[Foundation-l] wikinews requirement

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

>* understanding that the project is a collaboration, that a sysop is not the boss, and that being the sysop of a project absolutely does not mean that the sysop should restrict access to pages such as the main page.
>
Unfortunately main pages need to be protected more quickly than others.  
When a vandal alters the main page to redirect to his home page or to a 
porno page the effect can be to put the whole project off line until 
somebody can fix it.  For a big project many knowledgeable people are 
available to react quickly, but it is also a greater magnet for 
vandals.  A small project may have these problems less often, but it may 
stay there longer before being fixed.  Solving this problem should be 
done in a way that minimizes damage to collaborativeness.

>When someone will start a new wikinews, it is VERY likely a wikipedia will already exist in that language, so there is no need to translate ANYTHING. THe editor can just go to the relevant projet language, and COPY the NPOV rules, copy the COPYRIGHT rules. Just copy and past text does not mean this text is understood, nor that it is applied.
>
>If you mean by COPYING rules, just going to the english version and copying the rules of the english version, I will object that no project should exist which has no community able to make their own rules. 
>
Exactly!  It makes me wonder about those people who feel that they 
cannot function unless they have previously adopted a complete system of 
rules.  Except for broad questions of fundamental principles communities 
must preceed rules.  Rules must then reflect the community and codify 
its practices.  They must be sensitive to a changing zeitgeist.  
Sometimes we need to reflect on how centuries of paternalistic thought 
have affected the way we are today.  In contrast to the diligent respect 
for rules, effecting real change requires counterintuitive action.  It 
requires abandoning the cosy comfort zone that rules provide.  Maybe 
there should be a law that whenever a politician gives a speech to his 
country's parliament he would need to do so with his clothes off.

>If you do want an example of what I mean, I invite you to visit http://wo.wikipedia.org
>
>This is a new project.
>A group of editors from an african NGO want to work on it.
>For it to start, one of those guys asked me to be sysop on it (needed for decent start).
>
>In his country, french is widely spoken, so he just copied french wikipedia rules.
>Then, as soon as he was sysop, he put some advertisement for his NGO on the main page, then when the main page was restored to a more neutral situation, he put back the advertisement (in good faith I am sure) and protected the main page.
>
Perfectly predictable when the rules are nothing but words. - not to 
mention the enforced ambiguity that came from decolonisation.

>Translating/creating policies seems to be a much better test of actual 
>interest in doing work. Once you do that, that shows a commitment to the 
>project.
>
People need to do both.  Mere translation is a mechanical act.  There is 
a need to discuss how those policies guide our activity.  Policies 
beyond fundamental principles can and should vary between projects

>>Again, the is a security measure. If 5 people, not even one oldby on 
>>one of our project, decide to  launch a wikinews with no experience at 
>>all, there is rather high risk that some of our principles are not 
>>respected; 
>>    
>>
>I don't see it that way. Just because someone has been on Wikipedia for 
>months doesn't mean that they respect policies at all. Quantity is not 
>quality, and measuring quality is almost impossible while keeping the 
>process scalable and fair. One could even argue that malicious trolls or 
>otherwise harmful users who know how to manipulate policies in their 
>interest are more likely to come from our existing user base. 
>
We live in a security-obsessed society, where everyone seems to have 
forgotten that we are all mortal.

>In fact, 
>Wikinews will especially attract people who are fed up with Wikipedia 
>and want to work on another wiki.
>
A common phenomenon that affects all projects.  Most of us like to 
contribute without being trapped on a merry-go-round of bickering.

>This is more likely if key policies like NPOV are *not* translated. If 
>we can agree on which parts of our policies are not negotiable, we can 
>make sure that they are in place. One of these policies can even include 
>instructions on what to do if your wiki doesn't follow the Wikimedia 
>spirit (contact stewards etc.)
>
Maybe that would have prevented the total shutdown that is taking place 
on the japanese wiktionary.

Yes the key policies do need to be translated, but only to the extent 
that they provide an operating framework.  We all have a vision of what 
NPOV means, but its details are the subject of endless inconclusive 
debates.  Too many people end up trying to call balls and strikes when 
they are standing in the outfield.  They know the rulebook thoroughly, 
but they were holding the book upsidedown when they learned it.

Ec