Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 17/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can come up with its own?
Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?
There's a lot of ambiguity that has developed around the use of the term "project". Resolving this would be very helpful.
Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be developped by community, NOT by the Foundation. If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the editorial policy.
OK...but there is a long precedent of the Foundation (well, actually: Jimbo) setting editorial policy. Jimbo's opinion is frequently cited in all manner of discussions and it was his direct intervention in Wikibooks that WAS the whole videogame guides thing.
I believe that the Catholic Church should review the doctrine of papal infalibility. In theory it only applies when he speaks 'ex cathedra',. but that is a difficult concept for the flock to grasp.
I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow these exact rules.
Versus The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
So...one of these statements should be about what the Foundation is or is not willing to support, right?
I am trying to tie these statements to Erik's statement that these are the things that would be cited in deciding if a new project should be supported or not. I think it would be not hard to get enough people to support a "Games guide wiki". What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support it?
What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support Wikistalk? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki )
What, in these statements, explains why WMF would not support Wikihowto, Wikipeople/Wikimorial , Wikiviews (opinions/reviews)? Is it *only* the lack of community support, or is there something I don't see in these statements?
I think you are reading far too much into Anthere's answer. Where to put a games guide is not a particularly important question. The important point now is how we decide. Presuming that WMF would or would not support a project, and using that to generalize a policy is not a sound basis for developing policies. What decides whether or not we have Wikistalk as a project may be as simple as the common sense judgement of the people who decide. If any project proposal is really new, how can there possibly be a pre-existing policy about it?
My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees to support this project, with this charter.
Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are there guidelines for what a charter should cover?
You make it look like you are looking for answers from everyone else but yourself. If such a charter is a good idea, then maybe the niext step could be to develop what it should contain.
Ec