Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
> > 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 smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.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:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>