Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content policies, but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be something that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should be localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research" diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline policies pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages, so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad
Hi, Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are 24 communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_Policies_and_Guideli... There are three types of issues: a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing keeping a project in mind) b) Enforce them c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
Thanks Tito Dutta Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind me over email or phone call.
On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content policies, but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be something that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should be localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research" diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline policies pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages, so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap forward and the community that develops the project can develop these policies as they grow. It also means that as part of the jump these pages will need to have been translated as well.
note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are 24 communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_ Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf There are three types of issues: a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing keeping a project in mind) b) Enforce them c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
Thanks Tito Dutta Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind me over email or phone call.
On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research" diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages, so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned. That view is probably not very popular.
Jeblad
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap forward and the community that develops the project can develop these policies as they grow. It also means that as part of the jump these pages will need to have been translated as well.
note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are 24 communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_ Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf There are three types of issues: a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing keeping a project in mind) b) Enforce them c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
Thanks Tito Dutta Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
remind
me over email or phone call.
On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research" diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English, will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is independant,
JP
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned. That view is probably not very popular.
Jeblad
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap forward and the community that develops the project can develop these policies as they grow. It also means that as part of the jump these
pages
will need to have been translated as well.
note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
24
communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_ Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf There are three types of issues: a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing keeping a project in mind) b) Enforce them c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
Thanks Tito Dutta Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
remind
me over email or phone call.
On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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. And a project with thirty users and a thousand articles will not be well served by some of the rules that make sense for projects with thousands of active editors and millions of articles.
That being said, having some baseline stuff as a point of reference isn't a bad idea, but individual projects should be free to modify or reject any parts that don't make sense for them.
Todd
On Aug 2, 2017 4:24 PM, "Jean-Philippe Béland" jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English, will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is independant,
JP
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned. That view is probably not very popular.
Jeblad
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big
leap
forward and the community that develops the project can develop these policies as they grow. It also means that as part of the jump these
pages
will need to have been translated as well.
note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
24
communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment,
please
see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_ Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf There are three types of issues: a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but
localizing
keeping a project in mind) b) Enforce them c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
Thanks Tito Dutta Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
remind
me over email or phone call.
On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
the
smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
about
original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
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].
Things are not so simple. 0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#Neutral_point_of_view%E2%8... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
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
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
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
I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy from Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com 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].
Things are not so simple. 0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair# Neutral_point_of_view 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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
I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there. If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the process. Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become via a forced cascade to the communities. I for one could never support any process being created as a means to take away from the community its own solutions
On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy from Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com 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].
Things are not so simple. 0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair# Neutral_point_of_view 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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
Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there. If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the process. Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become via a forced cascade to the communities. I for one could never support any process being created as a means to take away from the community its own solutions
On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy
from
Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com
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].
Things are not so simple. 0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair# Neutral_point_of_view 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by coincidence. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Erling Blad Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there. If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the process. Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become via a forced cascade to the communities. I for one could never support any process being created as a means to take away from the community its own solutions
On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy
from
Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com
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].
Things are not so simple. 0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair# Neutral_point_of_view 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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=unsubscrib e
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
I believe policies on subprojects of Wikipedia are common by necessity, while the policies of Wikipedia and Wiktionary are common by coincidence.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by coincidence. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Erling Blad Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there. If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the process. Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become via a forced cascade to the communities. I for one could never support any process being created as a means to take away from the community its own solutions
On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy
from
Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com
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].
Things are not so simple. 0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair# Neutral_point_of_view 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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=unsubscrib e
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
Citation needed, Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Erling Blad Sent: Thursday, 03 August 2017 8:45 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
I believe policies on subprojects of Wikipedia are common by necessity, while the policies of Wikipedia and Wiktionary are common by coincidence.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by coincidence. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Erling Blad Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there. If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the process. Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become via a forced cascade to the communities. I for one could never support any process being created as a means to take away from the community its own solutions
On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy
from
Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com
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].
Things are not so simple. 0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair# Neutral_point_of_view 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
-- ~Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
address
is in a personal capacity. _______________________________________________ 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=unsubscr ib e
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=unsubscrib e
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
What happens now is that policies from enwiki is adopted "as is", but a lot of the rules enwiki does not make sense at all.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English, will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is independant,
JP
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned. That view is probably not very popular.
Jeblad
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big
leap
forward and the community that develops the project can develop these policies as they grow. It also means that as part of the jump these
pages
will need to have been translated as well.
note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
24
communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment,
please
see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_ Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf There are three types of issues: a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but
localizing
keeping a project in mind) b) Enforce them c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
Thanks Tito Dutta Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
remind
me over email or phone call.
On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
the
smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
about
original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hello, i wrote something about a comparison of conent policies and will have a presentation at wikicon, but at the momemt i am not at my home computer. Kind regards ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Mi. 2. Aug. 2017 um 18:19:
I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned. That view is probably not very popular.
Jeblad
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap forward and the community that develops the project can develop these policies as they grow. It also means that as part of the jump these
pages
will need to have been translated as well.
note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
24
communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_ Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf There are three types of issues: a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing keeping a project in mind) b) Enforce them c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
Thanks Tito Dutta Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
remind
me over email or phone call.
On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:05 AM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
<snip>
Precedent has
that the Board of Trustees can issue resolutions urging communities to adopt certain policies, such as the resolution on Biographies of Living People in 2009 [0].
0. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp. Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content policies, but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be something that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should be localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research" diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline policies pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages, so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and process, not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp. Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research" diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages, so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned and blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best guide to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and process, not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp. Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research" diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
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
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned and blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best guide to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
process,
not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp. Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um 14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned
and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
process,
not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp. Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
without
local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
Even
if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
from
the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
the
smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
about
original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of the number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally shared and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines what is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and very subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um 14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned
and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
process,
not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution,
and
those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
en.wp.
Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
alone
maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
without
local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
long
as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
Even
if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
from
the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
the
smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
should
be
localized if necessary.
Checking Meta I find
policy
I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
about
original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
point
of
view"…
Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central
user
pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
would
have
more "ownership" of them.
The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks,
Wiktionary, etc).
Jeblad _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are highly troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and very subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community
that
create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
banned
and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects,
but
meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot
of
time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
process,
not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution,
and
those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
en.wp.
Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all
the
different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
alone
maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
without
local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
long
as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
Even
if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did
not
realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
from
the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
change
the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
small
communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com: > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
content
policies, > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot
of
the
> smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
> takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not
be
something > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
> able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
should
be > localized if necessary. > > Checking Meta I find > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some
sound
baseline
> policies, and with the option for local projects to refine
those?
Perhaps
> with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
> diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
about
> original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
> neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
point
of
> view"… > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those
baseline
policies > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central
user
pages,
> so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
would
have
> more "ownership" of them. > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks,
> Wiktionary, etc). > > Jeblad > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are highly troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
and
characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles
on
the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
very
subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability
to
discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community
that
create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
banned
and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
best
guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
ince a
project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects,
but
meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
lot
of
time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
process,
not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
wrote:
> The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
and
> those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
> safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
en.wp.
> Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all
the
> different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
with
> little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
alone
> maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
without
> local context. > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
long
> as some kind of discussion happens within the community about
it.
Even
> if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did
not
> realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
from
> the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
change
> the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
small
> communities. > > Strainu > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <jeblad@gmail.com
:
> > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
content
> policies, > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a
lot
of
the
> > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
> > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not
be
> something > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they
should
simply
be > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
should
> be > > localized if necessary. > > > > Checking Meta I find > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy
> > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some
sound
baseline > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine
those?
Perhaps > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
> > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should
be
about
> > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
> > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
point
of
> > view"… > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those
baseline
> policies > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central
user
pages, > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
would
have > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks,
> > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > Jeblad > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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:
> 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:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies. Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
and
characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
very
subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
much
importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that
create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
banned
and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
best
guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
ince a
project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but
meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
lot
of
time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
and
process, > not increase them. > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
and
> > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
> > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
en.wp.
> > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
all
the
> > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
with
> > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement,
let
alone
> > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
without
> > local context. > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just
as
long
> > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about
it.
Even
> > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community
did
not
> > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
from
> > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
change
> > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
small
> > communities. > > > > Strainu > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
:
> > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
content
> > policies, > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a
lot
of
the
> > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should
not
be
> > something > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they
should
simply > be > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
should > > be > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy
> > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some
sound
> baseline > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine
those?
> Perhaps > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
research" > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should
be
about
> > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at
some
projects
> > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
point
of > > > view"… > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those
baseline
> > policies > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
user
> pages, > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
would
> have > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks,
> > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > Jeblad > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
2017-08-08 12:20 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia.
Each version of Wikipedia is a different encyclopedia. There are vastly different inclusion policies and general policies between the different encyclopedias out there, what links them is that they provide information from all areas of knowledge.
This is about core content policies. Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite world history to focus on their own local view.
Having a policy about it does not solve the issue. Having a policy one can't really change will make it even worse.{{citation needed}} :)
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
and
characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
very
subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
much
importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
> discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that
> create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
banned
and > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
best
guide > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
ince a
> project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community. > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but
> meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
lot
of
> time. > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
and
> process, > > not increase them. > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
and
> > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
> > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
en.wp.
> > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
all
the
> > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
with
> > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement,
let
alone
> > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
without > > > local context. > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just
as
long
> > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about
it.
Even > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community
did
not
> > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
from > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
change
> > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
small
> > > communities. > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
:
> > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
content
> > > policies, > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a
lot
of
the > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. > It > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should
not
be
> > > something > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they
should
> simply > > be > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
> should > > > be > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some
sound
> > baseline > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine
those?
> > Perhaps > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> research" > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should
be
about > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at
some
projects > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
point > of > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those
baseline
> > > policies > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
user
> > pages, > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
would > > have > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks,
> > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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:
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
No, the projects are not that different. Actually I believe the claim that they are so very different is counterproductive. Now we can't make common solutions because a few people on *some* project blocks the roll-out. For example, we could make solutions for quality improvement, but some project claim they have a superior process (actually very few have a real quality process).
Violations of neutral point of view is perhaps the most troublesome. Check out how Nazis from WWII is described in the various versions of "Wikipedia", you will be amazed.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2017-08-08 12:20 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia.
Each version of Wikipedia is a different encyclopedia. There are vastly different inclusion policies and general policies between the different encyclopedias out there, what links them is that they provide information from all areas of knowledge.
