Jump to content
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikipédia à Lua/Votação

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is a translated version of the page Wikipedia to the Moon/Voting and the translation is 2% complete.
This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum.
Home Phase 1: scenarios Phase 2: voting Phase 3: working Phase 4: wrap-up About FAQ
done done done done

This is the place where voting for the best way to collect and arrange content for Wikipedia to the Moon happens. Please see Phase 1: Scenarios for the discussion and development of scenarios from which to choose here. The drafting of scenarios is now done, and below you will find a condensed version for the voting process. Voting is open until June 24, 2016!

Como votar

Anyone can vote, regardless of user access level or rights. Please log in before voting or register an account. IP votes cannot be counted.

  • You have as many votes as there are scenarios listed below. Not more. You may use them all, but you do not have to, of course.
  • Only one vote per scenario.
  • The voting mode is supportive, meaning that votes will be counted as endorsing the respective scenario. There are no oppose votes.

How the result will be interpreted

  • The scenario with the most votes (remember, they are all supportive only) wins.
  • It's a plurality vote (also known as "relative majority"). This means that the scenario with the most votes does not need to also cross any percentage threshold (like 50 %) in order to win.
  • There are 10 scenarios for you to vote for, of which 9 are different suggestions as to how to use the data disc as a global community. The last scenario, however, is basically a "no" vote. It suggests to not work as a global community on Wikipedia to the Moon. It would only qualify as the winning scenario if it beats the number of people who vote for any of the other scenarios.

Vote here

Let's work on: a Wikipedia canon

A number of scenarios (see e. g. "language agnostic" and "All TOP (and HIGH) importance articles on all Wikipedias") seem to be more or less versions of the Canon scenario, which was one of the initial three suggestions. The core idea is to select a set of representative articles according to subject matter, instead of a specific language. Once a consensus on such a set of articles is reached, it would then be necessary to translate its articles into as many languages as possible. A crucial issue for any of the canon scenarios is which criteria need to be established in order to select the article.

basic idea: "In literature, a canon describes a set of works that are considered to be some kind of standard or official representation of something. There is no global canon of the most important Wikipedia articles or anything similar. However, in many language versions there are lists of Wikipedia articles that people suggest every Wikipedia should feature. In this scenario all language communities would be invited to discuss and agree on one movement-wide canon of Wikipedia articles." See full canon discussion here!, scenario language agnostic, scenario Top importance­, scenario Space4all

Vote here!

Votes: a Wikipedia canon

  1. --Lsanabria (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. —JerrySa1 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. --Mysteriumen (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. --Teamihlehyn (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. --AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. --Gerrit (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. --Blackhat999 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. --ONUnicorn (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. --Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. --NaBUru38 (talk)
  11. --Eritain (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  12. --Eric.LEWIN (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  13. --Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  14. --Arussom (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  15. --Chickadee46 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  16. --Sergey WereWolf (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: TOP30 lists

This is a somewhat "reversed" canon idea, in which there would not be one set of articles representing all Wikipedia communities. Instead, any language community would get the chance to submit their own TOP30 list of articles.

basic idea: "Whereas a Wikipedia canon would represent a decision of one global community, the almost 300 language versions of Wikipedia stand for a wide variety of culture and knowledge. In this scenario, all Wikipedia language versions would be invited to discuss and select their own Top 30 of articles. All Top 30 selections from all participating language versions would then be collected and included in the Wikipedia payload." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

Votes: TOP30 lists

  1. -- Andrew Dalby (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. --Maria.martelli (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)--[reply ]
  3. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. --Stang 11:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. --GunChleoc (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. José Luiz talk 21:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. ~Mable (chat) 07:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. --Postcrosser (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. --Breogan2008 (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. --RookJameson (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  11. Waters.Justin (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  12. AveroXY (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  13. --Zabia (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  14. --Franco3450 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  15. --ONUnicorn (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  16. --Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  17. --Moony22 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  18. --Carnildo (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  19. --Golan's mom (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  20. --User:Trurle (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  21. --Joalpe (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  22. --Sthelen.aqua (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  23. --Chiborg (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  24. --Dimi z (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  25. -- Chickadee46 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  26. — Yerpo Eh? 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  27. --Filipinayzd (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  28. -- IKHazarika (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: a nominated items list

The third of the initial suggestions describes an open list, which can be filled with one suggestion per registered account, regardless of language or other barriers.

basic idea: "One account, one vote. In this scenario, every Wikipedian could add one list item and then sign their own suggestion. This could be Wikipedia articles (regardless of language), an image, or any other media item. No restrictions, except that you can only name one list item. The items of the whole list go to space."
See full discussion here!

Discussion_Scenario_.23List:

Vote here!

Votes: a nominated items list

  1. —DerHexer (Talk) 10:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. --Golan's mom (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. --Bastenbas (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. Irn (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. Halibutt (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. --Carlsrator (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. --DS-fax 17:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. -- IKHazarika (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: Taking "Mond/Maan/Луна/Månen/Mjesec/Bulan/Hold/Luna/Księżyc/Lua/Mesiac/Ay/Moon" to the moon!

