I believe what was meant by this is that we should
codify policies the
same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we
should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter.
If we're talking about Wikipedias - yes.
But if we are talking about moderation policies for this particular
mailing list (what was and still is the context - if I'm not mistaken)
codification will not work:
moderator will ban me (it's only mind game I do hope :) ) according to
en:WP rules, I will appeal according to uk:WP rules and, say, Yaroslav
will object my appeal according to ru:WP rules while you will support
my appeal according to some other rules.
Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured
and in written'?
If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten:
-Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same
way as on wikipedia
(wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)
and perhaps Yaroslav just missed "in the same way as" and understood
that as proposal to adopt en:WP rules without any adaptation to
multicultured (did I used the proper word?) community of this mailing
list and/or Meta
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
>>>> (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)
>>
>> What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions,
>> and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On
>> ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules.
>
I believe what was meant by this is that we should
codify policies the
same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we
should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter.
>
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>