So, to summarize
Until a little while ago, the only requirement was that 5 people show interest. It did not matter that these 5 were trolls, or were regulars, or even voted 3 months ago.
I suggested a change in policy, requiring that amongst these 5 people, at least 2 are regular editors of at least one of our projects. You agreed with this suggestion.
One week later, you would like to change it again, and change the 2 regular editors requirement to a at least 2 editors are creating/translating policies on meta.
When I object that a project started by 5 totally unknown editors is likely to have problems respecting our basic principles, you answer that the requirement of being a long term editor is not a proof that the editor is well versed in our policy.
Though I agree with this statement, I consider it a fallacy. There is much much more chance that an editor having been for a while on a project is aware of our policies, and the fact he might NOT be is NO argument to support people with no experience is better than people with experience.
We do have three major points to consider
* understanding that the project is a collaboration, that a sysop is not the boss, and that being the sysop of a project absolutely does not mean that the sysop should restrict access to pages such as the main page.
* understanding our neutrality policy, which is not always easy for a newbie, and results sometimes in main page being covered with advertisement
* understanding our copyright policy; though less visible, it is for wikinews the more tricky one, and very likely the one most likely to get us in trouble.
When someone will start a new wikinews, it is VERY likely a wikipedia will already exist in that language, so there is no need to translate ANYTHING. THe editor can just go to the relevant projet language, and COPY the NPOV rules, copy the COPYRIGHT rules. Just copy and past text does not mean this text is understood, nor that it is applied.
If you mean by COPYING rules, just going to the english version and copying the rules of the english version, I will object that no project should exist which has no community able to make their own rules.
If you do want an example of what I mean, I invite you to visit http://wo.wikipedia.org
This is a new project. A group of editors from an african NGO want to work on it. For it to start, one of those guys asked me to be sysop on it (needed for decent start).
In his country, french is widely spoken, so he just copied french wikipedia rules. Then, as soon as he was sysop, he put some advertisement for his NGO on the main page, then when the main page was restored to a more neutral situation, he put back the advertisement (in good faith I am sure) and protected the main page.
In 24 hours, this editor, who want to nurture a group of at least 5 people, * broke the rule of neutrality (though he had copied them from fr) * broke the rule of collaborative writing (restricting access to main page to him only) * broke the rule of admin just being no more powerful than another editor (in reverting and protecting the page to his preference)
For all I know, the text he put on the main page could be under copyright as well.
In short, what you are asking is basically that we remove the requirement we just agreed upon, which was frankly not very demanding. Why did you agree on it to immediately remove your agreement ?
Anthere-
- activity shows interest, so avoid missed launches such as the french
wikinews one
Actually, it doesn't. French Wikinews would have passed the edit count requirements (haven't checked user duration); as you yourself said, Greudin is a very active user on fr.wikipedia and has pledged support for the French Wikinews, yet he has only made a handful of edits there.
Translating/creating policies seems to be a much better test of actual interest in doing work. Once you do that, that shows a commitment to the project.
- past activity of at least 2 editors on a wikipedia (for example)
indicates that at least 2 editors are aware of our basic principles and in particular NPOV requirement.
What better test could there be for people understanding a policy like NPOV than requiring them to translate it?
Again, the is a security measure. If 5 people, not even one oldby on one of our project, decide to launch a wikinews with no experience at all, there is rather high risk that some of our principles are not respected;
I don't see it that way. Just because someone has been on Wikipedia for months doesn't mean that they respect policies at all. Quantity is not quality, and measuring quality is almost impossible while keeping the process scalable and fair. One could even argue that malicious trolls or otherwise harmful users who know how to manipulate policies in their interest are more likely to come from our existing user base. In fact, Wikinews will especially attract people who are fed up with Wikipedia and want to work on another wiki.
and since it is not in a language we necessarily manage, it might go on for a long time.
This is more likely if key policies like NPOV are *not* translated. If we can agree on which parts of our policies are not negotiable, we can make sure that they are in place. One of these policies can even include instructions on what to do if your wiki doesn't follow the Wikimedia spirit (contact stewards etc.).
