On Jan 26, 2008 11:22 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Agreed. [snip] I think you're misreading it.: En.WP can, but appealing to a higher authority is a frequent way to try to gain advantage in a dispute. (Not that I'm claiming that is what's happening in this instance, just that it's a common factor) The higher relative frequency of these requests from enwiki is most likely due to size and a lack of language barriers (this list is predominantly in English) and not necessarily dysfunction. [snip] Authority is a widely used and proven method of resolving issues. It is argued by some that in matters which are highly subjective that authority decision making produces the best outcomes. In many places authority decision making is the primary method used to resolve disputes, so it is natural that some people really want to use that approach to solve disputes on our projects. neutral to project-internal decision making. If a project wants an authority-based method for deciding some things they could invent one internally. Since En.Wp's only obvious pre-existing authority for such things is explicitly not intended to deal with this kind of issue, people on enwiki seeking authority come here. [snip] Since these questions almost never get the authoritarian response they seek I don't see them as evidence of a lack of self-sufficiency. A real lack of self-sufficiency would probably result in dozens of posts per day. :) Still, I agree with your "don't come here" message. ;) (and I'd extend it to pestering office staff.. i.e. Mike). Pointing things out which may have significant long term impacts is useful. Coming to foundation-l for a ruling, not so much.

We is the "foundation-l" list which is here to discuss matters which affect multiple WMF wikis or the WMF in general. They is en.WP and those who primarily post about en.WP, who have a dedicated mailing list for en.WP internal issues ("wikien-l"). I am not against en.WP. But this is not the first, or even the fifth time, I have suggested that an en.WP internal issue be dealt with elsewhere. And it seems to be increasing lately, so I was thinking there is an underlying dysfuntion that needs to be addressed. But perhaps Greg is correct that there is not such an underlying dysfuntion. That fact the list is in English may simply make it easier for them to come here on slighter inclinations than wikis in other languages. Birgitte SB --- Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037363.html [2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037403.html [3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037136.html [4]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037636.html > > > > --- Remember the dot <rememberthedot(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > The foundation's input would be appreciated in > > > resolving this issue. A > > > scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was > uploaded > > > to the English > > > Wikipedia: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg > > > > > > The author of the letter did not release it > under a > > > free license, and Mike > > > Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel, > clarified > > > that the recipient of the > > > letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to > freely > > > license it. > > > > > > The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was > uploaded > > > mainly because it is > > > humorous. > > > > > > So the question is: is keeping this letter one > of > > > the "limited exceptions" > > > to > > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy? > > > > > > -- > > > Remember the dot > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Not really. While non-English posts are welcome, they are understandably rare and responses to them even rarer. The large non-English projects are large enough to get by on their own, and it's easier to do so than to discuss the matters here in English. The English projects could get by on their own if they had to, but it's easy to come here for clarification on certain issues, so why not do so? Smaller projects sometimes can't get by on their own, and have no choice but to come here. It makes perfect sense that foundation-l is dominated by English projects with most of the rest being from small projects (in addition to the stuff concerning all projects, of course).

On 27/01/2008, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, it doesn't. It's nothing to do with laziness or incompetence. Both enwiki and dewiki want to make the best encyclopaedia they can. For dewiki, the best way to do that is by working on their own. For enwiki, the best way is to get advice from elsewhere when it could be useful. They are both valid methods, just one works better for some projects and the other works better for other projects.

A good point. There must be something more to it that just language, you're right. I think language does play a significant role, though. wikien-l only helps get the views of other members of the enwiki community, foundation-l helps get the views of the foundation (and member of other projects from time to time).

Hoi, The foundation is list is NOT there to seek clarification of issues of the English Wikipedia. Given what this list is about it is noise. Thanks, GerardM On Jan 27, 2008 2:47 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

No, this list is for communication about the foundation. If you want to communicate *with* the foundation, you need to find out who your contact person is, and contact him/her. Lodewijk 2008/1/27, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

On 27/01/2008, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Yes and no. Broad hypothetical cases are often much harder to answer. En would probably be able to become entirely self-sufficient within a few months. Of course the loss of it's lead project would remove a significant amount of the foundation's relevance and cash. Assuming you didn't mean to that extent they the answer is to stop messing in en's day to day affairs no matter how tempting. This would of course mean the the foundation would be largely limited to the role of a shoestring IP but there are worse results. -- geni

If it's a foundation policy that is under dispute, it makes sense to get the foundation involved. The same applies for legal issues. The enwiki community are not lawyers and need professional advice when there is confusion over the legality of a situation. If the community did just make its own decisions without regards to anyone else you'd be complaining that we were arrogant know-it-alls that refuse to take advice from people that know better.