Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
Each small Wikipedia doesn’t have all variety of policies and guidelines which major Wikipedias have, and—it’s obvious—some time or other they will need such a list of all-projects rules. What I found for now is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia with the rules of copyright, license, NPOV and “What Wikipedia is not”, but this page “is obsolete or no longer maintained” (and there is even no rule of “Five pillars”). There is also page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles exists, but it seems to be relevant for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedias (“Five pillars”, “What Wikipedia is not” are missed). There are some other pages exist, but they all are not relevant here as well.
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?
(This message was also posted to Wikimedia Forum on Meta).
Thanks, zedlik
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
Welcome to the club :)
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
No.
And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?
There is no such thing. There are particular practices, but, AFAIK, there is no one place where those practices are gathered.
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
No.
NPOV. Wikipedias which refuse it have been shut down.
- d.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
No.
NPOV. Wikipedias which refuse it have been shut down.
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
BTW, probably I missed that some Wikipedia was shut down because of violating NPOV. Which Wikipedias were shut down because of NPOV violation?
As well as I know for many community supported NPOV violations through various Wikipedias. As I don't want to point to the projects, here is the list of possible excuses for NPOV violation:
* Something is ugly. * Something is not according to some moral norms. * Too many references (~20 references for two pages text; page deleted). * Various ethnicist and nationalist reasons with well or not so well rationalizations.
Note that I am not talking about some edit war, but about a dominant opinion of not so small number of communities. And those are just dominant and generic excuses. A lot of others are well rationalized excuses used by many communities and defined (or not) inside of the policies. Sometimes the policy is a problem, but in much more cases systematic policy interpretation is a problem.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 21:27, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
Thank you, but not obligatory a list. I meant any form, even a number of rules written on this mailing list. Otherwise we (may) have a situation when, for instance, a user puts some inflammatory or divisive content on their user page and administrators are unable to delete it, until a policy which regulates this is adopted locally. NPOV and Wikimedia Founding principles regulate only "articles and other encyclopedic content" and can't be applied in this case.
Or even further, community could adopt a policy when divisive content is allowed on user pages. NPOV is not violated, Founding principles are not violated as well. So everything depends only on a local community. I don't think this is a common thing, but maybe it worth thinking about this now rather when we face this problem.
zedlik
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 21:27, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
Thank you, but not obligatory a list. I meant any form, even a number of rules written on this mailing list. Otherwise we (may) have a situation when, for instance, a user puts some inflammatory or divisive content on their user page and administrators are unable to delete it, until a policy which regulates this is adopted locally. NPOV and Wikimedia Founding principles regulate only "articles and other encyclopedic content" and can't be applied in this case.
Or even further, community could adopt a policy when divisive content is allowed on user pages. NPOV is not violated, Founding principles are not violated as well. So everything depends only on a local community. I don't think this is a common thing, but maybe it worth thinking about this now rather when we face this problem.
zedlik
Yes, some policy similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility is expected. I probably should have included it on my short list. However, I have faith that any Wikipedia will, through experience, learn that such a policy is required and adapt it. I think that is healthy, to develop policies as you learn from experience. They mean more. For example, when the aggrieved subjects of articles start leaning on you, you will adopt something similar to Biographies of living persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Fred Bauder
Fred Bauder wrote:
However, I have faith that any Wikipedia will, through experience, learn that such a policy is required and adapt it. I think that is healthy, to develop policies as you learn from experience. They mean more.
This is important, but in conflict with having pre-determined policies. A newly arrived person is not given the opportunity to learn through that kind of participation and experience. If he is told, "These are our policies," he is not made to feel that he has any ownership in these policies. Those who develop policies have a vested interest in their success, especially in regards to those policies that involved a hard fight before being adopted. They don't want to go through that fight again. So they protect their favorite policies, and sometimes impose a need for consensus to change where a consensus to adopt the policy wasn't always there in the first place.