Future projects don't necessarily match our current userbase. To tie the process for creating new language editions directly to that userbase seems needlessly restrictive. Building a small community on Meta and writing key pages before launching the project is also simply good planning -- exactly the kind of thing that could have helped to prevent the current fr.wikinews.org situation, much more so than algorithmic requirements whose actual predictive value is very low, as that experience has shown.
Regards,
Erik
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Anthere wrote:
- understanding that the project is a collaboration, that a sysop is not the boss, and that being the sysop of a project absolutely does not mean that the sysop should restrict access to pages such as the main page.
Unfortunately main pages need to be protected more quickly than others. When a vandal alters the main page to redirect to his home page or to a porno page the effect can be to put the whole project off line until somebody can fix it. For a big project many knowledgeable people are available to react quickly, but it is also a greater magnet for vandals. A small project may have these problems less often, but it may stay there longer before being fixed. Solving this problem should be done in a way that minimizes damage to collaborativeness.
When someone will start a new wikinews, it is VERY likely a wikipedia will already exist in that language, so there is no need to translate ANYTHING. THe editor can just go to the relevant projet language, and COPY the NPOV rules, copy the COPYRIGHT rules. Just copy and past text does not mean this text is understood, nor that it is applied.
If you mean by COPYING rules, just going to the english version and copying the rules of the english version, I will object that no project should exist which has no community able to make their own rules.
Exactly! It makes me wonder about those people who feel that they cannot function unless they have previously adopted a complete system of rules. Except for broad questions of fundamental principles communities must preceed rules. Rules must then reflect the community and codify its practices. They must be sensitive to a changing zeitgeist. Sometimes we need to reflect on how centuries of paternalistic thought have affected the way we are today. In contrast to the diligent respect for rules, effecting real change requires counterintuitive action. It requires abandoning the cosy comfort zone that rules provide. Maybe there should be a law that whenever a politician gives a speech to his country's parliament he would need to do so with his clothes off.
If you do want an example of what I mean, I invite you to visit http://wo.wikipedia.org
This is a new project. A group of editors from an african NGO want to work on it. For it to start, one of those guys asked me to be sysop on it (needed for decent start).
In his country, french is widely spoken, so he just copied french wikipedia rules. Then, as soon as he was sysop, he put some advertisement for his NGO on the main page, then when the main page was restored to a more neutral situation, he put back the advertisement (in good faith I am sure) and protected the main page.
Perfectly predictable when the rules are nothing but words. - not to mention the enforced ambiguity that came from decolonisation.
Translating/creating policies seems to be a much better test of actual interest in doing work. Once you do that, that shows a commitment to the project.
People need to do both. Mere translation is a mechanical act. There is a need to discuss how those policies guide our activity. Policies beyond fundamental principles can and should vary between projects
Again, the is a security measure. If 5 people, not even one oldby on one of our project, decide to launch a wikinews with no experience at all, there is rather high risk that some of our principles are not respected;
I don't see it that way. Just because someone has been on Wikipedia for months doesn't mean that they respect policies at all. Quantity is not quality, and measuring quality is almost impossible while keeping the process scalable and fair. One could even argue that malicious trolls or otherwise harmful users who know how to manipulate policies in their interest are more likely to come from our existing user base.
We live in a security-obsessed society, where everyone seems to have forgotten that we are all mortal.
In fact, Wikinews will especially attract people who are fed up with Wikipedia and want to work on another wiki.
A common phenomenon that affects all projects. Most of us like to contribute without being trapped on a merry-go-round of bickering.
This is more likely if key policies like NPOV are *not* translated. If we can agree on which parts of our policies are not negotiable, we can make sure that they are in place. One of these policies can even include instructions on what to do if your wiki doesn't follow the Wikimedia spirit (contact stewards etc.)
Maybe that would have prevented the total shutdown that is taking place on the japanese wiktionary.
Yes the key policies do need to be translated, but only to the extent that they provide an operating framework. We all have a vision of what NPOV means, but its details are the subject of endless inconclusive debates. Too many people end up trying to call balls and strikes when they are standing in the outfield. They know the rulebook thoroughly, but they were holding the book upsidedown when they learned it.
