Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit:
are there any other policies that you consider global?
Neutrality (NPOV) as expressed in my original exposition of the
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (there can be some cultural variation in
what is considered appropriate for an encyclopedia versus a
dictionary, but my point is just that Wikipedia is not a joke book or
a personal chat site, etc.)
There's probably some other things that I'm forgetting right now, but
that's the essence of it. Decisions about how to select sysops or
exactly what to do about particular trolls are so case-specific and
culture-specific that it would be silly of us to imagine that non-en
wikipedias will follow the same path.
Things like naming conventions or style conventions are going to be
highly culture and language specific.
Indeed, I would imagine that some of the younger/smaller wikis will
learn from the mistakes of the older/larger wikis.
Even the detailed implementation of a broad rule like "no personal
attacks" is going to be culture specific to a degree.
I might add that another current global rule is one of openess and
freedom of participating. We welcome everyone to participate, whatever
the gender, age, social background, level of education, citizenship
etc... We do not request real name, we do not even request pseudonyme.
If one wikipedia was beginning to restrict participation, by for
example, requesting that the editor provides due diploma to prove his
educational background to be able to contribute, or a signature from a
husband or father to authorize a woman to edit, or for a user to pay to
be able to become a wikiholic, then, there would be a serious problem.
Note that this global rule of openess overlaps with the "no personal
attacks". When one feels threatened, be it by one editor or by the
community, then, there is no more openess really.