2007/2/2, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
BTW, how many editions did even bother translating those damn pillars?? How many non-english wikipedians EVEN JUST KNOW that they exist?
Should all Wikipedias translate the pillars? Why? Would it necessarily work, if they did?
Most of the projects probably have lots to learn from enwiki, since it is the oldest project and with all its flaws still somehow works despite its size. Most projects have at one stage or another imported policy pages and similar from enwiki, or from another wiki that took it from enwiki. Today however, whatever rules that should be imposed on all projects should come from the WMF, not English Wikipedia.
The five pillars [1] is, to my knowledge, a compilation of basic policy created on English Wikipedia. There are other enwiki policy compilations as well, but it seems the pillars is the one most commonly referred to. I once a board member ,what policy a Wikipedia has to follow, and got the answer that probably these are only three: that the content should be free (GFDL), encyclopaedic and neutral. You can compare the pillars with for instance the foundation issues page at meta [2] which, interestingly, mentions the "wiki process" - a badly defined concept that may or may not be identical to the basic consensus based process of a wiki [3] and that is not mentioned in the Pillars.
The project that I have been most active at has a compilation of "basic principles" [4] very similar to the pillars with one exception. This wiki never imported or reinvented "Ignore all rules", which is the fifth of the enwiki pillars. I don't think there is anything that tries to make them, or tells them they should, import that concept from English Wikipedia. I personally believe they might gain from doing so, but that is another issue - and a process of much larger scope, and much more painful, than simply translating a page. Personally I believe the concensus process a.k.a. wiki process is equally important as Ignore all rules, and deserves a central place in whatever policy compilation you have. Others might disagree, of course.
/habj
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus [4] http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Grundprinciperna
Hi!
Should all Wikipedias translate the pillars? Why? Would it necessarily work, if they did?
Now this is an interesting subject. AFAIK, pillars ARE mandatory for all editions. If not just let me know, pms.wiki will be extremely happy in getting rid of the "no original research" limit. I'm sure most soviet wikies will be very happy to get rid of the NPOV principle, as well.
Not sure the board will be happy in being flooded by a tide of weird cases originated by wikies who decided that creationism is pillar, etc etc...
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Now this is an interesting subject. AFAIK, pillars ARE mandatory for all editions. If not just let me know, pms.wiki will be extremely happy in getting rid of the "no original research" limit. I'm sure most soviet wikies will be very happy to get rid of the NPOV principle, as well.
This has never been fully articulated on the Foundation level. It should be, in collaboration with the community, for a "Wikipedia mission statement" (something we should, I believe, have for all our projects).
Hi Erik :)
This has never been fully articulated on the Foundation level. It should be, in collaboration with the community, for a "Wikipedia mission statement" (something we should, I believe, have for all our projects).
I'm shocked :) Anyway, I can only welcome reality and reality says it's Independence Day. I quit monitoring eastern wikis as there can't be any violation where there's no rule.
I will inform my community that we have no mandatory framework that can stop anyone from proposing whatever they will, thus including *original research; *possible paid ads published by template inclusion *a Wikimedia Chapter to manage what we cash from them
Pls DO publish a draft for the mission statement asap, so that I can try and propose it as an official PMS.wiki policy and start to spread its adoption.
BTW, how can we activate a mailing list for small wikies only? Given all this freedom maybe it's time we forget about major sisters and start to speak to each other more frequently than we did thus far.
Cereja Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
I'm shocked :) Anyway, I can only welcome reality and reality says it's Independence Day. I quit monitoring eastern wikis as there can't be any violation where there's no rule.
It's not that simple. The Board can, and has, encouraged intervention when key principles have been violated. Just because a rule is not yet written does not mean that it is not a rule. We can, and in my opinion will, be explicit about these principles. In the meantime, another unwritten global rule to follow is "Don't disrupt Wikimedia to make a point." :-)
Hoi, So how do you make a point. Would you say that the Wikimedia Foundation cares enough that a point can be made without disruption, without ruffled feathers by some, without many people being against ??
Do you argue that the WMF can make a point without creating some disruption??
Thanks, GerardM
Erik Moeller schreef:
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
I'm shocked :) Anyway, I can only welcome reality and reality says it's Independence Day. I quit monitoring eastern wikis as there can't be any violation where there's no rule.
It's not that simple. The Board can, and has, encouraged intervention when key principles have been violated. Just because a rule is not yet written does not mean that it is not a rule. We can, and in my opinion will, be explicit about these principles. In the meantime, another unwritten global rule to follow is "Don't disrupt Wikimedia to make a point." :-)
Hi!
Just because a rule is not yet written does not mean that it is not a rule.
No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are aware of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you wish. Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood is the ABC of dictatorial states. I acknowledge that it's done for a good cause, yet it cannot be accepted anyway.
Don't disrupt Wikimedia to make a point.
It's the last thing I want to do. Pls DO publish the draft and I'll do my best to spread it. But I will not impose any rule by asserting that there IS a rule where in fact there is none.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are aware of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you wish. Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood is the ABC of dictatorial states.
We're not a nation state but an online community of people freely associating around a clearly identified cause (to build an encyclopedia, to write a dictionary, and so on). We need not spell out every single possible behavior that would be detrimental to that identified cause, though we should be clearer about the broad principles that help us to achieve it.
Hoi, When you say that we are an on-line community, you are basically wrong. We are many communities. We do not share one cause; as you state yourself we have many causes. Not stating that the NPOV is an essential part of our efforts is a major failing because there are projects that fail this criteria. By not stating that this is essential to a Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation does not have the moral right to intervene where this is lacking.
When you argue that we have to be clear what our principles are, when you mean that NPOV is one of these principles. Please say so. At some stage the WMF will say what the minimum requirements are with respect to licensed materials in our projects. I think the notion of NPOV is more important than the notion of freely licensed material. The notion of providing information without bias is much more relevant than the information being Free.
I will immediately state that the notion of Freely licensed information is dear to me. However what is its value if it is biased, when you are left guessing if the data is intended to be the best it can be or that you have to appreciate what the bias of any of a WMF project is. A bias that can be different depending on the language...
No, it is absolutely vital to be clear about what the basis is of our projects. Free and NPOV have to be core values for all of our projects in all of our languages.
Thanks, GerardM
On 2/26/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are
aware
of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you
wish.
Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood
is
the ABC of dictatorial states.
We're not a nation state but an online community of people freely associating around a clearly identified cause (to build an encyclopedia, to write a dictionary, and so on). We need not spell out every single possible behavior that would be detrimental to that identified cause, though we should be clearer about the broad principles that help us to achieve it.
-- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi!
We're not a nation state but an online community of people freely associating around a clearly identified cause (to build an encyclopedia, to write a dictionary, and so on).
Sorry, Erik. I do NOT mean to be polemic, yet I don't see how this can be understood from anyone not being an average western open source activist. We ask the planet to be telepathic, and that's more than I can accept.
Writing an encyclopedia is not enough to get rid of POV (cfr soviet encyclopedia, fascist Treccani, catholic encyclopedias, etc). It's not enough to get rid of advertising, as many such online publications DO show ads. And it's not enough to get rid of original research, since it's perfectly normal for other encyclopedias to publish (sometimes even to prepare) such material.
We need not spell out every single possible behavior
My asking for 4-5 clear mandatory pillars is not the same as asking for a 1200 articles constitution. It's not about turning wikimedia into a bureaucratic nightmare; it's about establishing a clear framework.
People MAY have a different idea of what an encyclopedia is (should be). Failure to understand this is but western integralism. We either DO explain the basics of what is "defined as correct" within this private property of ours or remain exposed to people applying THEIR cultural standards in absolute good faith.
Once you have two such conflicting visions it's going to be "my idea wins because I got friends in the Board" or "we win because we can send so many flame emails that we will tire everyone to death". This is not democracy, it's e-creeps vs e-bloods.
