Voting was closed at 23:59 (UTC) - please allow for at least 24 hours to evaluate the validity of the votes. thx, oscar

According to the New project policy, a poll must be organized to request starting off this new project: Wikistandards.

Before adding your vote, please read Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikistandards and wiki for standards carefully.

Brief summary of the proposed project: The purpose of this wiki will be to have a place where people involved in or interested in standards can discuss their standards, both national and international standards, such als DIN, ISO etc are meant.

This poll starts january 14, 2006 0:00 (UTC) and will last for 3 weeks until february 3, 2006 23:59 (UTC); poll-coordinator will be User:Oscar.

Voting should be done in person, unless sufficient proof of authorization is submitted to the poll-coordinator.

Voting can be done below: no discussion there please. For comments use comments, for discussion use the discussion page. oscar 13:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this vote will be closed today at 23:59 (UTC) please allow the vote-coordinator (me) at least 24 hours more to evaluate the validity of the votes. thank you. oscar 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



no indication of irregularities in the end-result found. wiki for standards appears to attract a community of people from outside. from the email correspondance about the voting i conclude that there are more people in favour of this than those that actually voted, since there were complaints about not having been able to figure out how to vote. there is a 29% opposition. conforming to the new project policy, the decision about what to do next, now formally lies with the board. oscar 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed the voting irregularities that were initially found on this page, and they were addressed. The big objection I have to this vote is in keeping with the clause on the new project policy of "The poll is meant to reach all wikipedians, project large. It should be advertised on mailing lists and goings on." As can be seen on Goings-on that was never done locally on Meta nor any Village Pumps or similar pages on other Wikimedia projects. It was advertised on several mailing lists, including a belated notice on Foundation-l. This part of the policy is not clear, but obviously there should be a widespread announcement if a formal vote is occuring. My experience in these matters would suggest that only the number of votes would be different, not the ratios, but I may be wrong. There does appear to be a significant community here, many of whom are from outside the normal group of Wikimedia users. I hope for their sake that some action takes place by the board to decide the fate of this project. BTW, if you use the same voting standard for this vote as was done for Wikiversity and Wikinews (aka a link to user pages on other Wikimedia projects to show that a user wasn't a sock puppet) the vote would only be 15:10 in favor, or barely a 60% approval of this project, and 40% opposition. --Roberth 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Stéphane Thibault 19:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)   Talk[reply]
  2. Borgx 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cspurrier 05:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ilario 21:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. VampWillow 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sabine 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Æ 17:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. IlyaHaykinson 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mmtux 13:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Prozcom 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Eloquence 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Eleitner 10:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GerardM 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. kdunne 18:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Tlouis 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. User:Sue Ellen Wright 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No such user account on meta
  17. Nico Sallembien 22:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Kernigh 03:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Trodel 13:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. User:SasakiFelix 7:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    No such user account on meta
  21. Peter Reynolds 9:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Melbyak 12:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC) This wiki will not contain standards themselves but rather comments about them; the standards body should post the standard; but there is currently no forum for discussing standards in general[reply]
  23. Tex Texin 22:03 2 February 2006 (UTC) We need a place to talk about standards and how they relate to each other and their usage. Many standards designed for a specific purpose are misused and applied for other purposes, leading to problems. A place is needed to call attention to these matters.
  24. Debbie 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

Suzanne Robinson (entered by Melbyak because Suzanne is experiencing network difficulties) Beatriz Bonnet - I support this but find it hard to use. Not sure it's the best venue for our discussions. I'm not even sure this is working and I can't seem to be able to insert signature and timestamp.


  1. Nichtich 17:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Angela 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. villy 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mr. Anonymous 01:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)/Talk Angela appears to be a very wise woman, therefore I'm going with her on this one.:P No, seriously. I see absolutely no reason why the WFM should be involved in this.[reply]
  5. --555 01:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The bellman 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Romihaitza 17:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Marcelo 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Gaf.arq 01:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC) As far as I know, a Wikimedia project shouldn't be a sort of forum, but a repository for ready-to-use (not original research) collaborative works.[reply]
    • Meta is an example of a project that is to enable the operation for other Wikimedia projects. This project will function in exactly the same way as current standards prevent the fully achieve our aim; all knowledge in all languages to all people. GerardM 08:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      But Meta is to talk about Wikimedia projects, standards for anothers subjects. 555 16:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes and this project is to sort problems out with the standards we have picked. You may have noticed that ISO-639 is only one of the standards we have problems with.. When you consider how many e-mails deal only with this one standard. GerardM 16:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dbl2010 16:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see any good reason, no. Please do fix it :)--Eloquence 00:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the vote page for the whole concept? What is worse, this page, while it does list many of the supporters, I certainly didn't vote on this page, nor did most of the people listed above as of the time I posted this comment. Please look in the history page to see how few votes have actually been cast. --Roberth 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I took it that being willing to support it means that you vote for it. From my perspective what good is the indication of support if it means that you need to vote about this ? You indicated your support and now it means this does not equate to your voting in favour ??
I have removed the votes and asked the people who indicated their willingness to contribute to affirm this by voting personally.. talk about bureaucracy. Voting is cheap because when it does not commit to act. I prefer any day two people who say they actively involve themselves over 25 people who vote over something needs to be done or should not be done... by others or for others. GerardM 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to support my positive vote with a word of explanation. The standards area, particularly the area of language and knowledge organization standards, is badly in need of a common forum in which representatives from diverse groups such as ISO, W3C, the Localization industry, NCITS, IETF, Unicode, OASIS, and a variety of national and regional groups can come together to discuss issues that cross over the boundaries of their organizations. The goal is to coordinate sometimes very closely related efforts and ensure better articulation among the activities of various groups. Since some WIKI projects (Wiktionary-related efforts, for interest) are interested in standards coming out of this area, it seemed appropriate to use the WIKI environment to support the standards work. Indeed this open environment would be ideal for furthuring the notion of open standards in this area, which is not always the format that we see under current conditions. Sue Ellen Wright 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When a standard is not a standard, it will be indicated as such and therefore it will not receive the same attention genuine standards do. As this Wiki will be for standards it will be interesting to see how the community that will build up around this wiki will deal with bogus standards. GerardM 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How will you know, if it is standard or not? Think globaly. Lets say, I added a standard from a country which has not much members here. How someone can check this? Who could take the responsibility of its cause, while this wrong version stays on the wiki until someone else fixes? --Dbl2010 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many standards but not that many standards. One of the fringe benefits of this project that it is expected of the standards that will exist in this project that they will also create wikipedia articles. Do you really believe that non standard standards would survive ?? I do not. GerardM 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki will not contain standards themselves but rather comments about them; the standards body should post the standard; but there is currently no forum for discussing standards in general