[Foundation-l] Do we need a Code of Participation?
waerth at asianet.co.th
Wed Nov 7 07:21:59 UTC 2007
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> I've been thinking a bit about the whole issue of civility, and other
>> expectations that we may have from our editors.
>> While Wikimedia has a stronger tradition of civility than most online
>> communities, we still often fall short -- and perhaps part of the
>> reason is that we never ask our users to explicitly "opt into" the
>> core cultural principles of Wikimedia. Rather, we expect that they
>> will "soak them up" simply by being exposed to them in practice.
>> There are a few reasons why I think an explicit opt-in to a small
>> number of core principles would be a good idea:
> I really dislike forced speech, and would leave the project if rather
> than "sign" some statement other than one I freely made myself, if it
> extended beyond minimally necessary things like agreeing to license my
> It's one thing to lay down a set of rules that everyone has to follow,
> and quite another to make everyone stand up at the front of the class
> like schoolchildren and recite a Pledge of Allegiance to Wikipedia and
> the Principles We Hold Dear, which I won't do. People edit Wikipedia for
> a variety of philosophical reasons, and I disagree strongly with
> attempts to enforce cultural conformity, especially since they wouldn't
> have the intended effect anyway---most people who "sign" will just click
> through without reading, or "sign" even if they disagree since they
> don't have a choice besides leaving. Even if I agreed with the
> principles I wouldn't participate in such a degrading and offensive
> exercise by "signing" them.
I feel the same way about this as delirium does. I rather leave the
projects then sign some kind of pledge. In my opinion this would only
become one more argumentation pont in discussions. But you pledged this
an this and this ... no according to me it is thism this and this etc etc
More information about the foundation-l