I remind people about the existence of Wikia for things that diverge from the standards,
The point of calling something a Wikipedia is not just the inter-wiki links, but the expectation of the type of material and authorship that WP has been representing. There will obviously be variation, somewhat dependent on , frankly, national characteristics. It is not accidental that de is stricter about V & RS than en--to give a positive illustration. Some of it is legal systems--the European WPs can not accept fair use images.
Whether a WP is POV depends on where you view it from. We would expect some national POV. We would not expect it being taken over by a more specific group pushing a point. Whether a WP permits OR is also a continuum--there are continual discussions about how far "common sense" can be extended, & I wouldn't expect total agreement on that, or on BLP, or on anything that depended upon human interpretation of a general principle.
Some cannot be literal in execution, though they may be in principle. Even "no ownership"--in en WP there are some topics that are essentially owned, because the effort of the necessary editors to overcome this is not present. I might even accept a WP that allowed a particular state of an article to be signed. Some less-edited ones in practice are.
Some may be cases where the original WP implementation may have been too rigid: I would accept a WP that insisted on real names to edit articles., though I do not advocate it.
But some things are more specific: I do not think the Foundation should accept the use of the name by a WP that charges for access.
And even some principles have to be conceded: I would like it that no WP is censored, but I can think of some where this might not be a real possibility and that community would need to accept a safe degree of self-censorship.
I simply do not know whether I would accept a WP operated by an educational foundation of some sort--or conceivably even a government educational agency.
David Goodman DGG
On 2/26/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the point of your line of questioning.
Is this just slippery slope, or do you feel that Original Research is absolutely on par with the things you suggest?
-S
On 2/26/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Would you accept POV Wikipedias ? Would you accept Wikipedias that are not Free ? Would you accept Wikipedias where articles about the same subject state completely contradictory things .. one being in one language the second in another language ? Thanks, GerardM
On 2/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
Which ones, for example?
There are languages in which their Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia *ever* written in the language. I can hypothetically imagine such a Wikipedia allowing original research or even signed articles, Britannica-style.
("No ownership of articles" is a rule on en:wp, but I can imagine it not being one on other WMF wikis.)
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l