I will not write a report against a person/edition that possibly was in good faith but is "not complaining with my Glorious Party's ideology". I have lots of bad sides in my character, but being a spy because of racial/ideological reasons is not one of them.
I do believe that if you take a minute to think about it you will see what I mean. It takes no more than 100 chars to write a clear version of the pillars and it takes but a mandatory link in the submission page to have all our users informed (as we do with copvios).
After that yes, I will defend the pillars as I did so far, because any violation will have become a voluntary violation. But I will not prosecute a person because of his/her opinions. After all, as Chomsky once said "I'm not God, so maybe I always was wrong".
Peace & love 2 U, too :)
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Writing an encyclopedia is not enough to get rid of POV (cfr soviet encyclopedia, fascist Treccani, catholic encyclopedias, etc).
Well, we're not the Catholic Encyclopedia, we're the free encyclopedia. There is no POV implicit in our mission. That said, the most recent version of our mission statement (which is currently in the resolution stage for voting by the Board) states that our mission is to create "neutral educational content"; making this part of the WMF Mission Statement seems to be uncontroversial among the Board and I expect that this will become official soon.
It's not enough to get rid of advertising, as many such online publications DO show ads.
Wikimedia doesn't and has no intention to. That said, it doesn't seem appropriate in a mission statement.
And it's not enough to get rid of original research, since it's perfectly normal for other encyclopedias to publish (sometimes even to prepare) such material.
Indeed, and the boundaries are very hard to define as well -- this is why it is important to be careful with blanket statements that apply to all projects in all languages. Both Wikinews & Wikiversity do permit original research within limits, and Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content. I'm not saying it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia mission statement -- I'm saying it shouldn't be rushed.
Hi!
"neutral educational content";
Good for me :) LOLOL, why didn't you say so right from the start?
Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
Which ones, for example?
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Berto 'd Sera wrote:
Wikipedia might in some way feature such original content
Which ones, for example?
Answering that would be a strategic error. We have too many people who are willing to give a strict literal reading of such an answer, then several months later come back wioth, "But you said here ...!"
Ec
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.
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
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
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
On 27/02/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The Wikimedia Foundation is an educational charity, isn't it? Wikimedia UK certainly aims to be. (one day.)
- d.
So, an online community with no real rules. You must be kidding guys.
Regarding no original research - most if not all Wikipedias probably started out including a fair bit of original research in the shape of things people compile from what they think they know. When I first added content to Wikipedia articles in 2003, nobody asked me for a source. My memory comes up with some kind of slogan "write what you know and what you are willing to learn", or similar... as the community on a specific project matures, and as the content of the Wikipedia expands, there comes the state where it gets important to add sources. If enwiki had required everything added needed a source, straight from the start, I wonder where enwiki would be today. A lot smaller, probably.
I agree with both Berto and Erik that it would be very good to have some definition of what a Wikipedia has to be, and has to follow, written down. OTOH then there is the danger that some people might assume that everything _not_ written on that page is explicitly allowed... so it probably has to be done with some care. Rules not written down works if people do have good faith and a common goal - not otherwise.
2007/2/27, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
So, an online community with no real rules. You must be kidding guys.
An online community where "Ignore all rules" is policy, you mean. ;-)
/habj
I was thinking more along the lines of "any community pretending to produce some meaningful result", actually.
Hoi!
I group two answers into one, to make it quicker.
We would not expect it being taken over by a more specific group pushing a point
What worries me is the number of "We would not expect..." structures implied in "Free encyclopedia" from a western POV. Many of them are not going to be that obvious for those who are not western users.
I speak from personal experience, as westerner who relocated to an eastern country. The number of "implicit concepts" that simply do NOT hold when moving to another culture is pretty big. It's nobody's fault/will, it simply happens.
there is the danger that some people might assume that everything _not_ written on that page is explicitly allowed...
Yes, if you do not state that what counts is the "spirit of the law" and not the letter. But as soon as you quote the "spirit of the law" you're back to trans-cultural fuzziness. It's not an easily solved problem and it will probably have to be confronted by means of a series of approximated moves.
I'm afraid that the further from an "implicit western POV" you get the longer your explanation shall be. Translating words is easy; broadcasting a complex relation system in a few words may be simply impossible when words do not carry along similar semantic networks.
Too bad that any time we fail to explain what we mean we later have to assert our western POV by means of brute force; since our real motivation remains unknown the only image we're going to project to the outside world is absolutely colonial in its nature.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
"Yury Tarasievich" yury.tarasievich@gmail.com wrote in message news:9f3c41b10702270128i27163954v2bda68575b2f096c@mail.gmail.com...
So, an online community with no real rules. You must be kidding guys.
...except it's not a community... ;-)
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
I meant, a foundation with a different agenda. The point of the WP Foundation is that it is totally independent.
It is however true that any organization accepting tax-free status is accepting a subsidy fro the government. But this is true of all educational and charitable activity in the US--even the Scientologists have tax-free status. The one relevant burden this status imposes on an organization is that it cannot engage in political activity--as a result some advocacy groups do not ask for it. I do not consider this a burden on WP--if anything, not being able to do politics is a plus, preventing the Foundation from going along some unacceptable paths.
In some other countries where this status is accorded much more narrowly, or as a special provision for a particular organization, then it would compromise the foundation. If in a given country it meant actual government control, or a real danger of this, then it would be unacceptable.
DGG
On 2/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/02/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The Wikimedia Foundation is an educational charity, isn't it? Wikimedia UK certainly aims to be. (one day.)
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi!
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.
This is our case and many other small communities'. Anyway, allowing original content is a *very* risky move. Small cultures are often (at least in some of their dwellers) close to political radicalism and such politically oriented minorities MAY perceive that they need to rewrite history from scratch...
I can name a number of such examples in post-soviet wikies, but my own is pretty close to the same situation. The history of Italian unity is usually told according to official proto-fascist (Italian unionist) opinions and only a few historians move away from those grounds to quote (for example) the number of southern Italians slain by means of the Pica Law (I believe Del Boca says it could have been up to a million) or the number of loyalist Neapolitan officers killed by our piedmontese army in the Fenestrelle Fortress and whose bodies have been destroyed Auschwitz style, the bombing of the civilian population in Genoa, the massacre of the Turinese population when the capital was moved to Florence, etc etc.
Dealing with such events is in itself VERY dangerous. Italian schools keep growing up kids telling them only the fascist version, so chances are that just even mentioning these subjects would be intended as separatism by many Italian wikeers (does such an expression exist?). How do you cope with this?
Opening wikipedia to planet-wide participation means that our "consensus about what truth is" will often be conflicting with local visions/versions. What happens with small European and post-soviet wikies is but the pale dawn of a big upcoming tide. When I say that small cultures need to speak to each other is because history is written by the winners, so chances are that most of such problems originate in our small villages. It's no point in going delirious, but maybe we can associate and produce a way to deliver "verified content" and at that point impose the presence of our version at trans-wiki level (not as a monopolistic way, obviously).
We can decide that we simply "don't give a damn" or we can ask ourselves questions. I ask myself whether having such an incredibly wide access to sources cannot be used to confront versions and at least start to catalog these very conflicts. What about an international template marking that "conflicting versions exist"?
We cannot simply repress. Many times people get nervous because when they speak in a normal tone they only get laughed at. If we don't want people to get mad we must give them a channel for them to speak plainly and be heard (if and when they have real things to say).
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Hi!
Just because a rule is not yet written does not mean that it is not a rule.
No, sorry. A rule is a rule when it's clearly expressed and people are aware of it. A rule that is not written is... a desire, a convention if you wish. Whatever you'll call it, but not a rule. Otherwise there cannot be any warranty for anyone. Applying unwritten rules depending on judges' mood is the ABC of dictatorial states. I acknowledge that it's done for a good cause, yet it cannot be accepted anyway.
