Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are highly troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and very subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
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:
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:
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
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