Incubator:Reform discussions

From Wikimedia Incubator
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is reserved for the purpose of discussing the details of possible future reform of Incubator and of the incubation process within WMF. The initial discussion can be found at the Community Portal and on the associated phabricator task.


"Press button, receive wiki": a proposal for the continued growth of the Wikimedia family[edit]

Discussion moved to Meta as RfC at 14:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC). StevenJ81 (talk)

Langcom, Incubator, SWMT - who else?[edit]

OK, so I raised this on Phabricator, Langcom mailing list, and Small Wiki Monitoring Team.

I don't see any strong opposition in any of these places. Some people raised doubts, I replied to them, and since I don't see any more objections from these people, I consider them addressed.

I do consider the issues raised by Revi very important - the monitoring policy has to be fleshed out better. But my understanding is that as long as it's addressed, he doesn't otherwise disagree. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Where else should I raise this before I can be sure that there are no important Wikimedia community stakeholders who would disagree with the general idea? User:Ooswesthoesbes, User:StevenJ81, User:MF-Warburg, any ideas? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You're correct. I like the proposal except the points I've raised (and possibly nullified by Urbanecm's third-cluster proposal). — regards, Revi 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Revi :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think those are the main constituencies. My concern is partly related to Revi's, but not quite the same.
  • I don't want this to turn into a free-for-all of new projects that are going to be created and then abandoned.
    • For starters, that means that we need some means of determining whether people asking to have an incubation-space project created are legitimate, or whether they are simply vandals. And make no mistake, there are still plenty of vandals in the RFL/new project space.
  • We are talking here about making such an incubation-space project easy to delete in case of vandalism. Fine. Do we have an idea what we intend to do with projects that are legitimately begun and then abandoned?
    • The equivalent of current policy would be that we should leave them in place in case anyone else wants to start up. And in this case we could even move such projects back into Incubator rather than deleting them outright. But what's the plan?
    • FWIW, in the just-completed Incubator review (public thanks to OWTB), there are 1,019 tests in Incubator, of which 444 either have at least 25 mainspace pages, or else were smaller but had a mainspace page added during 2018. Interestingly, of the 575 other projects, 65% (or 372) had five or fewer mainspace pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)