Ec
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, but not obligatory a list. I meant any form, even a number of rules written on this mailing list. Otherwise we (may) have a situation when, for instance, a user puts some inflammatory or divisive content on their user page and administrators are unable to delete it, until a policy which regulates this is adopted locally. NPOV and Wikimedia Founding principles regulate only "articles and other encyclopedic content" and can't be applied in this case.
I don't think this is something that can be decided for all Wikipedias on beforehand. To me, this would fall under one rule that might be said to apply generally: ignore all rules. More specifically, if there is a situation that has a negative effect on a Wikipedia, and there are no local rules regarding the situation, anyone has the right to take the action that they seem best.
If we're talking about general rules, there are two that I can think of. The first is NPOV, which has already been mentioned, the second is GFDL. Or rather, free licensing. All Wikipedia material should be free as in speech. And reading through the foundation principles, I see a third: freedom to edit. Everyone should be free to edit (unless they have actually misused this right).
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 21:27, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
Thank you, but not obligatory a list. I meant any form, even a number of rules written on this mailing list. Otherwise we (may) have a situation when, for instance, a user puts some inflammatory or divisive content on their user page and administrators are unable to delete it, until a policy which regulates this is adopted locally.
Even english wikipedia was close to allow divisive and inflammatory content on an user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Visitant...
Becuase, ¡hey everyone is allowed to write about wikipedia on his userpage even if it's attacking other project even if account makes no other edits in years policy allows it and it's not about english wikipedia sysops
thankfully there are still admins with common sense. But the point is even in Wikipedias with a "complete" set of rules it's not enough to counteract trolls precisely because so many rules create so many loopholes for wikilawyers and rule worshippers
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 21:27, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
Thank you, but not obligatory a list. I meant any form, even a number of rules written on this mailing list. Otherwise we (may) have a situation when, for instance, a user puts some inflammatory or divisive content on their user page and administrators are unable to delete it, until a policy which regulates this is adopted locally.
Even english wikipedia was close to allow divisive and inflammatory content on an user page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Visitant...
Becuase, ¡hey everyone is allowed to write about wikipedia on his userpage even if it's attacking other project even if account makes no other edits in years policy allows it and it's not about english wikipedia sysops
thankfully there are still admins with common sense. But the point is even in Wikipedias with a "complete" set of rules it's not enough to counteract trolls precisely because so many rules create so many loopholes for wikilawyers and rule worshippers
From the deleted user page:
"Informe sobre la censura existente en la Wikipedia hispana
"El precio de la libertad es la eterna vigilancia"
¿Quién vigila a los vigilantes? (Quis custodiet ipsus custodes)"
Hard to know, without knowing Spanish, and doing some serious investigation whether this is an expose of a serious problem on the Spanish Wikipedia or just green ink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink
Thing is, there are always going to be problems, and the problems and issues on all Wikipedias are going to be similar, thus common principles apply.
Fred
"Informe sobre la censura existente en la Wikipedia hispana
"Report on censorship which exists in the Spanish Wikipedia"
"El precio de la libertad es la eterna vigilancia"
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
¿Quién vigila a los vigilantes? (Quis custodiet ipsus custodes)"
"Who watches the watchmen?"
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Hard to know, without knowing Spanish, and doing some serious investigation whether this is an expose of a serious problem on the Spanish Wikipedia or just green ink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink
Thing is, there are always going to be problems, and the problems and issues on all Wikipedias are going to be similar, thus common principles apply.
Google Translate helps. I read (almost) the whole page. It is a typical troll argumentation... Some informations may be put at pages of some politician, but other informations about other politicians may not. However, I didn't see any link to any reliable source; actually, I didn't see any mentioning of sources (except links to pages on es.wp). Without any doubt, the only solution for such contributors is indefinite ban because of trolling projects.
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
No.
NPOV. Wikipedias which refuse it have been shut down.
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
Yes, we could do with one.
BTW, probably I missed that some Wikipedia was shut down because of violating NPOV. Which Wikipedias were shut down because of NPOV violation?