This is about core content policies. Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
Having a policy about it does not solve the issue. Having a policy one can't really change will make it even worse.{{citation needed}} :)
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
culture is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
but
there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
and
the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
analysis
of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links,
words,
and
characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
that
high-quality standards in information presentation are not
globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
and
very
subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
much
importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017
um
14:42:
> Five pillars are moot. > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
> > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that
> > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
for
banned
> and > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
are
> > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
the
best
> guide > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
ince a
> > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community. > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but
> > meta is not a place that the content creating community
spends a
lot
of
> > time. > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
and
> > process, > > > not increase them. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
and > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
> > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
little
> > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff
from
en.wp. > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
all
the
> > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not
have,
with
> > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement,
let
alone > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
> without > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different,
just
as
long > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community
about
it.
> Even > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community
did
not
> > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
> from > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying
to
change
> > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult
for
small
> > > > communities. > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
:
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same
core
content
> > > > policies, > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all,
because a
lot
of
> the > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only
partial
> policies. > > It > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies
should
not
be
> > > > something > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they
should
> > simply > > > be > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
> > should > > > > be > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make
some
sound
> > > baseline > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to
refine
those?
> > > Perhaps > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> > research" > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It
should
be
> about > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at
some
> projects > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
> point > > of > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those
baseline
> > > > policies > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
user > > > pages, > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
> would > > > have > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > 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
> > > > 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies. Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture
is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links,
words,
and
characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
that
high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
and
very
subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
much
importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
> discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that
> create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
banned
and > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
are
> atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
the
best
guide > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
ince a
> project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community. > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but
> meta is not a place that the content creating community spends
a
lot
of
> time. > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
and
> process, > > not increase them. > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
and
> > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
> > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
little
> > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff
from
en.wp.
> > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
all
the
> > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
with
> > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement,
let
alone
> > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
without > > > local context. > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different,
just
as
long
> > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community
about
it.
Even > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community
did
not
> > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
from > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying
to
change
> > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult
for
small
> > > communities. > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
:
> > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
content
> > > policies, > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because
a
lot
of
the > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only
partial
policies. > It > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should
not
be
> > > something > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they
should
> simply > > be > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
> should > > > be > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make
some
sound
> > baseline > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to
refine
those?
> > Perhaps > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> research" > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It
should
be
about > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at
some
projects > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
point > of > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those
baseline
> > > policies > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
user
> > pages, > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
would > > have > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks,
> > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets more complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances by bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to collect the sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language) from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies. Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
culture
is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
but
there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
global
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
and
the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
analysis
of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links,
words,
and
characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
that
high-quality standards in information presentation are not
globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
and
very
subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
pf
much
importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017
um
14:42:
> Five pillars are moot. > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
> > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that
> > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
for
banned
> and > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
are
> > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
the
best
> guide > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes
live,
ince a
> > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
community.
> > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but
> > meta is not a place that the content creating community
spends
a
lot
of
> > time. > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
and
> > process, > > > not increase them. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
and > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
> > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
little
> > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff
from
en.wp. > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta
on
all
the
> > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not
have,
with
> > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to
implement,
let
alone > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
> without > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different,
just
as
long > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community
about
it.
> Even > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the
community
did
not
> > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
> from > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying
to
change
> > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult
for
small
> > > > communities. > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
:
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same
core
content
> > > > policies, > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all,
because
a
lot
of
> the > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only
partial
> policies. > > It > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies
should
not
be
> > > > something > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in,
they
should
> > simply > > > be > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
> > should > > > > be > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make
some
sound
> > > baseline > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to
refine
those?
> > > Perhaps > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> > research" > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It
should
be
> about > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at
some
> projects > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
> point > > of > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if
those
baseline
> > > > policies > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
user > > > pages, > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
> would > > > have > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > 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
> > > > 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
I agree with Strainu's comments above.
I described some issues with adopting policies and ill-fitting policies under the Community Governance capacity page, in the Community Capacity Development program:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development/Community_gov...
A.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:09 PM Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets more complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances by bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to collect the sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language) from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
policies.
Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
view.
The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
culture
is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
but
there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
global
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
and
the
> preferred standards of presenting information based on article > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
analysis
of
the > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
words,
and
> characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
> the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
> and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
demonstrate
that
> high-quality standards in information presentation are not
globally
shared > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
what > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
> entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
> knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but
local
and
very
> subjective. >
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
> The number of pillars depends on the language version... > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
pf
much
> importance > Ziko > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug.
2017
um
14:42: > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
> > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
for
banned > > and > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator
that
are
> > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give
them
the
best
> > guide > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes
live,
ince a
> > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
community.
> > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community
spends
a
lot
of > > > time. > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
and
> > > process, > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
> and > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep
the
projects > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
little
> > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push
stuff
from
> en.wp. > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta
on
all
the > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not
have,
with
> > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to
implement,
let
> alone > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
> > without > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different,
just
as
> long > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community
about
it.
> > Even > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the
community
did
not > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
> > from > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and
trying
to
change > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more
difficult
for
small > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
: > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same
core
content > > > > > policies, > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all,
because
a
lot
of > > the > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only
partial
> > policies. > > > It > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep
them
updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies
should
not
be > > > > > something > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in,
they
should
> > > simply > > > > be > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The
central
policies > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
> policy > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make
some
sound > > > > baseline > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to
refine
those? > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> > > research" > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It
should
be
> > about > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise,
at
some
> > projects > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
> > point > > > of > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if
those
baseline > > > > > policies > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
> user > > > > pages, > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
> > would > > > > have > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects
(Wikipedia,
> Wikibooks, > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > 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
> > > > > 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
> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GN. > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". (I would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for this.) If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate the fact, how can there be the information?
