Here is a proposal regarding the governance of individual Wikimedia projects; http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Project_Governing_Committees
The idea is to give the members of each Wikipedia and all the other projects, the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierarchical control by the Board of Trustees.
I would be interested in any comments. Perhaps we can present it to the Board of Trustees for approval soon.
Alex R. (en:user:alex756)
On Jan 24, 2004, at 15:04, Alex T. wrote:
Here is a proposal regarding the governance of individual Wikimedia projects; http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Project_Governing_Committees
The idea is to give the members of each Wikipedia and all the other projects, the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierarchical control by the Board of Trustees.
Err... the members of each Wikipedia and all the projects already have the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierachical control by the Board of Trustees. Wikimedia exists primarily to provide material support (ie, servers and hosting) and maintain 'brand awareness' (the trademark, domain names), doesn't it?
Could you clarify exactly what a "governing committee" is charged with, and what sort of authority is is meant to have for what purpose? I'm seeing things about "content of a particular article or page on their wiki" which sounds rather new for "committees" to be involved with here.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
On Jan 24, 2004, at 15:04, Alex T. wrote:
Here is a proposal regarding the governance of individual Wikimedia projects; http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Project_Governing_Committees
The idea is to give the members of each Wikipedia and all the other projects, the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierarchical control by the Board of Trustees.
Err... the members of each Wikipedia and all the projects already have the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierachical control by the Board of Trustees. Wikimedia exists primarily to provide material support (ie, servers and hosting) and maintain 'brand awareness' (the trademark, domain names), doesn't it?
Could these points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I got another impression by reading the bylaws.
greetings, elian
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Err... the members of each Wikipedia and all the projects already have the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierachical control by the Board of Trustees. Wikimedia exists primarily to provide material support (ie, servers and hosting) and maintain 'brand awareness' (the trademark, domain names), doesn't it?
Could these points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I got another impression by reading the bylaws.
My understanding is that the bylaws are almost entirely legal statements, not really meaning to document "everyday practice". In theory, the board of directors controls everything. Why? Well, because the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers, and the board of directors controls the Wikimedia Foundation, at least legally. But in practice, they don't *run* Wikipedia.
I consider it highly unlikely that the board will be involved in the day-to-day running of any of the Wikipedias, which ought to continue to operate as they see fit. Meaning the English Wikipedia decides its own matters, the German Wikipedia decides its own matters, and so on. Each Wikipedia can formulate its own process (the English Wikipedia has recently instituted a mediation committee and an arbitration committee to resolve disputes), but these aren't *legal* processes (since that'd be a real pain to set up), they're just the internal organization of each Wikipedia. The legal setup is that the Board of Directors runs the non-profit organization, but in a presumably hands-off manner.
-Mark
From: "Elisabeth Bauer" elian@djini.de
Brion Vibber wrote:
On Jan 24, 2004, at 15:04, Alex T. wrote:
Here is a proposal regarding the governance of individual Wikimedia projects; http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Project_Governing_Committees
The idea is to give the members of each Wikipedia and all the other projects, the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierarchical control by the Board of Trustees.
Err... the members of each Wikipedia and all the projects already have the freedom to develop each project independently of any hierachical control by the Board of Trustees. Wikimedia exists primarily to provide material support (ie, servers and hosting) and maintain 'brand awareness' (the trademark, domain names), doesn't it?
If you want Wikimedia to be a real NPO it has to have some kind of structure.
Jimbo has decided to make it a membership organization, members get into disputes and they look to someone for resolution of those disputes. This is an attempt to give them a way to deal with those issues and to make sure that there is a clear distinction between the "official" board of trustees and any other structure that might exist so that there is no "hierarchy" between the Board of Trustees and the various projects beyond that which is necessary for the projects to legally be part of Wikimedia. If you want the benefits of NPO tax exempt status you need some structure. My suggestion is to make it as minimal and egalitarian as possible, each wikipedia community can do what it wants to do, if you want a lot of structure, o.k., if you want no structure, some minimal foothold for dealing with issues. I agree with you Brian, each project is independent but with so many people complaining that the Board of Trustees are a bunch of shills of Jimbo perhaps there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. This proposal is that line.
Regarding edit disputes, members already deal with that, this is just recognizing that the community of each Wikipedia project will have the right to decide these disputes in the way that they see fit with no interference from the outside power structure.
Could these points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I got another impression by reading the bylaws.
Why does everything have to be stated in the bylaws, the bylaws are just a general governing body document, they don't have anything to do with the day to day activities of the various Wikipedia projects, once again this is my point, keep the two things separate by saying they are separate and keeping some structure. The reporting requirement will be useful for Wikimedia's fundraising efforts and reporting to the IRS each year.
Alex756
Alex T. wrote:
My suggestion is to make it as minimal and egalitarian as possible, each wikipedia community can do what it wants to do, if you want a lot of structure, o.k., if you want no structure, some minimal foothold for dealing with issues. I agree with you Brian, each project is independent but with so many people complaining that the Board of Trustees are a bunch of shills of Jimbo perhaps there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. This proposal is that line.
And IMO seems to be a good line.
Could these points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I got another impression by reading the bylaws.
Why does everything have to be stated in the bylaws, the bylaws are just a general governing body document, they don't have anything to do with the day to day activities of the various Wikipedia projects,
The bylaws say otherwise at the moment - they give the board of trustees the right to interfere with the projects. And, giving you the same answer Jimmy gave the German wikipedians: this may be fine now, but we have to think of the situation in 20 years. Even in 20 years, it should be guaranteed that the welsh wikipedians decide over the policies of the welsh wikipedia, the wikibookists over wikibooks and so on.
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
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
The bylaws say otherwise at the moment - they give the board of trustees the right to interfere with the projects. And, giving you the same answer Jimmy gave the German wikipedians: this may be fine now, but we have to think of the situation in 20 years. Even in 20 years, it should be guaranteed that the welsh wikipedians decide over the policies of the welsh wikipedia, the wikibookists over wikibooks and so on.
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.
I'm not sure how you can really get an absolute guarantee of that though. If the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers, it has de facto control over everything, whether the bylaws say so or not. And even if the bylaws set up some sort of "self-government" for sub-Wikimedia entities, the bylaws can always be changed by a future Board of Trustees. Unless each Wikipedia is to purchase and administer its own servers, and choose its own name (other than "Wikipedia"), I don't see how we can have projects not be subordinate, at least in a legal and technical sense, to the main organization.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Unless each Wikipedia is to purchase and administer its own servers, and choose its own name (other than "Wikipedia"), I don't see how we can have projects not be subordinate, at least in a legal and technical sense, to the main organization.
Nor do I have any desire to ever see that happen. We are an _international_, _global_ project, not a series of _nationalistic_ projects following our own separate paths.
It is very important that steps be taken to ensure that those who don't speak English have their interests well represented, there is no question about that. But ensuring that is not the same thing as going down a path of balkanization.
--Jimbo
From: "Elisabeth Bauer" elian@djini.de
Alex T. wrote:
My suggestion is to make it as minimal and egalitarian as possible, each wikipedia community can do what it wants to do, if you want a lot of structure, o.k., if you want no structure, some minimal foothold for dealing with issues. I agree with you Brian, each project is independent but with so many people complaining that the Board of Trustees are a bunch of shills of Jimbo perhaps there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. This proposal is that line.
And IMO seems to be a good line.
Could these points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I got another impression by reading the bylaws.
Why does everything have to be stated in the bylaws, the bylaws are just a general governing body document, they don't have anything to do with the day to day activities of the various Wikipedia projects,
The bylaws say otherwise at the moment - they give the board of trustees the right to interfere with the projects. And, giving you the same answer Jimmy gave the German wikipedians: this may be fine now, but we have to think of the situation in 20 years. Even in 20 years, it should be guaranteed that the welsh wikipedians decide over the policies of the welsh wikipedia, the wikibookists over wikibooks and so on.
