss which one is better CVS or wiki.
>
> First of all, again I am not so sure developing in wiki
> works. Some think it won't work and some (including me, only
> me?) think it might.
>
> But think of the reality. Don't we need better mechanism for
> development? Wiki might not work I know that. But I am not
> sure yet.
>
> Why don't we try? Is there any technical trouble to publish
> wikipedia software sourcecode? It seems to me that it is
> possible to publish sourcecode and some sysops apply them
> regularly. If it didn't yield good result, it doesn't hurt
> anything anyway.
>
> Oh, maybe am I only one who believes development in wiki
> might work? If so, I should do that in my own.
>

There is no benifit from using a wiki to develop software. There are
only cons:

1) There is no "barrier" so everybody who has read a 2 hour tutorial on
PHP can just start editing,
which will help nobody.
2) Versions of articles (or source code files) are only linear, and
there is no connection between distinct files (their versions).
3) It encourages small edits which lead to choas.
4) Think about an edit war on source files. That´s rediculous.
5) You can´t run/compile etc. it. You can´t edit it offline or with an
appropriate editor. You can´t use
any tools.
6) all the things I forgot

To sum it up: There will be a chaos in versions, small changes which
don´t fit together and lose the view for the large picture, you can´t
use editors, run it, use tools ... at best the software will be hacked
(in the worst sense) together trash which somehow manages to run.

A wiki might be the right thing for geniouses: Ah, he did that change,
that was because of this and that, it leads to that and this, now put it
toghether with my ideas, ...
If anybody who could handle that exists, he would do just fine with
CVS/sourceforge.

Hope this is not to harsh :)

Flo

If I'm not mistaken, it is totally within YOUR power to get the source
code from CVS and import it into (Meta?) Wikipedia somewhere. I don't
think it's a good idea, but it is possible for you to do. I think
that, if you were to perform this exercise, you would see that wiki
isn't very well suited for source code modification/viewing.

I understand that you want to see if it works. That's perfectly
reasonable. However, you are asking other volunteers, who are already
busy with other important things, to do something that, for the most
part, they are not willing to do.

Jason Richey

Takuya Murata wrote:

> I don't aim to discuss which one is better CVS or wiki.
>
> First of all, again I am not so sure developing in wiki
> works. Some think it won't work and some (including me, only
> me?) think it might.
>
> But think of the reality. Don't we need better mechanism for
> development? Wiki might not work I know that. But I am not
> sure yet.
>
> Why don't we try? Is there any technical trouble to publish
> wikipedia software sourcecode? It seems to me that it is
> possible to publish sourcecode and some sysops apply them
> regularly. If it didn't yield good result, it doesn't hurt
> anything anyway.
>
> Oh, maybe am I only one who believes development in wiki
> might work? If so, I should do that in my own.
>
> >> Probably. If meta is the place only for those who are
> >> interested in development and administration, I would
> like
> >> to participate in meta.
> >
> >The best place for discussion of development and
> administration, the
> >technical aspects, is right here on wikitech-l.
>
> What about the rest of stuff? Like documentation, testing,
> bug reports and so on. Sourceforge?
>
> I understand CVS seems better than wiki. Does anyone give
> the opinion that the bug reports system of sourceforge is
> better than meta-wikipedia. If I remember, there is none. I
> would like to move bug reports in sourceforge to meta-wiki
> (gradually). Objections?
>
> I probably am going to post more detailed documents to meta-
> wikipedia. (and hopefully more people will help
> documentation)
>
> I know my proposal is not good enough, what else we can do
> to encourage more people to partipicate development?
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr@bomis.com>

--- Takuya Murata <takusi@manjiro.net> wrote:
> >> Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of
> meta-wiki?
>
> >Hmm, it seems everything is on topic, including
> software
> developement
> >and administration :-)
>
> I meant if I deleted contents that are personal and
> not
> related to development and administration, doesn't
> it mean I
> am against the policy of meta-wiki, which says
> everything is
> acceptable as the name meta implies?
>
> >I guess we don't need dev.wikipedia.org but
> trashcan.wikipedia.org for
> >things people don't dare to delete completely from
> wikipedia. Be bolder!
>
> Again, if meat becomes anything but trashcan I would
> love to
> contribute to meta. But can we do that without the
> agreement? Actually, I am not only talking to Kurl
> but just
> asking anyone who objects to clean up
> meta-wikipedia.

I object.

These pages do not disturb anyone but you. As long as
Jimbo has room on his server, what would you remove
pages that *you* think are personals ? Why does it
disturb you so much that we are offered a tiny
personal space ?

