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

GerardM gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Tue Nov 6 14:59:55 UTC 2007

It is nice to be against the wording of a policy that is well understood
because it is not "nice" in the way it is worded. It is another thing to be
as descriptive and clear in the messaging using other terminology. So how do
you intent to say "Don't be a dick" ?

In my opinion our credibility and reputation suffers as much when we are not
clear. It is a different kind of damage when there is too much waffle.
Without a policy as clearly worded, I would let the current policy stand.


On 11/6/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 11/6/07 9:18 AM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
> > On 06/11/2007, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> David, 'because everybody does it' is not an excuse to do something in
> the
> >> Wikimedia Projects. Wikimedia must create its own distinct identity;
> and its
> >> reputation and credibility will be a great part of that identity - and
> its
> >> use of language a crucial part as well.
> >> The language of social pages should not be the language of Wikimedia
> >> policies.
> >
> >
> > No, I mean it's actually, functionally speaking, the first rule of all
> > social spaces on and offline.
> >
> >
> OK, the behavior the language is describing might be the "first rule", but
> "dick" and "jerk" still should have no place in Wikimedia policy language.
> Marc
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list