Mediawiki is free software, per the free software
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to
make it do what you wish.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.
Note that the first of these precludes moral restrictions on reuse of
the program. You may consider this problematic, but freedom is
considered by many to be the more important moral imperative.
That is a moral standard. Freedom is more important then moral
imperative. Thanks. But unfortunately this moral standard is not used on
Wikipedia itself. I do not have the freedom to vandalise Wikipedia. If I
would do so there are procedures to stop me. And I do agree these
procedure are there.
So the moral standard on Wikipedia seems to be the contrary of the moral
standards in this newsgroup. That is possible but inconsistent.
I think this community can manage a discussion on moral standards,
although it seems far away from the daily activity in this newsgroup.
Discussion on moral standards are always a bit painful. Why a discussion
if there is no problem? Why talking when you can prevent talking?
There is an other large organisation who pretend there moral standards
are higher then the outside world. I see some steps :
First : There was denial.
Second : Complains could go to a subdepartment nobody new and nobody
Third : Our moral standards are so high we can solve this ourself
Fourth : They accept the moral standards of the outside world also
applies to them
As a very old and slow organisation all of this took many years and is
still not finished.
Let I be clear; I do like the community, I do like the MediaWiki
software I do like quality, and to improve quality, and I do like high
Discussion of use is not entirely off-topic here -
witness the recent
discussion on the efficacy of using a WYSIWYG editor on an intranet
installation of MediaWiki. But again, that addresses pure utility,
rather than moral considerations per se.
So It's not clear how moral considerations are relevant to the list,
if not entirely off-topic. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
I started to say I wanted to prevent to talk about concrete situations
and persons. That would make the discussion nasty and not productive.
But take my word, this discussion is very relevant for this newsgroup if
I read the kind of questions and answers posted in this newsgroup.