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.
There must be some ultimate forum for enforcing rules whomever makes them up. What this committee structure is stating is that each Wikipedia and other wikimedia project makes them up. The board of trustees is who has to deal with lawsuits, not individuals who are only voluntary commitees. The rules are ONLY enforceable by the Board, they may delegate them, let members make them up and do whatever they want but the Board is the final arbiter of those as it is protecting the corporate entity which is not just the servers, it is the sum of what Wikipedia is, that is what people are giving money for, to make sure Wikipedia keeps running, not just to make sure there is server hardware and bandwidth.
As far as what is going to happen in twenty years no one knows. The Bylaws do not give anyone any more certainty in this regard. They can be changed, any corporate document can be changed. Right now it can be changed by three people, later it will be five. I would rather that they delegate their authority to governing committees and let the governing committees run the individual Wikipedia and other wikimedia projects. As far as the future is concerned this is not the United States of Wikipedia or the European Union of Wikipedians, it is just a small group of volunteers having the time of their life creating the world's largest knowledge base encyclopedia. At this point that encyclopedia can exist even if Wikimedia dies a sudden death, so what is the big deal about a few bylaws that are required for a bunch of accountants and lawyers to justify their jobs. Let them have their bylaws I say and let's get on with making more Wikipedias! No one is going to start telling the Welsh Wikipedians what to do, except more Welsh speaking volunteers, you know that don't you? Isn't that obvious? What is Jimbo going to do, start finding translators to read every page on every different language Wikipedia to make sure that no one is breaking the rules? No, it is obviously going to be self enforcement. Each individual project makes its own rules, if there is some need for a final statement, i.e. you are banned from this project, then the Board of Wikimedia can just make a final statement for that committee. The committee can then rely upon the Board to make sure that the decision is implemented and in a way the Board of Trustees becomes a limited type of appeal just to make sure that there is nothing that would call Wikimedia's not-for-profit status into question. That's all. Why don't you see that?
Alex756
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.
I am suddenly having doubts. What I wrote below is my vision of Wikipedia (the big project) I have little vision of the other projects, perhaps could other people express their sentiments on those ? No one made any comments ? Does that mean everyone agree, or no one read ? :-)
I am serious there. Perhaps am I wrong on one of these points. I tried to state the core principles of the Wikipedias. Perhaps I made a mistake ? Perhaps for example, are we planning to make people pay for it in a while ?
Is there a ***charter*** somewhere ?
Mav, was there not a beginning of a draft of a charter somewhere ? Did not we have a discussion about that ?
I found http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_charter, with a very wise comment from Little Dan at the top
We need this. That is the charter that will set the ciment between the various languages.
We need a charter.
Don't you think ?
Anthere a écrit:
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.
Anthere wrote:
What I wrote below is my vision of Wikipedia (the big project) I have little vision of the other projects, perhaps could other people express their sentiments on those ?
I am serious there. Perhaps am I wrong on one of these points. I tried to state the core principles of the Wikipedias. Perhaps I made a mistake ? Perhaps for example, are we planning to make people pay for it in a while ?
Is there a ***charter*** somewhere ?
We need a charter.
Anthere a rit:
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.
The points that you make are certainly very good in principle. I may question a few details, but that does not detract from the big picture. To receive more comment you needed to say something more controversial. The problem is that most people would agree as I do.
The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the by-laws. Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle. Unfortunately, agreement appears to be the best way to ensure that nothing gets done. The most effective dictators are the ones who do not appear dictatorial. It's been a long time since I read it, but I think that Macchiavelli said something to that effect.. A parent cannot forbid a child's first steps out of a fear that the child could thereby hurt himself.
What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for criticism. It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks. Ownership in a project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods. For many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find alternative solutions.
