[Foundation-l] en.WP dysfunction (was: A letter to Wikipedia collides with the non-free content policies)

[Birgitte SB]

We is the "foundation-l" list which is here to discuss
matters which affect multiple WMF wikis or the WMF in
general.  They is en.WP and those who primarily post
about en.WP, who have a dedicated mailing list for
en.WP internal issues ("wikien-l").  I am not against
en.WP.  But this is not the first, or even the fifth
time, I have suggested that an en.WP internal issue be
dealt with elsewhere.  And it seems to be increasing
lately, so I was thinking there is an underlying
dysfuntion that needs to be addressed.  But perhaps
Greg is correct that there is not such an underlying
dysfuntion.  That fact the list is in English may
simply make it easier for them to come here on
slighter inclinations than wikis in other languages.

Birgitte SB

--- Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> Who is "them"? They are us, we are you, you are
> they. The English
> Wikipedia was the first project, it predates the
> Foundation, it has
> the largest community by far, it is the project that
> gets the most
> attention, it has the most articles and the highest
> number of readers.
> It works in English, as does this list. These things
> explain far more
> clearly why Foundation-l gets turfed Wikipedia
> problems than the idea
> that en.wiki users are whiney pukes who need
> rational parents to step
> in. The anti-English Wikipedia sentiment sometimes
> found on this list
> does no one any credit.
> 
> I don't know necessarily what Remember the dot was
> hoping to achieve
> by posting to Foundation-l after already receiving
> advice from Mike
> Godwin, but I don't think the "Why does en-wiki
> bother us and can't
> they leave us alone?" response is warranted. A
> simple answer or lack
> of response would have been much more effective.
> 
> Nathan
> 
> On Jan 26, 2008 11:22 PM, Birgitte SB
> <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF
> > evaluation of specific case, when the most general
> > pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is .
> . .
> > ambitious.
> >
> > I really do not understand why en.WP is so
> > dysfuntional that they cannot make common
> decisions
> > within the community without appealing to the
> > foundation several times a month.[2][3][4]  My
> biggest
> > concern about a meta-arbcom is that it's cases
> will
> > end up being 90% dire en.WP issues that *must* be
> > appealed higher-up.  en.WP seems to be having
> about 5
> > issues a month they believe they cannot deal with
> > themselves, and this is *without* any meta-arbcom
> or
> > other established process to appeal to.
> >
> > Why can en.WP not come to decisions within their
> > community?  Is it because Jimbo's historical
> special
> > relationship has handicapped them into always
> looking
> > for a higher authority to step-in?  Or are they
> just
> > bolder than other wikis and have no qualms about
> > making demands on everyone's time for minor
> issues? Is
> > it that they lack leaders that are willing to
> close
> > these sorts of cases?  Or have they grown so big
> they
> > can longer be managed at all?  Can we simply
> continue
> > to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something
> to
> > be done to help them become more self-suficiient?
> >
> > Birgitte SB
> >
> > [1]
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037363.html
> >
>
[2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037403.html
> >
>
[3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037136.html
> >
>
[4]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037636.html
> >
> > --- Remember the dot <rememberthedot at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > The foundation's input would be appreciated in
> > > resolving this issue. A
> > > scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was
> uploaded
> > > to the English
> > > Wikipedia:
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
> > >
> > > The author of the letter did not release it
> under a
> > > free license, and Mike
> > > Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel,
> clarified
> > > that the recipient of the
> > > letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to
> freely
> > > license it.
> > >
> > > The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was
> uploaded
> > > mainly because it is
> > > humorous.
> > >
> > > So the question is: is keeping this letter one
> of
> > > the "limited exceptions"
> > > to
> > >
> >
>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Remember the dot
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > >
> >
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >      
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs