Help
Book creator ( disable )

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-16/WikiProject report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue

WikiProject report

Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Mabeenot
WikiProject news
News in brief
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.

This week, we took a break from our regular interview format to focus on ways Wikipedians can revitalize semi-active and inactive WikiProjects. Our "WikiProject Report" feature has looked at more than 100 WikiProjects in the past three years, but there are countless projects that have come and gone without any fanfare. You can browse the greyed-out names in the WikiProject Directory or the vast inactive WikiProject category to get an idea how many good intentions have long since been abandoned, merged, or otherwise stopped functioning. Some of these inactive and semi-active WikiProjects may be ripe for a reboot if enough editors are willing to dedicate time to rebuilding and maintaining the project.

Projects may lapse into a dormant state for a variety of reasons. Inactivity may be a natural part of a project's life, occurring when the project's goals are achieved or the circumstances surrounding the project's purpose change. For instance, WikiProjects created as part of an academic course typically cease activity when the semester ends; Harvard's Cyberlaw course in 2006 and Croatan High School's AP Biology class in 2009 are two examples. When the International Race of Champions was discontinued, the members of WikiProject IROC voted to disband. When the Signpost's WikiWorld comic strip ended, the purpose for WikiProject WikiWorld's existence ended as well. Projects that have naturally reached the end of their life are marked as defunct and a revival is unlikely.

However, there are many projects that die long before their prime. Some of these projects never built a substantial membership because their focus was too narrow or too broad, the project's goals were unclear, or the project never received adequate publicity. Submitting a proposal to the WikiProject Council before building a WikiProject can help attract Wikipedians who are interested in the topic, clarify the project's purpose, and help prevent false starts. Networking with Wikipedians that share similar interests can help build a project's membership, and announcing the project's news in the Signpost's WikiProject Report can reach larger audiences.

For projects with too narrow a focus, it may be better to merge the project into a larger, more active WikiProject. This is how many task forces are born; for example, the Desserts Task Force was previously WikiProject Ice Cream. But some narrowly focused or poorly defined projects may have so little content that they don't warrant a revival. The old project may end up deleted, although editors can still create a new project that serves a similar purpose, building on the lessons learned from the previous failed attempt.

At the other extreme are projects with a focus that is too broad. Some broad projects simply become shells for grouping together smaller child projects while others end up reinventing themselves in order to stay relevant. For example, the first WikiProject ever created, WikiProject Sports in September 2001, has struggled to remain active as specialized projects for nearly every sport have moved editor attention to their own talk pages, assessments, and portals. In contrast, the recently revived WikiProject United States has been reorganized and absorbed some responsibilities previously held by other projects. Discussions continue about the new scope of WikiProject United States and its relationship to child projects.

Even with proper planning, many projects simply run out of steam. As the initial enthusiasm of the project's members wanes, the project's initiatives may become neglected and fall into disrepair. Productive members may leave projects after heated disagreements about specific articles or hurt feelings after mediation and arbitration. Busy editors may become so engaged in other activities both on and off Wikipedia that they stop visiting WikiProjects in which they were previously actively involved. Regardless of whether these projects are tagged as inactive, semi-active, or not at all, an effort to revive the project may be worthwhile.

The WikiProject Guide provides helpful advice for reviving a WikiProject. A good place to start is updating the list of active members to get a better picture of where the project currently stands. Some members may still be active on Wikipedia and may even continue to improve the project's articles independent of the WikiProject. Others have moved on to other things or have left Wikipedia entirely. Divide the member list into active, inactive, and former members with each member determining their own status. Check each user's contributions to see if they have been active on Wikipedia in the past few months; members who have not edited Wikipedia in several months can be classified as inactive until they return. To bring old members back and involve them in the project's revitalization, post a message on the talk pages of editors asking them to update their status and include ways they can contribute. New members can be invited personally or through public postings at the Community Portal or the WikiProject Report's news sidebar. Simply adding names to the participants list won't spur activity. In each invitation message, ask that members add the project's talk page to their watchlist and suggest ways they can aid the project's initiatives.

