[Foundation-l] Do we need a Code of Participation?

[Ray Saintonge]

Rob Smith wrote:
> On 11/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>   
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>     
>>> on 11/9/07 2:02 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:
>>>       
>>>> The danger is that we do have people who will treat the proposed Code of
>>>>         
>>>> Conduct as a hammer for beating newbies.  A code put in those terms
>>>> would be as meaningful as shrinkwrapped software that tells me that I
>>>> can't transfer the information to Cuba.
>>>>
>>>> I support the idea of a series of principles that we all hold dear, but
>>>> not any kind of bureaucratic structure to support them
>>> That's commune talk :-). Ray, by "bureaucratic structure" do you mean
>>> people?
>>>       
>> I'm talking more about structures that elaborate rules to make sure that
>> everything is specified, or signing pledges...
>>     
> I signed a pledge
> here<http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zkvarYNmXBAJ:encyc.connectonline.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop+Wikipedia:Requests+for+mediation/Cberlet+and+Nobs01/Workshop&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us#Good%2520faith>
> .
>   
That clearly arose in the context of an old dispute from two years ago.  
I have no basis for determining whether or not it was justified. 

What I'm talking about is general pledges that any editor would need to 
sign before ever being involved in a dispute.  The majority still carry 
on editing in their own specialties, consistently under the radar of 
chronic disputers.  To have every one of them sign a pledge would be 
demeaning.

Ec