[Foundation-l] Do we need a Code of Participation?

Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 12:34:15 UTC 2007

On 05/11/2007, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are a few reasons why I think an explicit opt-in to a small
> > number of core principles would be a good idea:
> UK schools tried that at one point. Didn't work.

If something fails once (or even many times) that doesn't necessarily
mean it should never be tried again.

> > * It establishes more firmly the idea of "being a Wikimedian" -- it
> > contributes to a shared identity, across all projects.
> Given the language barriers that is largely meaningless. De is not en
> nor will it ever be.

And en is not de, and it probably never will be either.

Difference doesn't mean bad... but to write off the similarities and
commonalities between the hundreds of Wikimedia projects as "largely
meaningless" due to language barriers is silly.

> > Obviously this would still need a lot of editing. Whichever bullet
> > points would be considered most important, I believe the total number
> > should be limited to 3 to 5.
> >
> > Thoughts?

How about community decision making by consensus? I think that is
another Wikimedia universal.

Could/should be tied into Florence's discussion on values? Although I
recall it was hard to reach any certain conclusions on that.

> Either it is unenforceable in which case it is more meaningless feel
> good rubbish and we shouldn't be wasting the photos used to transmit
> it or it is enforceable and you give the project to the rule lawyers.

More meaningless feel good rubbish. What was the first?
Who is there that edits a Wikimedia project for some length of time
and doesn't feel that they are helping create something great for the
world, that will be appreciated and improved by current and future
generations worldwide?
What are people driven by, if not at some level "feel good rubbish"?


They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:

More information about the foundation-l mailing list