In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it should never emphasize that. Rather it should emphasize a hands off approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling beyond that. That commitment should also be seen as a separate commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the way in which they participate in plain view across the project.
The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles. The principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have indicated that we may be stuck with it. The NPOV principle would remain as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of just what that means. Respect for copyright would remain a principle without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all circumstances..
Ec
Before any type of answer Ec...allow me...
As we move forward with software and social changes, I think it is imperative that I state clearly and forcefully my views on openness and the license. This page, like all wikipedia pages, is a living dynamic document which I will update and clarify as legitimate questions arise.
I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them. This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate fundamental level, this is how wikipedia will be run, period. (But have no fear, as you will see, below.)
1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty.
2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.
3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
4. Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus.
5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.
6. The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the Wikipedia itself.
7. Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just bitches without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.
8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way.
--- Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
- Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open
community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty.
Yea
- Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal,
there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
Yea
- "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on
everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
Sacred, no. But a guiding principle.
- Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We
need to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus.
Software gets developed poorly by commitees. I'd be careful on that one.
- The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are
fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.
Yea
- The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Yea
The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the Wikipedia itself.
Huh?
- Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and
dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list. Anyone who just bitches without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk.
In Principle, Yea. In reality: live and let live.
- Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are
objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way.
Yea
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Christopher Mahan a écrit:
--- Anthere anthere8@yahoo.com wrote:
Yea
Thanks Christopher for all the yea ! :-) But I did not write all that of course :-)
Thank you, Anthere, for stating so clearly everything :) Just making a few comments here & there, please take'em as my own views on things.
For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.
The only issue i can see is that, if the algorithm is opened, you may be sure some people will try to abuse it. So better make sure it's really working :)
- Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need
to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus.
Gradual yes. Reversible, really depends. A database format change, for instance, can be pretty hard to reverse. Ultimately, yes, as long it contributes to the community as a whole, it's a Good Thing to improve the software.
- The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are
fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.
Spirit rather than letter, i would say. Because how for instance do you identify the 5 main contributors of an article? Pretty hard question, isn't it? <grin> I think we need to discuss on a case basis, when a potential violation is spotted.
- The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the Wikipedia itself.
Hum. If the topic is a concern for only one language, i think the best place to discuss it is on the language's wikipedia itself. Because you can be sure all contributors have access to it. On mailing lists means some people will just not subscribe. International matters, some main channel must be decided, whether it is Metawiki, mailing lists, smoke signals, whatever :)
Nicolas 'Ryo'
Nicolas Weeger a écrit:
Thank you, Anthere, for stating so clearly everything :) Just making a few comments here & there, please take'em as my own views on things.
Nicolas...you must be joking :-) I did not write that. I never state things clearly like this :-))
It is something that was written in the first year of Wikipedia. I do not know exactly when, for it is anterior to the software phase II. Problably the first months. I love historical texts. I am glad to see that Christopher agreed with it.
No one else made any comment though There is the problem. Three years ago, we had a statement of principles, while only one person was supporting the whole project
Now, we are trying to set association, and we have none.
Here is a sentence I would have loved to see in a global charter we would all have adopted together
We agree to * respect the autonomy of member associations, but require of all adherence to WikiMedia mission, and commitment to quality, openness and respect of members
...or anything similar ...with above description of WikiMedia mission
--------------------
For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.
The only issue i can see is that, if the algorithm is opened, you may be sure some people will try to abuse it. So better make sure it's really working :)
- Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. We need
to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community, as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the community consensus.
Gradual yes. Reversible, really depends. A database format change, for instance, can be pretty hard to reverse. Ultimately, yes, as long it contributes to the community as a whole, it's a Good Thing to improve the software.
- The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_ nature of it, are
fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to use our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.
Spirit rather than letter, i would say. Because how for instance do you identify the 5 main contributors of an article? Pretty hard question, isn't it? <grin> I think we need to discuss on a case basis, when a potential violation is spotted.
- The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the Wikipedia itself.
