Lars Aronsson wrote:
Stephen Gilbert wrote:
On the English Wikipedia we play by the
"better safe than sorry"
rule: if an article appears to be a copyright violation, we remove it.
Who are "we"? A non-formal group of core contributors, or Bomis staff?
Is there a similar "we" for the non-English language Wikipediae?
Speaking (authoritatively, I suppose) for the Bomis staff, I think it
is both. What I mean is, I have a legal liability for copyright
violations, so I have to do something about it. However, as far as I
can tell, the "non-formal group of core contributors" agrees with me
on this.
I should point out that not everyone agrees on the moral status of
copyrights, nor on what the law should be. A few people bristled when
I called it "stealing", and since arguing about _that_ wasn't relevant
to my purposes, I reworded it. The main thing is just that we should
take pride in generating our own content in a non-controversial way.
It appears to me that Bomis actively "runs"
the English Wikipedia, and
almost don't care about the other languages.
Oh! Not true! I personally care very deeply about the other
languages. The problem is that all my caring in the world doesn't
help me with the fact that I only speak English. :-( (And a little
Japanese, but not even enough to hold a conversation. :-()
I welcome ideas on how we can better support the other wikipedias!
I think it would help
greatly to assign the role of a responsible editor to some person for
each language, perhaps Kurt Jansson or Stefan Rybo for the German, and
Linus Tolke for the Swedish Wikipedia. This would make Wikipedia more
like a franchising concept. The national wikipedias could be run on a
separate site (like wiki.rozeta.com.pl) if the responsible editor
("franchising owner") finds that useful. Bomis would own the name
Wikipedia and the concept and terms under which it is franchised.
At least loosely speaking, I'm all for this.
One thing is certain: the English wikipedia thrives to some extent
because Larry is working on it every day. But I can't afford to hire
someone to work on all the other languages. I'm happy to appoint
someone, but (a) I can't pay them, and (b) I'm not sure, given the
open nature of wikipedia, what that appointment would really mean. I
mean, anyone who wants to take charge of a non-english wikipedia can
do so, without me really having much to say about it. :-)
I do think it isn't a good idea to have separated doman names, because
I'm thinking that inter-linking between the wikipedias will be very
useful. And I think that keeping all the wikipedias on the same
software is a good thing for a variety of reasons.
I guess what I am saying is that the national
Wikipedias need a Larry,
and that there are people who can take on that role if they know the
role exists.
(No, I am not a candidate for editor of the Swedish Wikipedia.)
I have no objection to our designating someone as "in charge", but I'm
not sure how much it would really mean. Larry does a lot of work, day
in and day out, because I pay him.
--Jimbo