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

geni geniice at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 12:48:06 UTC 2007

On 05/11/2007, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Why not?

> 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.

commonalities does not mean community.

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


>  Geni>
> > 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?

Usually whatever Jimbo says when he has finished his latest bit of
chaos causing.

> 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?

This has nothing to do with a code of participation. Click edit. See
all the stuff bellow the edit window? That's your code of

> What are people driven by, if not at some level "feel good rubbish"?

No idea although going by recent news reports the likelihood of an
audience is a significant factor.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list