Hum. If the topic is a concern for only one language, i think the best place to discuss it is on the language's wikipedia itself. Because you can be sure all contributors have access to it. On mailing lists means some people will just not subscribe. International matters, some main channel must be decided, whether it is Metawiki, mailing lists, smoke signals, whatever :)
Nicolas 'Ryo'
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Anthere wrote:
And...I think that is just about it.
The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the by-laws. Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle.
Bylaws are just a requirement for applying for a tax exemption. There is no reason that a some kind of "Charter" document be adapted and the bylaws could be changed if there is something inconsistent.
Look at Canada, they had a constitution (Act of 1867) for more than 100 years before they adopted a Charter.
What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for criticism. It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks. Ownership in a project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods.
I think there is a confusion about what the Wikipedia community is versas the means of production, i.e. Wikimedia provides the means, we provide the community, not the other way around. I see no reason to have a few trustees who are making sure the money is spent for the not-for-profit purpose to which Wikimedia was founded. All this talk about "dictators" is a bit overblown IMO, but then again, who am I?
For many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find alternative solutions.
In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it should never emphasize that. Rather it should emphasize a hands off approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling beyond that. That commitment should also be seen as a separate commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the way in which they participate in plain view across the project.
As far as I know none of those Trustees participate in any of the Wikipedia projects and even if they did, would it matter, would they have any more rights than anyone else to edit a page? NO.
They are just trustees to make sure that we can continue having an organization and the funding need to buy new hardware. The minimal amount of oversight they have is just needed to create some boundaries so that Wikipedia does not turn into a bunch of vanity sites. I think anyone would say that Wikipedia has gotten so big that noone can really stop it. A lot of what it is comes from collaboration and the more people that get involved the more that seems to be true.
Alex756
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
The points that you make are certainly very good in principle. I may question a few details, but that does not detract from the big picture. To receive more comment you needed to say something more controversial. The problem is that most people would agree as I do.
Ah, hummm, right. Good idea. Okay, I'll focus on saying controversial things in the next few weeks then :-) I suppose that is something I could do.
The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the by-laws. Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle. Unfortunately, agreement appears to be the best way to ensure that nothing gets done. The most effective dictators are the ones who do not appear dictatorial. It's been a long time since I read it, but I think that Macchiavelli said something to that effect.. A parent cannot forbid a child's first steps out of a fear that the child could thereby hurt himself. What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for criticism. It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks. Ownership in a project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods. For many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find alternative solutions.
In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it should never emphasize that. Rather it should emphasize a hands off approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling beyond that. That commitment should also be seen as a separate commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the way in which they participate in plain view across the project.
The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles. The principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have indicated that we may be stuck with it. The NPOV principle would remain as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of just what that means. Respect for copyright would remain a principle without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all circumstances..
Ec
Shall we make a controversial charter then ?
...ou...après tout...on est chez les fous :-)
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
it should be guaranteed that the welsh wikipedians decide over the policies of the welsh wikipedia, the wikibookists over wikibooks and so on.
No, we are a single unified international project. There are policies which are global, and the Foundation will defend those policies.
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.
No, there are certain things that I have always said, from the beginning, are enforceable rules. That won't change.
If the Welsh wikipedia community votes to implement a policy whereby only pre-approved contributors may contribute, or that only contributions of a certain political type will be permitted, or whatever, the power will always remain with the international project as a whole to say, "No, you can't do that."
This idea of each wikipedia being entirely and completely autonomous is just a complete nonstarter, and has been from the beginning of the entire project.
At the same time, I have always also firmly said that there's absolutely no reason why the exact rules and policies of the English-language wikipedia should be enforced in other languages, other cultures. The broad gist of things, sure, but the details may vary to some extent based on a vast number of local factors.
And so, if the English wikipedia voted that some policy has to be implemented in the Welsh community whereby only pre-approved contributors may contribute, or that only contributions of a certain political type will be permitted, or whatever, the power will always remain with the international project as a whole to say "No, you can't do that."
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org