I understand it was a factor in the shutdown of the old-Belarusian and Siberian wikipedias. Not the only thing, but a factor. I could be wrong here on its importance, of course.
- d.
The old Belarusan WP is still around; the overwhelming reason for the closure of ru-sib was language issues.
2009/4/9 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
No.
NPOV. Wikipedias which refuse it have been shut down.
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
Yes, we could do with one.
BTW, probably I missed that some Wikipedia was shut down because of violating NPOV. Which Wikipedias were shut down because of NPOV violation?
I understand it was a factor in the shutdown of the old-Belarusian and Siberian wikipedias. Not the only thing, but a factor. I could be wrong here on its importance, of course.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com wrote:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
No.
NPOV. Wikipedias which refuse it have been shut down.
The question was about a list which should exist somewhere (at Meta).
BTW, probably I missed that some Wikipedia was shut down because of violating NPOV. Which Wikipedias were shut down because of NPOV violation?
As well as I know for many community supported NPOV violations through various Wikipedias. As I don't want to point to the projects, here is the list of possible excuses for NPOV violation:
- Something is ugly.
- Something is not according to some moral norms.
- Too many references (~20 references for two pages text; page deleted).
- Various ethnicist and nationalist reasons with well or not so well
rationalizations.
Note that I am not talking about some edit war, but about a dominant opinion of not so small number of communities. And those are just dominant and generic excuses. A lot of others are well rationalized excuses used by many communities and defined (or not) inside of the policies. Sometimes the policy is a problem, but in much more cases systematic policy interpretation is a problem.
There will always be a residual area of failure to live up to ideals. The English Wikipedia has all of the problems you list, although perhaps in subtler forms. Those shortcomings are the source of continual discussion and, occasionally, serious conflict. It is up to those who edit in each language to work on resolution of these perennial problems. Only gross failure, or deliberate forking, would result in repudiation of a Wikipedia.
Fred Bauder
Milos Rancic wrote:
Note that I am not talking about some edit war, but about a dominant opinion of not so small number of communities. And those are just dominant and generic excuses. A lot of others are well rationalized excuses used by many communities and defined (or not) inside of the policies. Sometimes the policy is a problem, but in much more cases systematic policy interpretation is a problem.
A lot of communities will simply resent having a policy imposed upon them when they feel they could not participate adequately in the decision, even when a dispassionate look at the policy might produce different results. If you then tell them that they are responding irrationally the natural tendency is for them to dig in their heels.
I strongly agree with your last point. Systematic interpretation makes the place look like a police state, and leaves no room for good-faith innovation that does not fit in with the often monomanic police attitude toward rules.
Ec
I think the assumption is that any Wikipedia will adopt the general policies found on the English Wikipedia, but tailor them for local conditions. A project which wishes to significantly deviate from the general principles of everyone can edit, neutral point of view, and using reliable sources should probably be independent.
Perhaps it is time a definite policy is drafted and published.
Fred Bauder
Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
Each small Wikipedia doesnât have all variety of policies and guidelines which major Wikipedias have, andâitâs obviousâsome time or other they will need such a list of all-projects rules. What I found for now is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia with the rules of copyright, license, NPOV and âWhat Wikipedia is notâ, but this page âis obsolete or no longer maintainedâ (and there is even no rule of âFive pillarsâ). There is also page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles exists, but it seems to be relevant for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedias (âFive pillarsâ, âWhat Wikipedia is notâ are missed). There are some other pages exist, but they all are not relevant here as well.
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?
(This message was also posted to Wikimedia Forum on Meta).
Thanks, zedlik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think that the general principles are a perfectly acceptable "policy" and creating a compulsory policy is a bad idea. Each project needs the independence provided by the general principles. Due to the vast diversity of the Wikimedia family, we cannot make hard and fast rules and expect each prject to use them. Flexibility is a virtue.