This new scenario suggests picking just one article, i. e. the article about the Moon itself – in all available languages.

basic idea:" القمر, آی, ചന്ദ്രൻ, चंद्र, Mặt Trăng, and the articles on the moon in many other languages are featured. Let's send them all up there. This could be part of some of the other scenarios." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

Votes: Taking "Mond/Maan/Луна/Månen/Mjesec/Bulan/Hold/Luna/Księżyc/Lua/Mesiac/Ay/Moon/ਚੰਦਰਮਾ" to the moon!

  1. Almafeta (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. --Liridon (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. --Lsanabria (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. --స్వరలాసిక (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. Michaelpires (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. Bhaskaranaidu (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. Klaas `Z4␟` V: 05:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  11. Mike Coppolano (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  12. --valepert (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  13. --Barbaking (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  14. --Titou (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  15. --Golan's mom (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  16. --GunChleoc (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  17. —JerrySa1 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  18. --Winstonza (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  19. --Mickey83 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  20. --Teamihlehyn (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  21. — xaosflux Talk 05:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  22. TOW talk 08:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  23. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  24. --Rupertsciamenna (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  25. --Vikas Hegde (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  26. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  27. --Postcrosser (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  28. -- HvW (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  29. -Nyiffi (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  30. --RookJameson (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Though I dont like the part about "picking just one article". The Moon articles won't fill the disc, so this should be combined with other scenarios.[reply ]
  31. --CristianCantoro (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  32. --Zabia (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  33. -- ONUnicorn (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  34. --YjM (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  35. -- Jonathunder (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  36. --Moony22 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  37. --Khutuck (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  38. -- Bora (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  39. -- YenilenebilirAdam MESAJ 16:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  40. Litlok (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  41. --User:Trurle (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  42. --Sir Shurf (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  43. Popo le Chien (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  44. Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 19:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC) It would be our Rosetta Stone[reply ]
  45. Olsi (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  46. --Sergey WereWolf (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  47. --e.c. 23:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: a global editathon on Astronomy

This one suggests to hold a month-long Astronomy editathon. It would be virtual, meaning that it would take place online and anywhere in the world. Participants would be asked to contribute astronomy-related articles.

basic idea: "Hold an online edith week or month in which people write about Astronomy. Every article gets its author a ticket. At the end we draw a dozen people who can select an article to go to space." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

Votes: a global editathon on Astronomy

  1. --GunChleoc (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. --JerrySa1 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. --Mickey83 (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. --Vikas Hegde (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. --Eric.LEWIN (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. --কৌশিক বিশ্বাস (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. -- Tanweer (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. Litlok (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. Metrónomo-Goldwyn-Mayer 19:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  11. --Sergey WereWolf (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Featured articles are at the core of another draft idea. It proposes to make a selection from this or similar kinds of distinguished articles across languages.

basic idea: "Let's send up the best of the best. All featured articles and lists on all Wikipedias. This would create a strong incentive for people to bring their favorite topics up to featured status. Imagine the kind of public relations this initiative would get: "Wikipedia community sends the best it has to offer to the moon"." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

  1. --AzorAhai (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. --JTCEPB (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. --Liridon (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. --Arian Talk 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. --Andrew Dalby (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. --MrBn (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. --Lsanabria (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. NMaia (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. -- Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  11. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  12. MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  13. GrandCelinien (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  14. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  15. Tetraktys (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  16. --Gts-tg (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  17. Michaelpires (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  18. Klaas `Z4␟` V: 05:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  19. Like tears in rain (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  20. Murbaut (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  21. --Bspf (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  22. --Cavaliere grande (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  23. --Lotus 50 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  24. --g (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  25. --Coolland (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  26. --Stang 11:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  27. --Titou (talk 11:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  28. --Winter eu 11:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  29. --Marica Massaro (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  30. --JerrySa1 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Assuming that the number is ~40,000, the rest goes to the next place, third place, etc. I would like to see combinations of proposals.[reply ]
  31. --Winstonza (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  32. -- Irn (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  33. Mathanaharan (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  34. José Luiz talk 20:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  35. Halibutt (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  36. --Yiyi (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  37. Jopparn (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  38. — xaosflux Talk 05:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  39. --Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  40. --Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  41. --Rupertsciamenna (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  42. ~Mable (chat) 07:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  43. --Palnatoke (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  44. --Zamaster4536 (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  45. --Ghilt (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  46. --Gerrit (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  47. --Fanfwah (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  48. --Syced (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  49. --AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  50. Braveheart (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  51. --Cruifer (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  52. --Nahum (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  53. --Breogan2008 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  54. -Nyiffi (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  55. --RookJameson (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  56. -- CreativeC38 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  57. --Zzyzx (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  58. -- Zabia (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  59. — Antimuonium U wanna talk? 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  60. Shashwat986 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  61. --Soul Train (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  62. --Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  63. --Moony22 (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  64. --Frettie (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  65. --Carnildo (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  66. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  67. -- Bora (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  68. --Eritain (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  69. --Golan's mom (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  70. --Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  71. --কৌশিক বিশ্বাস (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  72. --Tanweer (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  73. --Fano (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  74. --Omnilaika02 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  75. --MRG90 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  76. --White DemΩn (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  77. --Lucas (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  78. --Rodrigo Padula (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  79. --Pablo Darko (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  80. --Stepro (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  81. --Sir Shurf (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  82. --Chiborg (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  83. --Paolotacchi (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  84. --Samuele2002 (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  85. --wL <speak·check> 05:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  86. Olsi (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  87. --Sergey WereWolf (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  88. --3Jo7 (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  89. --Florian838 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  90. --Uğurkent talk 22:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  91. --Galobtter (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  92. --Pakeha (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  93. -- IKHazarika (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: information about cutting-edge technology