I don't think the encyclopedic wikis it is the right
place really to put pov stuff on, for these are public
places. There are no limits to povs, and I don't think
proper that these pov positions coexist with
supposingly neutral articles. For readers could find
them pretty easily and wonder over them.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- Takuya Murata <takusi@manjiro.net> wrote:
> >> Yes, and doesn't it mean chaning the policy of
> meta-wiki?
>
> >Hmm, it seems everything is on topic, including
> software
> developement
> >and administration :-)
>
> I meant if I deleted contents that are personal and
> not
> related to development and administration, doesn't
> it mean I
> am against the policy of meta-wiki, which says
> everything is
> acceptable as the name meta implies?
>
> >I guess we don't need dev.wikipedia.org but
> trashcan.wikipedia.org for
> >things people don't dare to delete completely from
> wikipedia. Be bolder!
>
> Again, if meat becomes anything but trashcan I would
> love to
> contribute to meta. But can we do that without the
> agreement? Actually, I am not only talking to Kurl
> but just
> asking anyone who objects to clean up
> meta-wikipedia.

I object.

These pages do not disturb anyone but you. As long as
Jimbo has room on his server, what would you remove
pages that *you* think are personals ? Why does it
disturb you so much that we are offered a tiny
personal space ?

I don't think the encyclopedic wikis it is the right
place really to put pov stuff on, for these are public
places. There are no limits to povs, and I don't think
proper that these pov positions coexist with
supposingly neutral articles. For readers could find
them pretty easily and wonder over them.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

>I object.
>
>These pages do not disturb anyone but you. As long as
>Jimbo has room on his server, what would you remove
>pages that *you* think are personals ? Why does it
>disturb you so much that we are offered a tiny
>personal space ?

I am not sure what makes you think so. I don't remember
saying because I don't like those pages, we should delete
them. But I said we need more concrete mission about meta-
wikipedia. I think the difference is apparent.

>I don't think the encyclopedic wikis it is the right
>place really to put pov stuff on, for these are public
>places. There are no limits to povs, and I don't think
>proper that these pov positions coexist with
>supposingly neutral articles. For readers could find
>them pretty easily and wonder over them.

I too do think some people need to put their pov stuff. Then
again why do we have to put pov stuff and other totally
different materials (like documentation about wikipedia
software) togehter? And if I remember, no one answered such
a question. Those stuff are not pov but only I think they
are? I doubt it.

That is for sure that the current policy of meta-wikipedia
makes nothing but chaos. I said I would like to propose we
should put more order.

>There is no benifit from using a wiki to develop software.
There are
>only cons:

I don't think so, but anyway it is off-topic.

>Hope this is not to harsh :)

Not at all.

>I understand that you want to see if it works. That's
perfectly
>reasonable. However, you are asking other volunteers, who
are already
>busy with other important things, to do something that, for
the most
>part, they are not willing to do.

Don't you think of the possibility other people who are not
involed now are possibly willing to do?

Anyway, it seems to me that no one wants to do this kind of
debate, so just forget it.

I hope this mail won't get more nerve.

>Generally, give higher exposure to the open source side of
Wikipedia.
>Most people who come to the Wikipedia project simply don't
do so from a
>software development perspective, so we need to highlight
more that this
>side exists as well.

I agree. If you remember, isn't it good idea to rename
wikipedia software *or* set up a independent wiki for it?

>We need to make the Wikipedia-code Wikipedia-independent.

That is exactly what I meant before (but not all though). If
wikipedia software becomes more independent, it makes more
sense to seprate development process from meta-wikipedia.
But it is not necessary to prohibit discussion in meta-
wikipedia about the development. I am imagining of UseMod.

(I bet no one advocates all of my ideas are wrong because I
am ignorant, which I admit)

>The fact that with OpenFacts there will soon be another
Wikipedia
>specifically for open source documentation should also help
in
>attracting new developers.

What are OpenFacts?

Hi Taku,

the only thing that annoyed me was the "code in wiki" idea. Everything
else is debatable.

> I agree. If you remember, isn't it good idea to rename
> wikipedia software *or* set up a independent wiki for it?

Rename - yeah, makes sense. When I suggested Wikipedia in some contexts,
people were frightened by the encyclopedia-notion, which would not be
appropriate for their project. (For example, the Open Source Applications
Foundation decided to use the inferior TWiki software for this reason,
among others.) But please, no endless name debate on wikitech. This is
exactly what meta is for.

One advantage of the Wikipedia name is that it might make people more
willing to participate. "Oh, the Wikipedia wiki? Sure, I'd love to help
with that." But I don't know how strong that argument is. I'm not opposed
to a name change.

