Talk:WikiWrite

Hello

Hi. Checkingfax (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

How do you do, Checkingfax? --George Ho (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, George Ho! Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary

There are already many mailing lists, talk pages, Wikipedia Weekly on facebook, and /r/wikipedia on reddit, why to open yet another venue?--Micru (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not averse to considering other venues for discussion, but as @Micru: said, I'd like to see you make the case for your idea over existing venues. This also might be useful to see - a proposal at Wikimania to talk about using Discourse or other methods for discussion. [1]-- Fuzheado (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking. Discourse doesn't have talks about Wikipedia... not yet. WikiTalk can allow free talk; just that I don't know anyone who can make a good software on this. I also don't have anyone else organizing the layout of the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Relation to knowledge and education?

How is your proposal related to "encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content"? --Malyacko (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia:Resolution:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles doesn't mention "education", contrary to what Values says. If anyone knows something, a person can say it, like a conspiracy theory or drinks. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is Wikileaks already, but its mission is releasing documents and other content. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles refer to the mission, which is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content". --167.58.156.7 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

btw in New project policy there is no such restriction. --QDinar (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Purpose

What is meant to be accomplished, here? You mention being competitive with other social networks, but this begs the question of why we would want to compete with social networks. The purpose of the wikimedian sisterhood is for "The People" to have a voice in information providing. What does generically talking have to do with being an information provider? Educationally-oriented discussion is (to my understanding) part of the mandate of Wikiversity; discussion of particular sister projects is done on those projects; discussion of the sisterhood as a whole goes here on Meta. --Pi zero (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

maybe a functional way to communicate on wiki? other projects have moved on to twitter, and FB. the abuse of talk pages to host adversive messages, and dictation rather than collaboration, is a major factor in editor decline. Slowking4 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia, per en:WP:talk page guidelines, you are not supposed to comment on any topic but to make comments about article quality. In WikiTalk, you can be free to say what you want to say about anyone or anything, like politics or animals or news. --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, this might attract former editors of Wikipedia and allow them to say what they want to say about it. Nevertheless, we must be cautious about allowing too much of drama about Wikipedia... and Wikimedia Commons. --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So, this is meant to let people get away from the toxic social atmosphere of Wikipedia? That... doesn't sound in itself like a reason to start a new project. It's widely recognized amongst the non-Wikipedian sisters, in my experience, that Wikipedia is far the most socially toxic sister, but what to do about it is a very difficult question. I've been thinking on it for years, over at Wikinews — a much more congenial place, but the social approach there is partly dependent on some of the features that make news writing different from encyclopedic writing. I could name a couple of fundamental sources of social toxicity at Wikipedia, but it doesn't follow that the solution is as simple as "then don't do that". I don't think a wide-open discussion forum would be a workable solution either. --Pi zero (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I know Wikipedia's reputation is not the sole reason for this project. I did say "Wikipedia" as the main purpose, though it is not exactly. Another purpose for this project is making a good use out of wiki software. Since talking can't be the only thing, I modified the purpose of the project to allow diverse areas for the project. I can allow anything post-worthy, like essays, bulletins, petitions, letters, etc. I don't know how broad "Talk" should be. If "Wikitalk" is not a good name, how about Wikiwrite? --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Use a less common name

"WikiTalk" is a name already used for other things, see for instance:

• http://wikipapers.referata.com/wiki/WikiTalk
• http://wikitalk.net/

--Nemo 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wiki exists

I think you are describing meta. You are already here. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Opposition

Wikimedia projects are for compiling free knowledge, not acting as a social network. This will actively harm other Wikimedia projects by recruiting editors who expect to use Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, etc. as a social network. It is likely to result in more forum-like behavior on Wikipedia, more personal photos uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, etc. I cannot possibly state my opposition to this in strong enough terms. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering withdrawal

Due to opposition of "WikiTalk" and then "WikiWrite", supposedly a social place, I decided to withdraw the project proposal. However, shall I change the status to "closed"? I can't see "withdrawn". --George Ho (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I see another person interested in this. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawal unstruck. --George Ho (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)