To the extent that online communities resemble any judicial system, they tend to more resemble common law than civil law ones. I don't feel that Not Writing Every Rule Down From Day One is automatically a failure of that system, though I agree we could be doing more to emphasise what is fundamental principles and what is administrative stuff.
[You can take the common-law analogy a lot further, but I'll refrain.]
Hi!
I don't feel that Not Writing Every Rule Down From Day One is automatically a failure of that system, though I agree we could be doing more to emphasise what is fundamental principles and what is administrative stuff.
It's a matter of deciding whether there is something gluing all projects into one or not. This common glue cannot come from en.wiki, it must come from wmf, because wmf is the only thing that really holds us together (trademark + hosting service). It's definitely NOT about administrative or local stuff.
BTW, my request for a list dedicated to small wikies is not provocative. It's just a matter of recognizing that since WMF fails (so far) to give this glue it will probably be better if at least try and make this glue all together, since none of us will ever have the numerical force needed to fight against en.wiki's POV.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 2/26/07, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
Now this is an interesting subject. AFAIK, pillars ARE mandatory for all editions. If not just let me know, pms.wiki will be extremely happy in getting rid of the "no original research" limit. I'm sure most soviet wikies will be very happy to get rid of the NPOV principle, as well.
This has never been fully articulated on the Foundation level. It should be, in collaboration with the community, for a "Wikipedia mission statement" (something we should, I believe, have for all our projects).
I can agree that it would be good to articulate the five pillars at the foundation level. They should be examined more closely before that it done. Each pillar shhould be expressed in a single short sentence. What we have now on en:wp is a statement followed be a paragraph of elaboration and explanation. That elaboration is not the principle, and it should always be clear that where the principle and its elaboration appear to differ the principle takes precedence.
Ec
2007/2/26, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
This has never been fully articulated on the Foundation level. It should be, in collaboration with the community, for a "Wikipedia mission statement" (something we should, I believe, have for all our projects).
I can imagine things are not enrirely articulated. The foundation issues [1] is a page fairly often refered to on enwiki... but considering the small amount of languages it has been translated to, and the lack of recent edits of any kind of scope to the page, one might suspect the page is dormant and somehow forgotten. Point five, "Jimbo Wales as ultimate authority on any matter" seems somewhat outdated. I have been wondering for a longer period of time whether this page is worth much attention or not.
/habj
2007/2/26, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
Now this is an interesting subject. AFAIK, pillars ARE mandatory for all editions.
The "Five pillars" page was first created in May 2005. [1] The core principles certainly existed prior to that page. I think the four "basic principles" of svwiki - that four point version, just missing out the "Ignore all rules" from the enwiki Pillars - was actually once taken from the enwiki general page on policy and guidelines, listed as the "key policies". The enwiki page now contains six points,[2] but somehow enwiki managed with the shorter list of four for quite some time... I guess other wikis might do that to.
An interesting thing about translating these pages from English Wikipedia is that they do change from time to time. If one is unlucky one might pick a version for translation that does actually not have much support in the enwiki community and thus soon gets changed. (Been there, done that.) I guess there is more than one non-enwiki-community where the policies and guidelines are much more static, since they are seen as something from "above" and not something you tamper with yourself. IMHO that is a bad thing.
If not just let me know, pms.wiki will be extremely happy in getting rid of the "no original research" limit.
If 1) NPOV, 2) the nature of encyclopaedia, and 3) free content (GFDL) are the only things that needs to be followed on each wikipedia - as a then board member suggested to me in June 2005 - then "no original research" follows as a consequence of the first two ones. Most policies and guidelines are just elaborations of specific cases, and not every Wikipedia should have to form those in the same way. Since enwiki forms their own the way it suits them... it means enwiki would be deciding on policies and guidelines on all the projects. That situation would quickly become pretty weird, IMHO. They have so many guidelines pages, so specific, on so many things...
/habj
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars&oldid=1... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org