I agree that WMF should withdraw support from projects that violate copyright or NPOV priciples.
Perhaps the concern is just coming from the name. My main problem is with this is the idea of the kind of specific rulings and remedies that I have seen on wiki type "Arbitration Committee". I don't think the WMF can start a mechanism for those kind of rulings without crossing the line of controling the content.
I think it is only safe in all or nothing decisions. A community is either supported by WMF servers or not. Obviousily there must be warnings that a community is in danger, but there cannot be any sort of rulings outside of "Yes" or "No". As long this route of appeal limited to that, I do not see a problem.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Well, if you want to call it the "committee of final appeal" that would work for me too.
What the WMF ruled upon was that the project did not represent; what be.wikipedia was supposed to represent. The project did not represent the Belarus language. When people abuse a project and it is proven to have content that is systematically incompatible with for instance the NPOV notions, the WMF will have to react at some stage. It should be abundantly clear that what the core values are of, for instance Wikipedia, are not things that can be disregarded by a community. When they want to have a Conservapedia or a communistipedia they can have it on their own servers without the Wikipedia name and trademark attached to it.
It is the same with the licensing of pictures; here too the board has laid down the law. It is made clear that the wriggle room is finite. As a consequence this is not a departure from how things were done, a committee as I suggested would only take on issues that have a gravitas where without such a procedure a project would be deleted or where a large part or all of the content gets removed because of whatever the reasons are that make it deemed to be necessary.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am afraid I must disagree. Abitration in
general is
often entered into voluntarily. I cannot see what abitration has to do with final appeals either.
Or
when WMF started making rulings on the content of
its
projects that might need to be appealled.
You say that the Belarus Wikipedia has a large problem. I am not doubting you on that issue. However there are many ways to approach any
problem,
and I find global arbitration commitee to be a direction I cannot support WMF taking.
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The notion of something like a global
arbitration
committee IS that it is to be disturbing. Only when there is something of
so
much gravitas that something like the end of a living project is considered, it provides a final way to address an issue. The last thing
you
want is to get to the stage where such a body gets involved !!
The people in the old Belarus wikipedia have
known
for a very long time that there point of view is unpalatable to many and
that
it goes completely against how things are done in all other
projects.
When asked, the language committee has advised and the board has decreed.
For
such issues it is good to allow for one last and final appeal because
some
of the reactions show that some people did not even want to consider
that
their actions were seen in such a stark light.
With arbitration committees it is not about
agreeing
voluntarily to recognising its authority. The choice is more
one of
having an appeal or not having an appeal. Without an appeal a decision
once
made would be final.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I find the idea of a global arbitration
committe
disturbing. I cannot imagine that all the
projects
would voluntarily agree to enter it's
juristiction.
And if it is imposed by WMF, it would really
blur
the
issue of whether WMF has control of content or
not.
Can we not work on a global mediation
committee as
a
more solid solution?
BirgitteSB
--- GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First of all this is an unusual situation.
The
language committee has been given the task to decide things that have to
do
with
languages. We have published what our basic guide lines are. A
language
has to have some status and based on this we make a decision.
For the Belarus language uses the code be
and
bel
are available. There was a group of people who high jacked these codes
and
did
not allow people to use the official orthography. There was a really
vibrant
incubator project for the Belarus language as officially written
in
Belarus. Given the guide lines, the old project was parked under a
different
code that is conforming to the standard.
When you say that there is a dead lock in
the
creation of projects, you are mistaken. There is a message file for
Belarus
and
this is what is required. We do allow for languages to be started in
the
Incubator, but we cannot promote them to full projects until there is
a
message file. This is probably some four minutes of work per
language.
Until there is a message file, and the first amount of effort has
gone in
localisation, people can work in the Incubator. The only thing that
is
dead
locked is the promotion to full project status.
When you state that it would be preferable
that
people collaborate, you are right. People did choose not to do that.
Might
was
right, and possession was 2/3 of ownership. This mentality is
inconsistent
with the way the Wikimedia Foundation works and consequently there was
a
need
for a solution to this knotty problem. It is sad that it had to be
this
way. Given that it has not been deleted has more to do with the fact
that
we
allow for a procedure that is to be written of an 'global arbitration committee' and with the wish that people finally decide to collaborate
than
with
the fact that we should allow for political wikipedias. Politically motivated projects are anathema to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/29/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right place
for my
complaint, but I was
taken by complete surprise by what has
happened to
the Belarusan
Wikipedia, i.e. the replacement of the
existing
bewiki (in "classical"
orthography by the incubator project in
("normative" orthography).
For one, there has, as far as I see, no
formal
request to close the
existing bewiki (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
).
To me it seems that the closure of a
large,
active
wiki must not go ahead without a prior
proposal
and debate.
Second, given the deadlock in the new
languages
creation process, I am
more than surprised, that for the new
bewiki
an
exception was
possible.
Third, the most desirable path to be taken
would
have been to have a
single bewiki which accepts both variants,
just as
enwiki accepts both
British and American English. Have there
been
serious efforts in this
direction, prior to the current decision?
A
Belarusan user says at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_projects_subcommittees/Languages...
,---- | That was the only cause, by which it was
used
mostly in be.wiki; but
| both systems were allowed to be used,
and
so-called "current" variant
| was also used there by minority which
preferred
it, and they didn't
| have any obstacles to contribute;
administration
welcomed contributors
| in all grammar versions. `----
If this is true, I don't see, why the
closure
of
the old bewiki was
inevitable.
Even if the two camps cannot be
reconciled, I
don't believe that the
closure of the existing project was
necessary.
The
proponents of the
Belarusan normative wikipedia had
requested
bel.wikipedia.org rather
than be.wikipedia.org. Both projects could
have
existed in
parallel. This may be an ugly solution,
but
the
current one is even
uglier.
Next, what strikes me is an apparent lack
of
transparency. At
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Belarusi...
I read:
,---- | The normative Belarusian Wikipedia has
been
created at
| be.wikipedia.org, with the alternative
Belarusian Wikipedia moved to
| be-x-old.wikipedia.org by decision of
the
board
of trustees on
| recommendation by the language
subcommittee.
`----
I would say, that those who take such a
drastic
decision, that risks
to deter a large number of committed
authors,
should be required to
deliver a full explanation of their
decision.
The
above brief
announcement is clearly insufficient.
And lastly, if I understand the
announcement
at
http://be.wikipedia.org correctly, the old
bewiki
has been frozen, but
no decision has been taken concerning its
future.
This is just totally
incomprehensible to me. If langcom and the
board
of trustees make a
dramatic and far-reaching decision, they
should
make a /full/
decision, not a halfhearted one, which
essentially
leaves the existing
conflict open.
Forth,
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html