[Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of the Wikimedia Foundatio

[Anthere]

Brianna Laugher wrote:
> On 17/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>>Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
>>>the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can
>>>come up with its own?
>>
>>Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charte_Wikiquote_FR
> 
> 
> OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
> 
> By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?

Wikiquote.

>>>Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as
>>>well, considering how important it is to the projects...
>>
>>I am not convinced it should, given that MediaWiki developers wish to
>>maintain a certain independance (whether they succeed doing that is
>>another issue).
> 
> 
> Hm... well I guess that is up to the dev's to some extent... but given
> that they develop MediaWiki specifically in directions that serve
> direct uses to Wikimedia projects...and that they are some of WMF's
> paid employees...would it not make sense as a statement of support, if
> not control?
> 
> 
>>>Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these
>>>statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or
>>>how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for
>>>Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends
>>>and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school
>>>teacher.
>>>Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
>>
>>Ah...
>>Look Brianna. In french, there is a saying "you can not have the butter
>>and the money from the butter at the same time".
>>Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be
>>developped by community, NOT by the Foundation.
>>If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation
>>somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing
>>the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the
>>editorial policy.
> 
> 
> OK...but there is a long precedent of the Foundation (well, actually:
> Jimbo) setting editorial policy. Jimbo's opinion is frequently cited
> in all manner of discussions and it was his direct intervention in
> Wikibooks that WAS the whole videogame guides thing.

Nod. But Jimbo is the foundator and the leader. So that's not the same :-)

>>I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is
>>The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow
>>these exact rules.
>>
>>Versus
>>The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the
>>Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
> 
> 
> So...one of these statements should be about what the Foundation is or
> is not willing to support, right?
> 
> I am trying to tie these statements to Erik's statement that these are
> the things that would be cited in deciding if a new project should be
> supported or not.
> I think it would be not hard to get enough people to support a "Games
> guide wiki".  What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would
> not support it?
> 
> What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support
> Wikistalk? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki )
> 
> What, in these statements, explains why WMF would not support
> Wikihowto, Wikipeople/Wikimorial , Wikiviews (opinions/reviews)? Is it
> *only* the lack of community support, or is there something I don't
> see in these statements?

Good point.
Actually, in the bylaws, there is mention of the projects themselves, 
after the mission statement. Maybe that text should be reworked actually.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws_update


>>My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat
>>participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That
>>this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new
>>language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees
>>to support this project, with this charter.
> 
> 
> Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great
> idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are
> there guidelines for what a charter should cover?

No guidelines. Actually, it is right now just an idea. The idea was to 
make it clearer what the goal of a project was. For example, just 
yesterday, some people questionned the role of wikicommons. Wikibooks is 
frequently in conflict over this. Some wikinews attempted to add pov 
editorials. Wikiversity is still in progress. Etc... Wikipedia may well 
be the best defined project.

Thanks for your feedback Brianna

Anthere

> cheers,
> Brianna