Sorry, this does not make sense.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets more complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances by bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to collect the sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language) from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
policies.
Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
view.
The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
culture
is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
but
there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
global
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
and
the
> preferred standards of presenting information based on article > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
analysis
of
the > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
words,
and
> characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
> the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
> and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
demonstrate
that
> high-quality standards in information presentation are not
globally
shared > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
what > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
> entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
> knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but
local
and
very
> subjective. >
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
> The number of pillars depends on the language version... > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
pf
much
> importance > Ziko > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug.
2017
um
14:42: > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
> > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
for
banned > > and > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator
that
are
> > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give
them
the
best
> > guide > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes
live,
ince a
> > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
community.
> > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community
spends
a
lot
of > > > time. > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
and
> > > process, > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
> and > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep
the
projects > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
little
> > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push
stuff
from
> en.wp. > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta
on
all
the > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not
have,
with
> > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to
implement,
let
> alone > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
> > without > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different,
just
as
> long > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community
about
it.
> > Even > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the
community
did
not > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
> > from > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and
trying
to
change > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more
difficult
for
small > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
: > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same
core
content > > > > > policies, > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all,
because
a
lot
of > > the > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only
partial
> > policies. > > > It > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep
them
updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies
should
not
be > > > > > something > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in,
they
should
> > > simply > > > > be > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The
central
policies > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
> policy > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make
some
sound > > > > baseline > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to
refine
those? > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> > > research" > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It
should
be
> > about > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise,
at
some
> > projects > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
> > point > > > of > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if
those
baseline > > > > > policies > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
> user > > > > pages, > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
> > would > > > > have > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects
(Wikipedia,
> Wikibooks, > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > 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
> > > > > 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
> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GN. > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to determine the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades? Surely by now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of knowledge that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and continues to be raised for? Why not just point to that common position that everyone has signed up to?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". (I would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for this.) If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate the fact, how can there be the information?
Sorry, this does not make sense.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources
is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
source
to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets more complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances by bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to collect
the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address
the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
culture(language)
from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
policies.
Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
view.
The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
culture
is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
_content_,
but
there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
global
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
culture
and
the
> > preferred standards of presenting information based on
article
> > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
analysis
of
> the > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
words,
and > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
demonstrate
that
> > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
globally
> shared > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
> what > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
> > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
> > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but
local
and
very > > subjective. > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > The number of pillars depends on the language version... > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to
be
pf
much
> > importance > > Ziko > > > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug.
2017
um
> 14:42: > > > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away
the
ability
to > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
> that > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the
opportunity
for
> banned > > > and > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator
that
are
> > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give
them
the
best > > > guide > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes
live,
ince a > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
community.
> > > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
> but > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community
spends
a
lot > of > > > > time. > > > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
and
> > > > process, > > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, > > and > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep
the
> projects > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
little
> > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push
stuff
from
> > en.wp. > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on
meta
on
all
> the > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not
have,
with > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to
implement,
let
> > alone > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to
rule
pushing
> > > without > > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is
different,
just
as
> > long > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the
community
about
it. > > > Even > > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the
community
did
> not > > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently > > > from > > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and
trying
to
> change > > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more
difficult
for
> small > > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
>: > > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the
same
core
> content > > > > > > policies, > > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all,
because
a
lot > of > > > the > > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only
partial
> > > policies. > > > > It > > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep
them
> updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies
should
not
> be > > > > > > something > > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in,
they
should > > > > simply > > > > > be > > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The
central
> policies > > > > should > > > > > > be > > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
> > policy > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to
make
some
> sound > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to
refine
> those? > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> > > > research" > > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources.
It
should
be > > > about > > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia.
Likewise,
at
some
> > > projects > > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge
from
creators > > > point > > > > of > > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if
those
> baseline > > > > > > policies > > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects
like
central
> > user > > > > > pages, > > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus
the
projects > > > would > > > > > have > > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects
(Wikipedia,
> > Wikibooks, > > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > GN. > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > 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>
> > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia. It is part of the reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not so".
On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to determine the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades? Surely by now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of knowledge that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and continues to be raised for? Why not just point to that common position that everyone has signed up to?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance".
(I
would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for this.) If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate the fact, how can there be the information?
Sorry, this does not make sense.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and
make
it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources
is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
source
to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets more complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part
of a
multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances
by
bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to collect
the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address
the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
culture(language)
from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
policies.
Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
view.
The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
culture
is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
_content_,
but
> there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_
that
are
highly > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. > Armenian genocide for example. > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
global
abstract
> > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
culture
and
the > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on
article
> > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
analysis
of > > the > > > number of images, references, internal links, external
links,
words,
> and > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and
Featured
articles > on > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity
of
> approaches > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
demonstrate
that
> > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
globally
> > shared > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
> > what > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
> > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
> > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but
local
and
> very > > > subjective. > > > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version... > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem
to
be
pf
much > > > importance > > > Ziko > > > > > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug.
