Without common core policies they can not claim that the projects stick within their boundaries. Is a project without a clear policy on "no original research", "verifiability" and "neutral point of view" Wikipedia? Is it enough to just say it is "Wikipedia" to be "Wikipedia"? I believe there should be clearer boundaries on what it means to be "Wikipedia", or "Wikiversity" or "Wiktionary", or some other "Wiki*".
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this way? Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?
"Rogol"
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson sam@samwilson.id.au wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
(NPOV,
copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those, individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their community needs.
The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly different from NPOV [0]. Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as fair use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original research (within certain guidelines).
—Sam
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