[Foundation-l] Stewards are ignoring requests for CheckUser information?

[Anthere]

Birgitte SB wrote:
> --- Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>On one hand, our project is held together by a
>>couple of major rules, 
>>which should absolutely be followed by all projects.
>>Hmmm, I see only a 
>>few ones
>>1) general goal of a project should be respected,
>>whatever the language.
>>2) content should be freely usable, freely reusable
>>and free to modify.
>>3) content should follow NPOV rule
>>
>>And that's about it.
>>
> 
> 
> Although these three rules apply equally to the
> Wikipedias the same cannot be said of all projects. 
> Wikisource and Wikiquote particularly do not hold a
> NPOV policy on material. 

Oh, good point. But just because there is no need for such a policy over 
there.

Of course, editorial notes
> are another story but they make up a very, very small
> part of our project.  Free to modify is also not a
> consideration on Wikisource as we explicitly forbid it
> in almost all cases.

Good point again.

   Also since next nothing in our
> project is available under GDFL it make the "freeness"
> very complicated.  Even public domain is not
> straightforward.  There are things that are PD in the
> US bur not in England for example.  I could give many
> more inconsistencies of international copyright.  

Which is why I did not mentionned a specific license. We use several 
licenses for images. Wikinews is not under GFDL. What we would all agree 
  probably is the freedom to use content.

Actually, I have a question to wikibook editors. Do Wikibooks books 
follow NPOV, or not at all ?

>>On the other hand, our project is not run in a
>>top-down fashion. There 
>>is no reason why the Foundation should know or
>>approve local project 
>>policies.  So, generally, I see not why "this is not
>>good" unless the 
>>policy is about the goal, or the licence or the
>>npov.
>>
> 
> 
> I do not think things should be run completely from
> the top down.  But we should have some basic
> guidelines similar to what you gave above actually on
> the wikis somewhere and translated in the correct
> language at the very least.

Hmmm, true. I think this is particularly missing for the intermediary 
projects. Wikipedia had this defined very well because Larry Sanger was 
taking care of it. Wikinews had it quite well defined because we 
requested a full study and description of the concept before its approval.
This never happened for projects such as wikibooks, wikiquote, 
wiktionary or wikisource.

If wikiquote was proposed today, it would never be accepted for example.
But these projects were one day proposed on a mailing list and ... 
simply started !

And who took care of defining basic *common* guidelines that all 
projects could inspire of when starting a new language ? No one I guess.

Now, I would say that it would be more logical that a couple of editors 
of each project do the description of the project and draft basic 
guidelines, that the Foundation could approve afterwards.

>>Would you be interested to create a group of people
>>whose goals would 
>>be
>>* To study which languages should be covered in our
>>projects, or not
>>* To study the wiseness to open a new language of a
>>given project 
>>(according to number of interested editors etc...)
>>* To gather a collection of pages of rules and
>>guidelines to 
>>mandatorily 
>>translate in the future language before any creation
>>of the new wiki
>>* To collect pages to suggest new wikis to help them
>>find their way in 
>>the jungle (with recommandations such as "register
>>to foundation-l", 
>>"follow requests for permission on meta" etc...)
> 
> 
> 
>>Do you think that would be interesting ?
>>If so, would you agree to lead the creation of that
>>group ?
> 
> 
>>Ant
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is very interesting and would definately
> want to be involved.  I do not know that I have enough
> conacts amoung people with different language skills
> to start it up myself.  If such group of people can be
> rounded up I would definately want to see this
> through.  One the first things I feel is needed is
> updated stats on the current wikis so we can see what
> worked in the past and what has stalled.  Also if the
> stats page gave numbers of admins and buerucrats (if
> any) that might be useful.  

We always fall on the same issue Birgitte... many would think it great, 
but few would agree to lead such a project. At best follow another 
person doing it.

Okay, so... who is motivated to start such a project ?
* which entirely new languages should be accepted or opposed  (including 
constructed languages, dialects...)
* when a new language should be allowed to start in a given project
* making guidelines for those starting a new language
* support to new languages starting (checkuser, sysop etc...)

etc...

who is motivated to start such a project ?

Ant

> BirgitteSB
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com