2017
um
> > 14:42: > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away
the
ability > to > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from
the
community > > that > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the
opportunity
for
> > banned > > > > and > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > > > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the
Incubator
that
are
> > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give
them
the
> best > > > > guide > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project
goes
live,
> ince a > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
community.
> > > > > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for
the
projects, > > but > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community
spends
a
> lot > > of > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
and > > > > > process, > > > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by
board
> resolution, > > > and > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to
keep
the
> > projects > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people
with
little
> > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push
stuff
from
> > > en.wp. > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on
meta
on
all > > the > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does
not
have,
> with > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to
implement,
let > > > alone > > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to
rule
pushing > > > > without > > > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is
different,
just
as > > > long > > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the
community
about
> it. > > > > Even > > > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the
community
did > > not > > > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can
evolve
> differently > > > > from > > > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and
trying
to
> > change > > > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more
difficult
for
> > small > > > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad < jeblad@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the
same
core
> > content > > > > > > > policies, > > > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all,
because
a
> lot > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or
only
partial
> > > > policies. > > > > > It > > > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and
keep
them
> > updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content
policies
should
not > > be > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time
in,
they
> should > > > > > simply > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The
central
> > policies > > > > > should > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/The_no_original_research_ > > > policy > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to
make
some
> > sound > > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects
to
refine
> > those? > > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without
"no
original > > > > > research" > > > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources.
It
should
> be > > > > about > > > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia.
Likewise,
at
some > > > > projects > > > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge
from
> creators > > > > point > > > > > of > > > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice
if
those
> > baseline > > > > > > > policies > > > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects
like
central > > > user > > > > > > pages, > > > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus
the
> projects > > > > would > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects
(Wikipedia,
> > > Wikibooks, > > > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > GN. > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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:
> 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>
>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history. I would not have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had. I am expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the movement can rally round.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough < richard@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia. It is part of the reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not so".
On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to determine the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades? Surely
by
now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
knowledge
that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and continues to be raised for? Why not just point to that common position that everyone has signed up to?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
"knowledge
communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance".
(I
would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
this.)
If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate
the
fact, how can there be the information?
Sorry, this does not make sense.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and
make
it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
sources
is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
source
to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets
more
complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part
of a
multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances
by
bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to
collect
the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
address
the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
culture(language)
from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
create
something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
policies.
Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point
of
view.
The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so
who's
culture
is > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
policies.
> > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
_content_,
but
> > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that
content.
> > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_
that
are
> highly > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. > > Armenian genocide for example. > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies
being
global
abstract
> > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
culture
and
> the > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on
article
> > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary
research
analysis
> of > > > the > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external
links,
words, > > and > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and
Featured
> articles > > on > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high
diversity
of
> > approaches > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
demonstrate
that > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are
not
globally
> > > shared > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's
influence
determines > > > what > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective”
but
local
and > > very > > > > subjective. > > > > > > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk <
zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version... > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem
to
be
pf
> much > > > > importance > > > > Ziko > > > > > > > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3.
Aug.
2017
um
> > > 14:42: > > > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take
away
the
> ability > > to > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from
the
> community > > > that > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the
opportunity
for
> > > banned > > > > > and > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a
community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the
Incubator
that
are > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you
give
them
the > > best > > > > > guide > > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project
goes
live,
> > ince a > > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for
the
> projects, > > > but > > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating
community
spends
a > > lot > > > of > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
> and > > > > > > process, > > > > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu < strainu10@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by
board
> > resolution, > > > > and > > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to
keep
the
> > > projects > > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people
with
little > > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to
push
stuff
from > > > > en.wp. > > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC
on
meta
on
> all > > > the > > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does
not
have,
> > with > > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to
implement,
> let > > > > alone > > > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to
rule
> pushing > > > > > without > > > > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is
different,
just > as > > > > long > > > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the
community
about > > it. > > > > > Even > > > > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the
community
> did > > > not > > > > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can
evolve
> > differently > > > > > from > > > > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository
and
trying
to > > > change > > > > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more
difficult
for > > > small > > > > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad < > jeblad@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the
same
core
> > > content > > > > > > > > policies, > > > > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly
all,
because
a > > lot > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or
only
partial > > > > > policies. > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and
keep
them
> > > updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content
policies
should
> not > > > be > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time
in,
they
> > should > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The
central
> > > policies > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/The_no_original_research_ > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation
to
make
some > > > sound > > > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local
projects
to
refine > > > those? > > > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without
"no
> original > > > > > > research" > > > > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external
sources.
It
should > > be > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia.
Likewise,
at
> some > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not
diverge
from
> > creators > > > > > point > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice
if
those
> > > baseline > > > > > > > > policies > > > > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual
projects
like
> central > > > > user > > > > > > > pages, > > > > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects.
Thus
the
> > projects > > > > > would > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects
(Wikipedia,
> > > > Wikibooks, > > > > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > > > > ______________________________
> > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > GN. > > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/
wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > 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> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GN. > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
> > > > > > -- > GN. > President Wikimedia Australia > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
Probably that is verifiability.
On 11 Aug 2017 12:31, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history. I would not have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had. I am expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the movement can rally round.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough < richard@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia. It is part of the reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not so".
On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be,
towards
the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to
determine
the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades? Surely
by
now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
knowledge
that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and continues to be raised for? Why not just point to that common position that everyone has signed up to?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
"knowledge
communicated or received concerning a particular fact or
circumstance".
