Elisabeth Bauer a écrit:
The wikimedia foundation is for keeping the servers running, collecting funds and defending the projects against legal threats, but not for enforcing rules (or a however defined code of ethics) upon all projects.
greetings, elian
Hummm....plus perhaps, what Jimbo has been defining from the very beginning of the project : a certain number of *core* issues which make all of us part of ONE big project, not a collection of loose ones.
To my opinion, as respect wikipedia itself (it might be slightly different for other projects) * it is a generalist encyclopedia, meant to gather free knowledge (-> gfdl) * it will make that information freely available to anyone (readers do not pay to read wikipedia) * in as many languages as possible * with free participation (everyone is welcome, regardless of his nationality, sex, color, age, education, and no one has to pay to participate) * with participants bound to be respectful of copyright issues, of neutrality requirement, and of other participants (three types of violation which are likely to grant banning)
And...I think that is just about it.
That is what Jimbo (and other core contributors) has been repeating over and over in the past three years. And I think that should be what the board job should also be about (on top on promotion, representation, and technical issues).
A guarantee that these core issues are always respected, no matter what. That no wikipedia will ever change the copyright, will ever ban people for their political opinion, will ever refuse participations from people with less than a phD...whatever
For this reason, articles such as Section 4.4., which states that
the Board of Trustees shall be empowered to order suspension of membership or the suspension of particular or specific user privileges at its sole discretion of any member upon receipt of a verified complaint of misconduct;
is not clear enough.
I think again at what I have been expecting (and what I still expect) from Jimbo as help.
I will only give one example : it is up to each local wikipedia to ensure that no disruptive individual mess things up. So, it is to each local wikipedia to decide who should be banned; Not to any board, whose members will not know the specificities of the local wikipedia, nor the bottom line of the issues at stack. However, if anyone does believe the banning was wrong, not in line with wikipedia core principles (such as banning someone for holding an undesirable political opinion), the issue should be brought in front of the board, and the board study the case, and eventually have the person unbanned.
Or declare that a wikipedia is not part of the wikipedia project if it is no more following the gfdl requirement.
That means in effect, that only few, but major decisions, should be taken by the board itself, as regards policies. Minor policies are not part of those. Perhaps, that should be explained more clearly in the current document.