[Foundation-l] "Wikidrama" and autonomy of Wikimedia projects

[mike.lifeguard]

>The outcome of the discussion on
>en.wp
>was clear - usurping en.wp contributors required the assent of an en.wp
>bureaucrat,
>who must abide by en.wp rules.
Luckily, there are many projects which do not have such a policy.

>so its up to the local community to proscribe and police that sort
>of
>undesirable activity.
Luckily, the wiki in question, and indeed most wikis, do not have a rule or
guideline on this issue (though I believe it is fairly straightforward).

>A bunch of en.wp users showing up to vote in a
>checkuser
>election on another project seems strange and wrong, but again its down to
>the suffrage policy of that project to control such events.
Luckily, the wiki in question doesn't have a suffrage policy.

Whether this lack of policy/rule/guideline/whatever is a problem is
debatable. For example, English Wikibooks has not suffered for lack of a
renaming policy (or blocking policy for that matter!).

In other cases, a user may feel their hands are tied because there is no
policy which says "This is the right thing to do." In cases where policy is
lacking, good judgment must be used.

When good judgment does not prevail, there is a problem. Those who whine
about wikis not having a certain policy should realize that that situation
is not in and of itself a problem. This applies as much on a single project
as on multiple projects. We simply do not need a global policy for
everything - efforts to do so will largely fail.

That said, the issues raised by Cary are real, and we need to discuss how
best to deal with them. My point here is to warn that writing a global
policy for every niche where no policy lives may not be the best way
forward.

Mike