The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um 14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned
and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
process,
not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp. Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
without
local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
Even
if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
from
the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
the
smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
about
original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe