Amgine wrote:
The governance issues are not the basic reason for the Open English proposal (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition)
"Open English" is not a language, and so this is not the appropriate forum to propose or promote such a concept. Even so, the concerns raised should of course be considered and dealt with if possible.
I just now read: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikinews/Open_English and the relevant portion of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition
and I still don't quite get what this dispute is all about.
Let me see if I can state some principles which I think that everyone involved can agree with fully:
1. Wikinews should be open and welcoming to any contributor
2. Wikinews should not have special complications which are offputting to newcomers
3. We should work hard to balance two goals which are both important, but which have significant tensions between them: a. Empowering people to do local news b. Keeping the site relevant and interesting for all people
4. If a newcomer comes to Wikinews and makes a mistake (i.e. no proper {{develop}} or {{publish}} tag), then their work should not be lost or hidden, but should instead be highlighted somewhere useful so that other users can help the newcomer learn.
5. This one is perhaps the hardest to write in an NPOV manner: Erik is not the dictator of Wikinews, and furthermore, everyone can acknowledge that he has said so himself, repeatedly. We can all further acknowledge, even Erik, that he acts boldly and with conviction at times and that this has at times irritated people who felt (fairly or unfairly) that he was trying to be a dictator.
----
Now, I pulled most of those principles directly from the Open English proposal, and added the one about Erik because I hope it will be helpful to just state that issue plainly and openly.
If everyone agrees, at least roughly, with all the above principles, then what's the point of Open English?
--Jimbo