The angle of this proposal is to look back at the content of other time capsules, which yield information about technology from the respective times.

basic idea: "(This probably isn't enough to fill the entire disc, just to serve as a portion.) What we find interesting about time capsules and old documents today is information about 'cutting edge' technology and science – the gramophone, biplanes, RADAR. So surely, we should send that – pages with the most recent advances in different sciences and branches of technology, and maybe information about what the Earth is like today." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

Votes: information about cutting-edge technology

  1. --MrBn (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. 21:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. ...Bhaskaranaidu (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. -- Irn (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. --AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. --RookJameson (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. Shashwat986 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. --Miguu (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. --Chickadee46 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. --Sergey WereWolf (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: Decoding with DNA

This one looks beyond humans, literally. What to include on the disc that could be useful, in case by some means it would be possible (for someone?) to bring back humanity from extinction.

basic idea: "Focus on ensuring humans can be brought back from extinction and on ensuring that whoever finds it can make sense of it even if they lack familiarity with human languages or software. Both are best accomplished by including snippets of Earth’s biosphere’s native language: DNA. Include the articles "Human", "De-extinction", "Human Genome", the actual human genome, Good and Featured articles of organisms with a DNA barcode, the periodic table, Solar System bodies, spacecraft articles, and articles on all letters, numbers, and human languages. Fill the remaining space with whatever other proposal is voted second." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

Votes: Decoding with DNA

  1. --MrBn (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. --Aranae (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. #--Mickey83 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. --Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. --AfroThundr3007730 (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. --Blackhat999 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. --Zzyzx (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. Shashwat986 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. --Anntinomy (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: Risk of Extinction

Have you heard about lists of endangered species? This scenario is about collecting content regarding information about things that will probably be gone soon.

basic idea: "Focus on preserving information on things that have a high probability of disappearing within the next decades, centuries, and millenia. Include all articles in all languages in the following categories (or equivalent - I am working off of en.wikipedia): Category:IUCN Red List extinct in the wild species, Category:IUCN Red List critically endangered species, Category:IUCN Red List endangered species, Category:IUCN Red List vulnerable species, Category:World Heritage Sites in Danger, and Category:Endangered_languages; and the articles on the following list: UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. Include the entire wikipedia of any language that is found in Category:Endangered_languages." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

Votes: Risk of Extinction

  1. --MrBn (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. --Aranae (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. ...Bhaskaranaidu (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. --AzorAhai (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. --Titou (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. --Bastenbas (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  8. -- Irn (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  9. --Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  10. --Eric.LEWIN (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  11. --Miguu (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  12. --MRG90 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  13. --Sir Shurf (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  14. --Chiborg (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  15. --PupyFaki (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  16. -- IKHazarika (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's work on: ... wait, no, let's not

This option represents questions about the basic idea of Wikipedia to the Moon. Should the worldwide community engage and edit content within this project? To include these voices, we've added this option.

basic idea: "Don't make this a global thing, don't call for action." See full discussion here!

Vote here!

Votes: ... wait, no, let's not

  1. Natuur12 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. AndyVolykhov (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. —Marco Aurelio 10:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC) I'd hope that we had so much enthusiasm on rather more important things such as fixing bugs and admin tools development. Apparently not this year either...[reply ]
  4. BethNaught (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. pne (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. I don't like any of the options (including this one). Nemo 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Result

Congratulations, everybody! Thanks to everyone who cast their votes, we now have a winning scenario, and it is "All featured articles and lists on all Wikipedias". In total, 152 unique voters took part in this decision.

What happens now? This result means that Wikipedians from every language community are warmly invited in the upcoming weeks and months to work on their best articles and lists, to be included on the data disc. Details about how to actually do things will follow in the next few days.

For now, thanks to everyone who voted! We put the proposal up on Meta-Wiki on 24 April. The pages were immediately translated by volunteers into more than 60 languages. Many people engaged in the 6-week-discussion about how (and if) to work on this together. Out of 17 scenarios, 10 were available to be voted on over the past 2 weeks. Now the working phase/editing will be open until 31 October, leaving much time to select and improve content, or solve challenges along the way.

The goal is to finish our "Wikipedia time capsule" by 5 December 2016, which is International Volunteers Day.

Notes

(追記) (追記ここまで) Please note: Two of the scenarios that have been discussed expand their ideas beyond Wikipedia itself, one proposing to select content from all Wikimedia projects, the other focusing on Wikidata. Both scenarios are valid suggestions, but we have been explicitly approached for Wikipedia, not other projects for this gift. The following are all eligible proposals:

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /