I agree that WMF should withdraw support from projects
that violate copyright or NPOV priciples.
Perhaps the concern is just coming from the name. My
main problem is with this is the idea of the kind of
specific rulings and remedies that I have seen on wiki
type "Arbitration Committee". I don't think the WMF
can start a mechanism for those kind of rulings
without crossing the line of controling the content.
I think it is only safe in all or nothing decisions.
A community is either supported by WMF servers or not.
Obviousily there must be warnings that a community is
in danger, but there cannot be any sort of rulings
outside of "Yes" or "No". As long this route of
appeal limited to that, I do not see a problem.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final
appeal" that would work
for me too.
What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not
represent; what
be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project
did not represent the
Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it
is proven to have
content that is systematically incompatible with for
instance the NPOV
notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage.
It should be abundantly
clear that what the core values are of, for instance
Wikipedia, are not
things that can be disregarded by a community. When
they want to have a
Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it
on their own servers
without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to
it.
It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here
too the board has laid
down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room
is finite. As a
consequence this is not a departure from how things
were done, a committee
as I suggested would only take on issues that have a
gravitas where without
such a procedure a project would be deleted or where
a large part or all of
the content gets removed because of whatever the
reasons are that make it
deemed to be necessary.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
I am afraid I must disagree. Abitration in
general is
often entered into voluntarily. I cannot see
what
abitration has to do with final appeals either.
Or
when WMF started making rulings on the content of
its
projects that might need to be appealled.
You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large
problem. I am not doubting you on that issue.
However there are many ways to approach any
problem,
and I find global arbitration commitee to be a
direction I cannot support WMF taking.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> The notion of something like a global
arbitration
> committee IS that it is to
> be disturbing. Only when there is something of
so
> much gravitas that
> something like the end of a living project is
> considered, it provides a
> final way to address an issue. The last thing
you
> want is to get to the
> stage where such a body gets involved !!
>
> The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have
known
> for a very long time that
> there point of view is unpalatable to many and
that
> it goes completely
> against how things are done in all other
projects.
> When asked, the language
> committee has advised and the board has decreed.
For
> such issues it is good
> to allow for one last and final appeal because
some
> of the reactions show
> that some people did not even want to consider
that
> their actions were seen
> in such a stark light.
>
> With arbitration committees it is not about
agreeing
> voluntarily to
> recognising its authority. The choice is more
one of
> having an appeal or not
> having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision
once
> made would be final.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I find the idea of a global arbitration
committe
> > disturbing. I cannot imagine that all
the
> projects
> > would voluntarily agree to enter it's
> juristiction.
> > And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really
blur
> the
> > issue of whether WMF has control of content or
> not.
> >
> > Can we not work on a global mediation
committee as
> a
> > more solid solution?
> >
> > BirgitteSB
> >
> > --- GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > First of all this is an unusual situation.
The
> > > language committee has been
> > > given the task to decide things that have to
do
> with
> > > languages. We have
> > > published what our basic guide lines are. A
> language
> > > has to have some status
> > > and based on this we make a decision.
> > >
> > > For the Belarus language uses the code be
and
> bel
> > > are available. There was a
> > > group of people who high jacked these codes
and
> did
> > > not allow people to use
> > > the official orthography. There was a really
> vibrant
> > > incubator project for
> > > the Belarus language as officially written
in
> > > Belarus. Given the guide
> > > lines, the old project was parked under a
> different
> > > code that is conforming
> > > to the standard.
> > >
> > > When you say that there is a dead lock in
the
> > > creation of projects, you are
> > > mistaken. There is a message file for
Belarus
> and
> > > this is what is required.
> > > We do allow for languages to be started in
the
> > > Incubator, but we cannot
> > > promote them to full projects until there is
a
> > > message file. This is
> > > probably some four minutes of work per
language.
> > > Until there is a message
> > > file, and the first amount of effort has
gone in
> > > localisation, people can
> > > work in the Incubator. The only thing that
is
> dead
> > > locked is the promotion
> > > to full project status.
> > >
> > > When you state that it would be preferable
that
> > > people collaborate, you are
> > > right. People did choose not to do that.
Might
> was
> > > right, and possession was
> > > 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is
inconsistent
> > > with the way the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation works and consequently there was
a
> need
> > > for a solution to this
> > > knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be
this
> > > way. Given that it has not
> > > been deleted has more to do with the fact
that
> we
> > > allow for a procedure that
> > > is to be written of an 'global arbitration
> > > committee' and with the wish
> > > that people finally decide to collaborate
than
> with
> > > the fact that we should
> > > allow for political wikipedias. Politically
> > > motivated projects are anathema
> > > to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr <jorohr(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I don't know if this is the right place
for my
> > > complaint, but I was
> > > > taken by complete surprise by what has
> happened to
> > > the Belarusan
> > > > Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
> existing
> > > bewiki (in "classical"
> > > > orthography by the incubator project in
> > > ("normative" orthography).
> > > >
> > > > For one, there has, as far as I see, no
formal
> request to close the
> > existing bewiki
> > (cf.
>
> > >
).
> > > > To me it seems that the closure of a
large,
> active
> > > > wiki must not go ahead without a prior
> proposal
> > > and debate.
> > > >
> > > > Second, given the deadlock in the new
> languages
> > > creation process, I am
> > > > more than surprised, that for the new
bewiki
> an
> > > exception was
> > > > possible.
> > > >
> > > > Third, the most desirable path to be taken
> would
> > > have been to have a
> > > > single bewiki which accepts both variants,
> just as
> > > enwiki accepts both
> > > > British and American English. Have there
been
> > > serious efforts in this
> > > > direction, prior to the current decision?
A
> Belarusan user says at
> >
> >
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > > ,----
> > > > | That was the only cause, by which it was
> used
> > > mostly in be.wiki; but
> > > > | both systems were allowed to be used,
and
> > > so-called "current"
variant
> > > > | was also used there by minority which
> preferred
> > > it, and they didn't
> > > > | have any obstacles to contribute;
> administration
> > > welcomed contributors
> > > > | in all grammar versions.
> > > > `----
> > > >
> > > > If this is true, I don't see, why the
closure
> of
> > > the old bewiki was
> > > > inevitable.
> > > >
> > > > Even if the two camps cannot be
reconciled, I
> > > don't believe that the
> > > > closure of the existing project was
necessary.
> The
> > > proponents of the
> > > > Belarusan normative wikipedia had
requested
> > >
bel.wikipedia.org rather
> > > > than
be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
> have
> > > existed in
> > > > parallel. This may be an ugly solution,
but
> the
> > > current one is even
> > > > uglier.
> > > >
> > > > Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack
of
> transparency. At
> >
> >
>
> > >
> I read:
> > > >
> > > > ,----
> > > > | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has
been
> > > created at
> > > > |
be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
> > > Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
> > > > |
be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of
the
> board
> > > of trustees on
> > > > | recommendation by the language
subcommittee.
> > > > `----
> > > >
> > > > I would say, that those who take such a
> drastic
> > > decision, that risks
> > > > to deter a large number of committed
authors,
> > > should be required to
> > > > deliver a full explanation of their
decision.
> The
> > > above brief
> > > > announcement is clearly insufficient.
> > > >
> > > > And lastly, if I understand the
announcement
at
> >
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the
old
bewiki
> has been frozen, but
> > no decision has been taken concerning its
future.
> This is just totally
> > incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
board
> of trustees make a
> > dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
should
> make a /full/
> > decision, not a halfhearted one, which
essentially
> leaves the existing
> > conflict open.
> >
> > Forth,
> >
> > --
> >
http://www.infoe.de/
> >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.