________________________________ From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 11:00:32 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Compulsory policies for all Wikipedias
I think the assumption is that any Wikipedia will adopt the general policies found on the English Wikipedia, but tailor them for local conditions. A project which wishes to significantly deviate from the general principles of everyone can edit, neutral point of view, and using reliable sources should probably be independent.
Perhaps it is time a definite policy is drafted and published.
Fred Bauder
Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
Each small Wikipedia doesn’t have all variety of policies and guidelines which major Wikipedias have, and—it’s obvious—some time or other they will need such a list of all-projects rules. What I found for now is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia with the rules of copyright, license, NPOV and “What Wikipedia is not”, but this page “is obsolete or no longer maintained” (and there is even no rule of “Five pillars”). There is also page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles exists, but it seems to be relevant for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedias (“Five pillars”, “What Wikipedia is not” are missed). There are some other pages exist, but they all are not relevant here as well.
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?
(This message was also posted to Wikimedia Forum on Meta).
Thanks, zedlik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think the assumption is that any Wikipedia will adopt the general policies found on the English Wikipedia, but tailor them for local conditions. A project which wishes to significantly deviate from the general principles of everyone can edit, neutral point of view, and using reliable sources should probably be independent.
Perhaps it is time a definite policy is drafted and published.
I have consistently supported the five pillar approach. Four of these should apply to *all* Wikimedia projects, and the fifth, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia can only apply to the wikipedias. Indeed, the sister projects are all based on some departure from that pillar.
Important as it may be, reliable sources was not one of the original principles. It grew out of subsequent necessity, and has become an important second-level principle. It should not be accorded a higher status because of the inherent instability and unreliability of defining "reliable."
That everyone can edit and neutral point of view are important, as are free content and assuming good faith. Compared to the bureaucratic brick that Europe's functionaries would call a constitution the US Constitution is a model of brevity. Brevity is essential if a document is to receive the respect of the general population. Remove from the US Constitution all those plumbing bits, like limiting a president to two terms, that are unlikely to have an effect on the daily lives of the citizens, and the document is simpler still. Few, if any, countries receive such unquestioning support for their constitutions; in part, the ability of citizens to cite its main points is no doubt a factor in that support. Who can possibly cite, or even find, the principles that underlie the European constitutional document.
Suggesting that the general policies of the English Wikipedia should be adopted on other projects is counterproductive. There may have been a time to do this at a very early stages of the new projects, but that time is long past. However popular the current US president may be around the world doesn't change the fact that the citizens in the countries of the "free world" did not democratically elect him as their leader. Each existing project must have the opportunity to accept those principles, and the best way to insure that they do is to keep them simple and without interpretive embellishments. I already tend to believe that what we now have at [[WP:5]] is already too verbose.
Drafting and publishing a policy is one thing, but unless everyone has the opportunity to feel that it is consistent with their beliefs, it will not be viewed with respect. Addressing such issues was certainly a part of my vision for supporting the Volunteer Council last year.
Ec
Jaska Zedlik writes:
Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
I believe all projects should follow http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_principles. --vvv
Jaska Zedlik writes:
Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
I believe all projects should follow http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_principles. --vvv
That is a good start. Perhaps that is the page we should edit to make a policy. Civility is implicit in "The "wiki process" and discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism for all content."
Fred Bauder
Hello Jaska,
Not as "compulsory", but as helping I once started http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ziko/Basic_Wikipedia_and_help_pages My idea was and is that it is difficult for small Wikipedias to translate or adapt all of the pages of en.WP, that there should be a short list of short pages necessary to start with. Kind regards Ziko
2009/4/9 Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com
Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
Each small Wikipedia doesn’t have all variety of policies and guidelines which major Wikipedias have, and—it’s obvious—some time or other they will need such a list of all-projects rules. What I found for now is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia with the rules of copyright, license, NPOV and “What Wikipedia is not”, but this page “is obsolete or no longer maintained” (and there is even no rule of “Five pillars”). There is also page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles exists, but it seems to be relevant for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedias (“Five pillars”, “What Wikipedia is not” are missed). There are some other pages exist, but they all are not relevant here as well.
