Amir Elisha Aharoni wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 21:09, Yoni Weiden
<yonidebest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The question is - shouldn't there be one set
of standards for all
Wikipedias?
I do think that there should be one set of standards for all
languages. But it may be hard to enforce it on an existing community.
No, because we are not able to reach a concensus across all the language
communities. Thus each project community should reach their own
concensus. Personally I find this diversity also a very good thing
because one can always get ideas from other projects, good ones to
follow, bad ones to avoid or to change.
WMF can try and enforce copyright policy or maybe
Biographies of
Living People policy, because these issues may have severe legal
implications, but it is next to impossible to enforce Notability or
Verifiability policies.
correct. And in the example BLP the resolution of the board is
purposefully so soft. It only urges the communities to notice the
problem and to take care about it, it didn't say what each individual
community must do, in respect of the autonomy of the projects.
Few he-wikipedians care about it, but he.wikipedia did
quite well for
several years without a clear written policy on any of the following:
Living People, Notability, Original Research and Verifiability. All
decisions on these matters are made ad hoc. To our friends from
en.wikipedia it must seem surreal :)
No, this is the ideal state. Actually I don't like written rules. Rules
are dead things and often they don't really fit to the actual situation.
If one can discuss every case and reach a concensus without a fix rule
this is for me the best case. But this only works in a relatively small
community and doesn't fit a very big and diverse community.
--
Ting
Ting's Blog:
http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/