Improving the aesthetics of the project's page may be appropriate, although attractive projects can lapse into inactivity as quickly as projects with only black-and-white text. A new coat of paint won't fix the underlying problems of many floundering projects, but improved organization can help new and returning members find information more easily. There are a variety of generic WikiProject templates that may be helpful. Templates like {{Infobox WikiProject}} can provide a starting point for new members as they discover the project's resources. Unnecessary clutter can be removed from the project's main page, although this information should be archived in case it becomes important again. Clear suggestions as to how members can help should be easy to find, including to-do lists, {{tasks}}, cleanup listings, and watchlists. The {{WikiProject help}} template can also direct attention to the project's pressing needs.

During the project's inactive or semi-active period, portions of the project may have fallen into disrepair, templates may have been deleted, or services provided to the project may have changed or discontinued. Recreate any missing userboxes, project banners, or user invitation templates. Check the assessment system and the project's banner to ensure it still works. Parameters for automated functions like article alerts and hot articles may need to be updated. If the project has a portal, check that the fields are populated with content and make sure additional content is ready and waiting for when the portal is refreshed.

Reach out to projects that are already active and form collaborations where possible, particularly on articles where projects overlap. Competitions and drives like those held on alternating months by the Guild of Copy Editors and WikiProject Wikify can build relationships and mobilize the members of another project to achieve your project's goals.

In areas where a few small projects struggle to remain active, a single centralized project may be better. Mergers can concentrate the attention of members and allow them to more easily pool their resources, although the actual merging of projects can become contentious. Make sure all parties have been notified and have a chance to discuss a merger before it takes place.

Above all, the editors who are spearheading the revival should be open to the ideas of other members. Just like Wikipedia articles, WikiProjects are not owned by any editor no matter how much work that editor puts into rebuilding the project. Additionally, the Wikipedians involved in reviving a project should be dedicated to the project's goals before and after the revival. This means remaining active in the project, even after the project's initial rebirth. Simply creating a WikiProject and leaving it to take care of itself does not guarantee the project's survival, nor does simply revamping a project. Participate in the project's discussions and work on improving the project's articles. Building a thriving community takes time, but projects like WikiProject Oregon and WikiProject Military History show that it's possible.

Next week, we'll burn some rubber. Until then, make a pit stop in the archive.


← Previous "WikiProject report"
Next "WikiProject report" →
+ Add a commentDiscuss this story
These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Great to see this on reviving WikiProjects. Well written too - well done! Rd232 talk 00:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for writing and maintaining several sections of the WikiProject Guide, including the sections on inactive projects and bots. They were very helpful while writing this article. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed a drop in WikiProject activity recently. I think project members are at first keen to do a certain task or tasks and when they are done, or the bits a specific member is interested in being done is complete then members drop away. Finally you are left with things to do that no one is interested in doing and it all stops. I would think projects would be productive if they are task focused rather then subject focused. The copy editors WikiProject is a good example of a task based project. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good point, but what other "tasks" could be specified? Having groups like WikiProject Article writing is too broad. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not everyone feels the need to 'write'. Infoboxes could be a project - creating the appropriate one for articles which don't have one and/or updating and/or finding additional parameters. Is there a bot which creates the links for all sister projects, such as Wikiquotes and Wikisource? If not, that could be a project. Another project could focus on External links to connect to ongoing coverage such as Worldcat id, C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, Guardian topics, NYT topics. We have templates for these, but we still have articles linking to a single article, or nothing at all. There are also various 'transparency' links for politicians, such as Follow the Money for US state politicians. Flatterworld (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Wavelength (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is well written and helpful. I've always thought that Wikipedia would be even more successful if its editors were more connected and engaged in more collaboration and discussion. WikiProjects are the perfect engines for such interaction, especially if collaboration and discussion could be accomplished at multiple levels (i.e., between users, between WikiProject task forces, between WikiProjects, etc.). Personally, I think we have too many narrow-coverage WikiProjects to accomplish this goal of interconnection. Merging and creating Task Forces within broad-coverage (but not too broad) WikiProjects is the answer. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-16/WikiProject_report&oldid=655200123"