On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 14:59 -0500, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/4/2009 7:47:50 AM Pacific
Standard Time,
brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org writes:
Yes I did. It still violates all the WMF
principles and policies
I've
left above. If the Serbian mission statement allows it - the WMF
will
withdraw approval for that mission statement and demand it be
revised.>>
Then we will elect new Foundation members, which is our right.
We'll take the old ones out behind the barn and beat them.
Good luck with that. You're massively outnumbered by the Wikipedians who
will find any WMF project running adverts utterly unacceptable.
The community drives the rules. The rules do not drive the community.
Do you have any other examples of the Foundation actually "demanding"
something that the community was against? Or demanding it stop
something that the community was for? I can't. This line of attack
undermines the community as the ultimate force behind all results. We
do not work for the foundation. The foundation works for us.
Go study up on all the documents relating to the rules, the policies,
the mission statements, the whole history and story of the Wikimedia
Foundation.
If it existed to serve whatever the hell the community works it would
allow members - it doesn't. You know why? To *protect the mission*. That
mission is not there for others to exploit for commercial purposes.
And you want an example of where they went against the community? Look
at Wikinews and fair use of images. Not only was there little to no
consideration of what contributors wanted (which was *within* the law).
There were plenty of eager footsoldiers ready to make us live by rules
we had little to no say in the formulation of.
--
Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.