[Foundation-l] Sister Project Cooperation

[Ray Saintonge]

Birgitte Arco wrote:

>I hesitate to write this because it might seem
>self-serving in a dispute I am involved in.  But
>truthfully I am thinking of the larger picture here. 
>There is a discussion on the Talk page for the English
>Wikipedia Main Page under "Sister projects on new Main
>Page".  The main sticking point in this discussion is
>the people from the English Wikipedia truly believe
>they know what Wikisource is or is not and want to
>write a description, but are unable to understand that
>people from Wikisource have a better idea of what
>Wikisource is than they do.  Of course that statement
>is inherently biased, but everyone involved has the
>best intentions.  For my part everyone there has been
>completely civil and willing to explain themselves. 
>Unfortunately there is a prevailing attitude that
>people from a "different" project should not decide
>how they are represented in the Sister project
>template.  This is over a minor wording issue and I am
>not asking people to intercede on this.  However if
>you read through the comments, it is easy to see how
>easily this could have devolved into complete
>bitterness.  I hope that outcome has been avoided now.
>
>I worry that in the future a similar issue may come up
>and things will turn out worse.  I believe fostering a
>sence of harmony and cooperation between sister
>projects is the utmost importance.  I wonder if it
>would be best for wikimedia to have an agreed upon
>sister project template at meta for each necessary
>language, with the recommendation that all daughter
>projects base thier local Sister project templates
>from the meta one.  This would provide an authorative
>example of what is acceptable and should hopefully
>prevent any future turf wars.
>
>Thanks for considering this.  I would suggest if this
>idea is implented; it is done without any haste and is
>well-advertised amoung all sister projects in many
>languages.
>
It's an interesting question that puts a number of issues into a 
microcosm, particularly the right of a person to edit an article about 
himself.  Still, I don't agree with your proposed solution.

A very important principle in the development of sister projects and 
language sub-projects has been the autonomy of each project.  This is 
something that I have strongly defended from the earliest days of both 
Wiktionary and Wikisource.   It can leed to some peculiar anomalies in 
Wikipedia when articles on the same subject in different languages are 
completely different, or even contradictory.  Some may find that state 
of things to be unacceptably disturbing, but to me it reflects a rich 
vibrancy.

Common policy threads may run through all projects, but there is and 
should be a great deal of latitude in determining the specific 
application of a policy in each project.  A policy may be thoroughly 
discussed before it is applied to its originating project to the 
complete satisfaction of that community's  members.  If, however, 
someone presumes that a Wikipedia consensus authorizes the application 
of a policy to any other project he will quite rightly meet stiff 
opposition; the other project was never a part of the original consensus 
or vote.

Thus the article about Wikisource in Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia 
rules about articles in its principal namespace.  In that context 
Wikisource is no different than someone whose biography appears in 
Wikipedia.

Eclecticology