Independent wiki - I don't really see the point. Meta works, we just need
to define it properly (for the record, I absolutely encourage you to clean
it up, and I don't think it should be used for personal essays, sorry,
Anthere). Using subpages on Meta might also help for organization.

If you can't convince people to clean up Meta, ask me for help ;-)

>> We need to make the Wikipedia-code Wikipedia-independent.

> That is exactly what I meant before (but not all though). If
> wikipedia software becomes more independent, it makes more
> sense to seprate development process from meta-wikipedia.

That's only a valid argument if you move it really away, say, to another
server. hacker.wikipedia.org would *still* be associated with Wikipedia.
We probably do not want such an almost complete separation, though --
people who work on the Wikipedia software will hopefully also be
encouraged to work on Wikipedia, instead of cloning it.

> (I bet no one advocates all of my ideas are wrong because I
> am ignorant, which I admit)

Become a Wikipedia hacker! Free yourself from ignorance! :-)

> What are OpenFacts?

Wikipedia-like wiki specifically for open source documentation
maintenance. Will probably be officially launched next week. There will
also be Wikipedia-based wikis for two other projects I'm working on.

Regards,

Erik

> it up, and I don't think it should be used for
> personal essays, sorry,
> Anthere). Using subpages on Meta might also help for
> organization.

Ah ? Well, I disagree. Of course permanent deletions
of personal essays can only occur after a consensus is
reached about that, no ?


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

>> I agree. If you remember, isn't it good idea to rename
>> wikipedia software *or* set up a independent wiki for it?
>
>Rename - ... But please, no endless name debate on
wikitech. This is
>exactly what meta is for.

I will post a question to meta-wikipedia. Or how about the
main wikipedia maining list? I would like to conduct
discussion in the place other than meta-wikipedia (Yeah,
consider this is my preference)

>One advantage of the Wikipedia name is that it might make
people more
>willing to participate. "Oh, the Wikipedia wiki? Sure, I'd
love to help
>with that." But I don't know how strong that argument is.
I'm not opposed
>to a name change.

Is there any objection to rename the wikipedia software so
far?

>Independent wiki - I don't really see the point. Meta
works, we just need
>to define it properly (for the record, I absolutely
encourage you to clean
>it up, and I don't think it should be used for personal
essays, sorry,
>Anthere).

I don't think either we need an independt wiki as long as
meta is dedicated to its meta purpose.

I will post a proposal to the main wikipedia regarding this.

>If you can't convince people to clean up Meta, ask me for
help ;-)

Haha.

>> What are OpenFacts?
>
>Wikipedia-like wiki specifically for open source
documentation
>maintenance. Will probably be officially launched next
week. There will
>also be Wikipedia-based wikis for two other projects I'm
working on.

Cool!

On Friday 31 January 2003 05:41 pm, Anthere wrote:
> > it up, and I don't think it should be used for
> > personal essays, sorry,
> > Anthere). Using subpages on Meta might also help for
> > organization.
>
> Ah ? Well, I disagree. Of course permanent deletions
> of personal essays can only occur after a consensus is
> reached about that, no ?

I agree with Anthere and strongly disagree with eliminating personal essays
from meta. If POV material isn't allowed on meta then where should it go?
This will only make it more difficult to keep this stuff out of the
encyclopedias.

Meta can and should be many things. Simply create an alternate Main Page for
whatever you want to focus on (software for example) and organize everything
on that page and the pages linked from it in any way you wish. Heck even
create another namespace if you really want to organize things, but I see no
reason whatsoever why meta shouldn't be more like a regular wiki with a
fairly undefined scope. What really is needed is more integration between
topics discussed on the mailing lists and meta.

--mav

> I agree with Anthere and strongly disagree with eliminating personal essays
> from meta. If POV material isn't allowed on meta then where should it go?

Um .. how about just getting rid of it? Why is it within Wikipedia's
mission to somehow provide storage space for personal essays? We're an
encyclopedia, not a hosting provider.

Taku is correct in that this only makes Meta hard to use, especially for
other people who want to help working on the Wikipedia software. While it
is possible to better organize meta, the Recent Changes list is cluttered
by this stuff. There are literally hundreds of entries like this:

...
# diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-symbiosis; 15:25 . . Saprtacus
# (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:43 . . Saprtacus
# (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:39 . . Saprtacus
# (diff) (hist) . . M User:Saprtacus; 15:38 . . Saprtacus
# (diff) (hist) . . MN Meta-etiology; 15:33 . . Saprtacus
# (diff) (hist) . . M User talk:Saprtacus; 15:31 . . Saprtacus
...

Now try to find the critical "How Wikipedia can be really, really fast"
development proposal hidden deep within this idiosyncratic nonsense.

Regards,

Erik