(I
would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
this.)
If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate
the
fact, how can there be the information?
Sorry, this does not make sense.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way
you
look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information
and
make
it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
sources
is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient
paper
source
to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how
to
"Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets
more
complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its
part
of a
multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and
circumstances
by
bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it
self
changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to
collect
the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
address
the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
culture(language)
from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
create
> something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
policies.
> Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral
point
of
view.
> The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
projects
rewrite > world history to focus on their own local view. > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so
who's
culture > is > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
policies.
> > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
_content_,
but > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that
content.
> > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_
that
are
> > highly > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. > > > Armenian genocide for example. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies
being
global > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/
abstract
> > > > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
culture
and > > the > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on
article
> > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary
research
analysis > > of > > > > the > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external
links,
> words, > > > and > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and
Featured
> > articles > > > on > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high
diversity
of
> > > approaches > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
demonstrate
> that > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are
not
globally > > > > shared > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's
influence
> determines > > > > what > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for > encyclopedic > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for > encyclopedic > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective”
but
local
> and > > > very > > > > > subjective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk <
zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language
version...
> > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not
seem
to
be
pf > > much > > > > > importance > > > > > Ziko > > > > > > > > > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3.
Aug.
2017
um > > > > 14:42: > > > > > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take
away
the
> > ability > > > to > > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus
from
the
> > community > > > > that > > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the
opportunity
for > > > > banned > > > > > > and > > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a
community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the
Incubator
that
> are > > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you
give
them
> the > > > best > > > > > > guide > > > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project
goes
live, > > > ince a > > > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis
for
the
> > projects, > > > > but > > > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating
community
spends > a > > > lot > > > > of > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad < jeblad@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance > > and > > > > > > > process, > > > > > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu < > strainu10@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by
board
> > > resolution, > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required
to
keep
the
> > > > projects > > > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise,
people
with
> little > > > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to
push
stuff
> from > > > > > en.wp. > > > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC
on
meta
on > > all > > > > the > > > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp
does
not
have, > > > with > > > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, > > let > > > > > alone > > > > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you
to
rule
> > pushing > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is
different,
> just > > as > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the
community
> about > > > it. > > > > > > Even > > > > > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and
the
community > > did > > > > not > > > > > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can
evolve
> > > differently > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository
and
trying
> to > > > > change > > > > > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more
difficult
> for > > > > small > > > > > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad < > > jeblad@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually
the
same
core > > > > content > > > > > > > > > policies, > > > > > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly
all,
because > a > > > lot > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or
only
> partial > > > > > > policies. > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and
keep
them
> > > > updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content
policies
should > > not > > > > be > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of
time
in,
they > > > should > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta.
The
central
> > > > policies > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/The_no_original_research_ > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation
to
make
> some > > > > sound > > > > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local
projects
to
> refine > > > > those? > > > > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate,
without
"no
> > original > > > > > > > research" > > > > > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external
sources.
It
> should > > > be > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia.
Likewise,
at
> > some > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not
diverge
from
> > > creators > > > > > > point > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really
nice
if
those > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > policies > > > > > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual
projects
like
> > central > > > > > user > > > > > > > > pages, > > > > > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects.
Thus
the
> > > projects > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects
(Wikipedia,
> > > > > Wikibooks, > > > > > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________
> > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > GN. > > > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/
wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > GN. > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
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
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
Well, data becomes information becomes knowledge. Information imply organization of data, and knowledge imply processing of information.
The description "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance" is from a dictionary, and I won't tell which one. It is not entirely correct. The description "facts told, heard, or discovered" is from Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, ISBN 9780194311410
If you can't communicate a fact, because it is like "exposing an ancient paper source to intense UV light", then other might say it is a moot fact.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history. I would not have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had. I am expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the movement can rally round.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough < richard@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia. It is part of the reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not so".
On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be,
towards
the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to
determine
the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades? Surely
by
now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
knowledge
that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and continues to be raised for? Why not just point to that common position that everyone has signed up to?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
"knowledge
communicated or received concerning a particular fact or
circumstance".
(I
would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
this.)
If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate
the
fact, how can there be the information?
Sorry, this does not make sense.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way
you
look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information
and
make
it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
sources
is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient
paper
source
to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how
to
"Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this gets
more
complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its
part
of a
multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and
circumstances
by
bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it
self
changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to
collect
the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
address
the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
culture(language)
from which it originates
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
create
> something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
policies.
> Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral
point
of
view.
> The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
projects
rewrite > world history to focus on their own local view. > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so
who's
culture > is > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
policies.
> > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
_content_,
but > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that
content.
> > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_
that
are
> > highly > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. > > > Armenian genocide for example. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies
being
global > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/
abstract
> > > > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
culture
and > > the > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on
article
> > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary
research
analysis > > of > > > > the > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external
links,
> words, > > > and > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and
Featured
> > articles > > > on > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high
diversity
of
> > > approaches > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
demonstrate
> that > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are
not
globally > > > > shared > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's
influence
> determines > > > > what > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for > encyclopedic > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for > encyclopedic > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective”
but
local
> and > > > very > > > > > subjective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk <
zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language
version...
> > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not
seem
to
be
pf > > much > > > > > importance > > > > > Ziko > > > > > > > > > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3.
Aug.