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?
(This message was also posted to Wikimedia Forum on Meta).
Thanks, zedlik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 2009-04-09 18:49:10 +0100, Jaska Zedlik jz53zc@gmail.com said:
Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
Each small Wikipedia doesn’t have all variety of policies and guidelines which major Wikipedias have, and—it’s obvious—some time or other they will need such a list of all-projects rules. What I found for now is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia with the rules of copyright, license, NPOV and “What Wikipedia is not”, but this page “is obsolete or no longer maintained” (and there is even no rule of “Five pillars”). There is also page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles exists, but it seems to be relevant for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedias (“Five pillars”, “What Wikipedia is not” are missed). There are some other pages exist, but they all are not relevant here as well.
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?
(This message was also posted to Wikimedia Forum on Meta).
Thanks, zedlik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Is censorship looked down on by most wikis?
I presume most wikis will refuse to take down contact due to laws in that language's main base (eg Chinese Wikipedia)?
Is censorship looked down on by most wikis?
I presume most wikis will refuse to take down contact due to laws in that language's main base (eg Chinese Wikipedia)?
Excellent question. I wonder about the Hebrew and the Arabic Wikipedias. Would, or could, either resist serious pressure by the Israeli government or the Saudi Arabian government, or God forbid, al Qaida?
Fred
Jaska Zedlik, 09/04/2009 19:49:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
Yes: e.g. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy (surprisingly not yet mentioned). But some wikis have non-free content and no Exemption Doctrine Policy, and don't want to respect this WMF resolution.
Nemo
Nemo_bis wrote:
Jaska Zedlik, 09/04/2009 19:49:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
Yes: e.g. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy (surprisingly not yet mentioned). But some wikis have non-free content and no Exemption Doctrine Policy, and don't want to respect this WMF resolution.
But even that is an elaboration of the more simple "Wikipedia is free content." So too is the heavily debated difference between GFD and CC Licences.
Ec
Ray Saintonge, 10/04/2009 23:51:
Nemo_bis wrote:
Jaska Zedlik, 09/04/2009 19:49:
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
Yes: e.g.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy
(surprisingly not yet mentioned). But some wikis have non-free content and no Exemption Doctrine Policy, and don't want to respect this WMF resolution.
But even that is an elaboration of the more simple "Wikipedia is free content."
Yes, but much simpler to apply: it is quite simple to determine if a wiki does not respect the Licensing policy, especially if it's so inconsiderate to not that it doesn't have an EDP. But would stewards delete non-free images (or images with no attribution or information at all) on a wiki without an EDP?
Nemo
Hello Jaska,
I think in principle we have the five pillars which should be hold by all wikipedia language versions.
The foundation restrains from putting up too much global policies, but there are foundation policies that also have implication to the projects. For example the privacy policy (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/d/d6/Privacy_Policy_Updated... ), the Access to Nonpublic Data Policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy ) and the Non Discrimination Policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy ). I expect the policy of Biography of Living Person to be published soon which would also have impact on the projects.
Ting
Jaska Zedlik wrote:
Hi!
It is totally clear that all the Wikipedias must respect and follow some particular policies which are global for all the Wikipedias. The question is what are these policies?
Each small Wikipedia doesn’t have all variety of policies and guidelines which major Wikipedias have, and—it’s obvious—some time or other they will need such a list of all-projects rules. What I found for now is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_start_a_new_Wikipedia with the rules of copyright, license, NPOV and “What Wikipedia is not”, but this page “is obsolete or no longer maintained” (and there is even no rule of “Five pillars”). There is also page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Founding_principles exists, but it seems to be relevant for all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikipedias (“Five pillars”, “What Wikipedia is not” are missed). There are some other pages exist, but they all are not relevant here as well.
So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
And one more question. What is the general practice of who and how can decide whether something meets the (all-project) rules or not?
(This message was also posted to Wikimedia Forum on Meta).
Thanks, zedlik
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org