Erik Moeller a écrit:
My opinion on the matter is that we should not bow to
totalitarian
regimes, and instead provide readers and editors with the tools to
circumvent censorship. But I understand that this position is only mine
and not necessarily that of the WMF. I therefore ask the Board to
formulate or approve a policy here which I will then follow. That policy
could mean a separate vote, a higher threshold of creation, or something
else.
Another very "wiki way" ... would be to wait that people really ask for
the wikinews to be created. You know it is "really" when it begins to
get noisy on mailing lists.
Regarding the rest of your argument, I will say two
things:
1) As I said before, it doesn't matter whether Wikinews starts as a
professional project or just as a small experimental wiki. A smaller
wiki is less visible and less useful, hence less likely to attract
negative attention. It can, however, grow into something useful over
time. I find it crucial that people who have an interest in Wikinews
have a wiki to work on, rather than being told that they have to build
their community in meta-exile until it is large enough, which is simply
not practical -- the community grows with the content. We should stop
being paranoid about the quality of our projects a few days after they
launch. They are wikis and should be treated as such.
I think it does matter.
When it was created, wikinews was not even labelled a starting wiki.
And the media will soon have its attention on it.
2) Inactive wikis should be closed, as simple as that.
If
es.wikinews.org remains dormant, it will be shut down.
Not really. There is always one or two editors. It is unnice to close it
then.
I also caution against any substantial alteration of
the language policy
for further Wikinews editions, as that would be unfair to the remaining
languages, some of which are major.
I caution against putting everyone in the same pot, regardless of local
objections.
As for the server log entry, yes, I forgot about that.
This is now done.
Regards,
Erik