Ec
Summary: my arguments are -basic rules should be established *before* the project should start -and it means a enough number of people who are experienced at the aim of project and/or our policies and ideals, like NPOV, but with some modifications and adoptations, if necessary -it is strongly recommanded the newly created community has a good preperation, specially if they had a waiting time before their reqeust would be approved.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:34:05 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you mean by COPYING rules, just going to the english version and copying the rules of the english version, I will object that no project should exist which has no community able to make their own rules.
Exactly! It makes me wonder about those people who feel that they cannot function unless they have previously adopted a complete system of rules. Except for broad questions of fundamental principles communities must preceed rules.
Agreed. The question is what are those "fundamental principles". We see each Wikimedia project has different opinion except NPOV and GFDL. Some communities count only board and the Founder's former instructions, other include other community based idea like "Be bold". So for saving a mess on some projects - wolof wp and ja wiktionary are unfortunate cases among ours - and for helping newly being created projects, it would be helpful to show what are our fundamental principals.
It is more than those principals are written in letters. It is true here "letters kill you, but the spilit makes you alive". Avoiding wo wp case, the community could understand those principals and apply to their actual cases. In my opinion this assertion has two corollaries: 1) those principals could be modified applying the actual experiences on the community and 2) for this purpose, that is, its good understanding there should be people who know the aim and mechanism of the project to some extent.
So it seems to me a reasonable requirement that a new project should be began by a certain number of experienced people who have been already active on some project. In most cases 50 edits are enough show their behaviour and their and understanding to the policies in my opinion, and it is different from shutting out newbies: it takes two days to make 50 major edits, if they spent whole a weekend for activity on wiki. (well I however admit it might be a view of heavy wikiholics prausibly ...)
On the other hand, I agree with Ray on that most of rules would however be developed on the community through their activities, not preceeding its creation. But to manage difficult cases experience on other projects is helpful: the people who commit a project and/or the entire Wikimedia project, if possible, with sufficient understanding of policies and its mechanism. So here we expect experienced people at the beginning point of a certain project. Or
Perfectly predictable when the rules are nothing but words.
such a situation would come up again, I assume.
Translating/creating policies seems to be a much better test of actual interest in doing work. Once you do that, that shows a commitment to the project.
People need to do both. Mere translation is a mechanical act. There is a need to discuss how those policies guide our activity. Policies beyond fundamental principles can and should vary between projects
So the question is what are "fundamental principles". I think we must make it clear and provide a set of those principles in a form as neutral as possible (not depending on a certain project but also refertable to some concrete cases for further understanding). For example, NPOV guidelein in NPOV (not depending on a certain language project matters) ... as a startpont for each participants who want to create a new project.
Maybe that would have prevented the total shutdown that is taking place on the japanese wiktionary.
We can point out some factors of JA wikt shutdown, though I myself was not wholely clear the situation; I had been very inactive there during some months. And after I was back, I was surprised there were no changes or progress on policies' drafting before I had left it. There were almost no discussion on Beer Parlour (VP of wiktionary). It makes me convince strongly a new project need both people who concern policies and administrative issues (though it is not so fun than submission of new entires) and eager submitter of contents.
My other email was written before I read this thread, sorry about that. However, my point remains the same, and I agree with many other things added on the subject, such as starting a wikinews with *only* five people, but I will leave it at that for now.
cheers,
Delphine
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
A common phenomenon that affects all projects. Most of us like to contribute without being trapped on a merry-go-round of bickering.
This is more likely if key policies like NPOV are *not* translated. If we can agree on which parts of our policies are not negotiable, we can make sure that they are in place. One of these policies can even include instructions on what to do if your wiki doesn't follow the Wikimedia spirit (contact stewards etc.)
Maybe that would have prevented the total shutdown that is taking place on the japanese wiktionary.
By the way... Ec and the others... what do you think of the shutdown of ja wiktionary ?
I am asking the question, because if I put in line
* shut down of wiktionary - after vote and decision by the japanese community only. No opposition clearly voiced after the shut down.
* opening of wikinews - after decision by Erik, with 5 editors support and against french community opinion - clear complaints after the opening.
* prospective opening of chinese wikinews - a poll made on meta show a lack of clarity on whether the decision should be made 1) with 5 editors or 2) with a global vote or 3) with a chinese vote
So, the least we can say, is that in terms of opening projects, or closing projects, is that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE :-)
Ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org