2017
um > > > > 14:42: > > > > > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take
away
the
> > ability > > > to > > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus
from
the
> > community > > > > that > > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the
opportunity
for > > > > banned > > > > > > and > > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a
community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the
Incubator
that
> are > > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you
give
them
> the > > > best > > > > > > guide > > > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project
goes
live, > > > ince a > > > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis
for
the
> > projects, > > > > but > > > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating
community
spends > a > > > lot > > > > of > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad < jeblad@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance > > and > > > > > > > process, > > > > > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu < > strainu10@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by
board
> > > resolution, > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required
to
keep
the
> > > > projects > > > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise,
people
with
> little > > > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to
push
stuff
> from > > > > > en.wp. > > > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC
on
meta
on > > all > > > > the > > > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp
does
not
have, > > > with > > > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, > > let > > > > > alone > > > > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you
to
rule
> > pushing > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is
different,
> just > > as > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the
community
> about > > > it. > > > > > > Even > > > > > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and
the
community > > did > > > > not > > > > > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can
evolve
> > > differently > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository
and
trying
> to > > > > change > > > > > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more
difficult
> for > > > > small > > > > > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad < > > jeblad@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually
the
same
core > > > > content > > > > > > > > > policies, > > > > > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly
all,
because > a > > > lot > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or
only
> partial > > > > > > policies. > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and
keep
them
> > > > updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content
policies
should > > not > > > > be > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of
time
in,
they > > > should > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta.
The
central
> > > > policies > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/The_no_original_research_ > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation
to
make
> some > > > > sound > > > > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local
projects
to
> refine > > > > those? > > > > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate,
without
"no
> > original > > > > > > > research" > > > > > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external
sources.
It
> should > > > be > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia.
Likewise,
at
> > some > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not
diverge
from
> > > creators > > > > > > point > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really
nice
if
those > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > policies > > > > > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual
projects
like
> > central > > > > > user > > > > > > > > pages, > > > > > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects.
Thus
the
> > > projects > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects
(Wikipedia,
> > > > > Wikibooks, > > > > > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________
> > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > GN. > > > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/
wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > GN. > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
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
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
John
I wasn't asking for an explanation or discussion of what contributors to this list think "knowledge" is or ought to be (fascinating and illuminating though that would doubtless be). I was suggesting that either someone point to the already-agreed and easily-available common and agreed definition of knowledge that the movement has been using in its mission (not to mention its fundraising), or an admission that such a thing does not yet exist. Do you know of such an agreed position, and if so, are you able to point to it?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:49 PM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Well, data becomes information becomes knowledge. Information imply organization of data, and knowledge imply processing of information.
The description "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance" is from a dictionary, and I won't tell which one. It is not entirely correct. The description "facts told, heard, or discovered" is from Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, ISBN 9780194311410
If you can't communicate a fact, because it is like "exposing an ancient paper source to intense UV light", then other might say it is a moot fact.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history. I would not have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had. I am expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the movement can rally round.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough < richard@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia. It is part of
the
reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply
not
so".
On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be,
towards
the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to
determine
the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades?
Surely
by
now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
knowledge
that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and continues to be raised for? Why not just point to that common
position
that everyone has signed up to?
"Rogol"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
"knowledge
communicated or received concerning a particular fact or
circumstance".
(I
would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
this.)
If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't
communicate
the
fact, how can there be the information?
Sorry, this does not make sense.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way
you
look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information
and
make
it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
sources
is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks
the
continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient
paper
source
to intense UV light.
There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how
to
"Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it . All of this
gets
more
complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its
part
of a
multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and
circumstances
by
bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it
self
changing the very nature of the knowledge. If our goal is to
collect
the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
address
the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
culture(language)
from which it originates
>
On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
> Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources. > > JP > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, <jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
create
> > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core
content
policies. > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral
point
of
view. > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
projects
> rewrite > > world history to focus on their own local view. > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so
who's
> culture > > is > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
policies.
> > > > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
_content_,
> but > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that
content.
> > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of
_facts_
that
are > > > highly > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. > > > > Armenian genocide for example. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra <
gnangarra@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies
being
> global > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/
abstract
> > > > > > > > > > This article explores the relationship between
linguistic
culture
> and > > > the > > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based
on
article
> > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary
research
> analysis > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > number of images, references, internal links,
external
links,
> > words, > > > > and > > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and
Featured
> > > articles > > > > on > > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high
diversity
of
> > > > approaches > > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate > > that > > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation
are
not
> globally > > > > > shared > > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's
influence
> > determines > > > > > what > > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary
for
> > encyclopedic > > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards
for
> > encyclopedic > > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and
“objective”
but
local > > and > > > > very > > > > > > subjective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk <
zvandijk@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language
version...
> > > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not
seem
to
be
> pf > > > much > > > > > > importance > > > > > > Ziko > > > > > > > > > > > > John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do.
Aug.
2017 > um > > > > > 14:42: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra < gnangarra@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take
away
the
> > > ability > > > > to > > > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus
from
the
> > > community > > > > > that > > > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the
opportunity
> for > > > > > banned > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a
community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the
Incubator
that > > are > > > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up
you
give
them > > the > > > > best > > > > > > > guide > > > > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that
project
goes
> live, > > > > ince a > > > > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop
its
> community. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis
for
the
> > > projects, > > > > > but > > > > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating
community
> spends > > a > > > > lot > > > > > of > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad < > jeblad@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen
the
> maintenance > > > and > > > > > > > > process, > > > > > > > > > not increase them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu < > > strainu10@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed
by
board
> > > > resolution, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required
to
keep
the > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise,
people
with
> > little > > > > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to
push
stuff > > from > > > > > > en.wp. > > > > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an
RFC
on
meta
> on > > > all > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp
does
not
> have, > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower
to
> implement, > > > let > > > > > > alone > > > > > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank
you
to
rule
> > > pushing > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is
different,
> > just > > > as > > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the
community
> > about > > > > it. > > > > > > > Even > > > > > > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and
the
> community > > > did > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it
can
evolve
> > > > differently > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized
repository
and
trying > > to > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much
more
difficult > > for > > > > > small > > > > > > > > > > communities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad < > > > jeblad@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually
the
same
> core > > > > > content > > > > > > > > > > policies, > > > > > > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly
all,
> because > > a > > > > lot > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated
or
only
> > partial > > > > > > > policies. > > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them
and
keep
them > > > > > updated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content
policies
> should > > > not > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of
time
in,
> they > > > > should > > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta.
The
central > > > > > policies > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/The_no_original_research_ > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia
Foundation
to
make
> > some > > > > > sound > > > > > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > > > policies, and with the option for local
projects
to
> > refine > > > > > those? > > > > > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate,
without
"no
> > > original > > > > > > > > research" > > > > > > > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external
sources.
It
> > should > > > > be > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia.
Likewise,
at > > > some > > > > > > > projects > > > > > > > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not
diverge
from
> > > > creators > > > > > > > point > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really
nice
if
> those > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > > policies > > > > > > > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual
projects
like
> > > central > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > pages, > > > > > > > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the
projects.
Thus
the
> > > > projects > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, > > > > > > Wikibooks, > > > > > > > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________
> > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > GN. > > > > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/
wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > GN. > > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > 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
> > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GN. > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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>
>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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
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
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
No, _verifiability_ can't be different, but _acceptance_ of oral sources can be different.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland <jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
JP
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies. Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
culture
is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
but
there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content. Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies. Armenian genocide for example.
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
global
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
and
the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
analysis
of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links,
words,
and
characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
articles
on
the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
approaches
and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
that
high-quality standards in information presentation are not
globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
encyclopedic
entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
encyclopedic
knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
and
very
subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
pf
much
importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017
um
14:42:
> Five pillars are moot. > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
ability
to
> > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
community
that
> > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
for
banned
> and > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community. > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
are
> > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
the
best
> guide > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes
live,
ince a
> > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
community.
> > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
projects,
but
> > meta is not a place that the content creating community
spends
a
lot
of
> > time. > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
maintenance
and
> > process, > > > not increase them. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
strainu10@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
resolution,
and > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
> > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
little
> > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff
from
en.wp. > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta
on
all
the
> > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not
have,
with
> > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to
implement,
let
alone > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
pushing
> without > > > > local context. > > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different,
just
as
long > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community
about
it.
> Even > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the
community
did
not
> > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
differently
> from > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying
to
change
> > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult
for
small
> > > > communities. > > > > > > > > Strainu > > > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
:
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same
core
content
> > > > policies, > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all,
because
a
lot
of
> the > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only
partial
> policies. > > It > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > > > > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies
should
not
be
> > > > something > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in,
they
should
> > simply > > > be > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
> > should > > > > be > > > > > localized if necessary. > > > > > > > > > > Checking Meta I find > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > > > > > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make
some
sound
> > > baseline > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to
refine
those?
> > > Perhaps > > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > > > > > > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no
original
> > research" > > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It
should
be
> about > > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at
some
> projects > > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from
creators
> point > > of > > > > > view"… > > > > > > > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if
those
baseline
> > > > policies > > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like
central
user > > > pages, > > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the
projects
> would > > > have > > > > > more "ownership" of them. > > > > > > > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, > > > > > Wiktionary, etc). > > > > > > > > > > Jeblad > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > 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
> > > > 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > 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>
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
Can we access this article with no pay wall anywhere?
JP
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:49 AM Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
preferred standards of presenting information based on article representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of
the
number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
shared
and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
what
is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and very subjective.
On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
The number of pillars depends on the language version... And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much importance Ziko
John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
14:42:
Five pillars are moot.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community
that
create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
banned
and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects,
but
meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot
of
time.
On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
process,
not increase them.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com
wrote:
The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution,
and
those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
projects
safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
en.wp.
Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all
the
different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
alone
maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
without
local context.
Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
long
as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
Even
if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did
not
realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
from
the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
change
the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
small
communities.
Strainu
2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com: > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
content
policies, > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot
of
the
> smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
policies.
It
> takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
updated.
> > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not
be
something > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
simply
be
> able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
policies
should
be > localized if necessary. > > Checking Meta I find > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_
policy
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability". > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some
sound
baseline
> policies, and with the option for local projects to refine
those?
Perhaps
> with assistance from editors on Wikipedia? > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
research"
> diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
about
> original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
projects
> neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
point
of
> view"… > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those
baseline
policies > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central
user
pages,
> so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
would
have
> more "ownership" of them. > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia,
Wikibooks,
> Wiktionary, etc). > > Jeblad > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
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:
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>
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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
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
-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org