[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia Commons

[Birgitte SB]

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Birgitte SB wrote:
> 
> >--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>You do not get my point. When policies are to be
> changed, when the way 
> >>things work are to be changed, this is when you
> should inform the 
> >>communities in advance. Some careful marketing
> communication is what is 
> >>needed. Marketeers call it customer relations. And
> you /need /to inform 
> >>your customers; when you do, you talk to all your
> customers when you 
> >>don't you have to deal with them one at a time and
> you may find that 
> >>customers do no longer give you their custom.
> Given how busy you are, 
> >>you would not even notice.
> >>    
> >>
> >I disagree with this sentiment in general terms. 
> If
> >the "customers" are not making an effort to watch
> the
> >pages where policy decisions are disscused, they
> >should not expect to courted by those wishing to
> >change policy.  The community that is actually
> doing
> >the work of maintaining a project should have the
> >ability to set policy without going out of their
> way
> >to court the fly-by-night users of the project.  I
> do
> >not think it is wise to try and alienate the less
> >active userbase, but it is unrealistic to wait for
> >their reaction before making any decisions.  
> >
> This seems like a somewhat frigid approach.  It's
> true enough that 
> policies are developped by the most active members,
> but many policies 
> should allow for viable alternatives.  If a newcomer
> has a different way 
> of doing things that does not conform with
> established formatting norms 
> there should be room to develop those ideas without
> his being pilloried 
> because he does things differently.  "Ignore all
> rules" should always 
> remain a viable policy.  This does not mean that we
> need to accept every 
> bit of idiocy that comes along.  Nor does it mean
> that core principles 
> must be abandoned.  Good rules support existing
> practice rather than 
> shape it.  Poor rules, even by the most active
> members, tend to be 
> ignored as people go ahead and do their own things. 
> 
> Almost all rules should be open to change, because a
> community thrives 
> on new ideas.  Very few rules should be the subject
> of persistent 
> enforcement.
> 

I believe you misunderstand me here.  I strongly
believe that most policies should be up for
reevaluation.  Many things seem like great ideas, or
seem as though they would naturally go hand in hand
until you actually start *working* on them.  Newcomers
who active on a project are certainly welcome in my
view.  I see them as future established users.  I
think you have hit the nail on the head with "Good
rules support existing practice rather than shape it."
 The problem with the original suggestion is such
advertisement would atract people who have no
understanding of existing practice. That is my
concern.  I feel anyone familar with existing practice
will be aware of policy disscussion through the normal
in-project channels.

> >The English Wikisource recently made a major change
> to
> >it's incluson guidelines (which involves the
> eventual
> >deletion of around 200 pages).  We held open
> >disscusion for over three weeks, and the material
> is
> >now being slowly phased out without a mass
> deletion. 
> >Although there was a small amount of advertising
> >amoung people with a specific interest, the
> >participants in the disscusion did not vary from
> the
> >regular editors.  I cannot agree that it should
> have
> >been advertised at large across projects.  I am
> very
> >happy with the way we have handled this situation
> >which quite at odds with your sentiments.
> >
> I presume you're referring to the source code
> articles.  With many of 
> these the contributors haven't been around for a
> long time, and that's 
> probably an indicator of a failed sub-project. 
> Still, the safe and fair 
> approach is to give personal notice to any
> contributors that are still 
> around, and leaving them ample time to respond.
> 
You are correct although it also included the
exclusion of most all reference data.  It was not due
to inactivity so much as impracticality of managing
it.  But I do not see a need for great detail here.

> >It would not be productive during a major policy
> >disscussion to issue an invitation to people who
> have
> >no idea how a project operates on a day-to-day
> basis. 
> >The community which actually *works* on a project
> >needs to be the ones to set policy.  If the people
> you
> >consider "customers" find that the community no
> longer
> >serves their needs, they should work to carve out
> such
> >a niche themselves.  These projects are all
> operating
> >with a limited amount of volunteers and I cannot
> >imagine any of them would ignore the corcerns of
> >people willing to get their hands dirty.  But when
> >someone has the mindset that they are a "customer"
> and
> >want to reallocate these existing voluteers to take
> >care of their pet issues, well I won't be so
> impolite
> >as to express what I think of that.  Now they are
> >welcome to share these concerns.  Many people can
> >vouch that I am willing to drop my current project
> to
> >help them deal with issue I agree is important when
> >they bring to my attention.  But to say projects
> >should not attempt to set policy unless they
> >personally invite over all the people who are
> standing
> >on the sidelines is ridiculous.  Even if such
> people
> >are the most informed, intelligent, reasonable
> people
> >on earth, they will not be a useful addition to
> policy
> >disscusions until they have worked within the
> project
> >and achieved such understanding that can only be
> >gained by experience.  The fact that infrequent
> users
> >may not *like* the communities policy descision is
> not
> >reason enough to hold off on any decision till they
> >have been consulted.
> >
> I don't know about the applicability or implications
> of the term 
> "customers", but I can certainly discuss the matter
> without using it.
> 
> Most people have little interest in getting involved
> in policy matters.  
> They may be interested in specific content areas,
> and see unending 
> debates about policy as a total waste of time.  They
> continue to work 
> well on their specialty, and will only discuss
> policy when their own 
> area is affected.  That's fine.  For them the
> discussion _starts_ at 
> that point.
> 
> I very strongly believe in the autonomy of the
> projects; I had a big 
> argument with a significant Wikipedian about that
> during the earliest 
> days of Wikisource.  Although it would be patently
> ridiculous to invite 
> absolutely everyone to participate in some of these
> discussions, it is 
> just as ridiculous and even unjust and arrogant to
> suggest that informed 
> Wikimedians cannot make useful contributions to a
> current debate.  
> Absence of input may not be a valid reason to hold
> off decisions, but it 
> is a valid reason to hold off enforcement in
> inappropriate circumstance. 
> 
> Ec
> 

I have not really experienced "unending debates about
policy".  Most proposals actually need little debate
at all.  Maybe that is a scale issue.  I really am
open to hear anyone interested in Wikisource to come
add a voice to policy discussions.  But I would expect
them to keep an eye on the Scriptorium.  Most
everything that applies to Wikisource on a broader
sense is disscused there.  Maybe I am wrong, but
imagine a large scale advertisment would attract
people who are more interested that Wikisource does
something they believe it should than *how* it does
something.  I am very much interested in the more
pragmatic input which I believe requires some
familarity with how Wikisource operates.

Birgitte SB

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