[Foundation-l] Our values

[Birgitte SB]

--- effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Florence,
> 
> in general, a good post. Thanks for explaining what
> you read under
> "values", so that there are no misunderstandings
> about that.
> 
> 2008/1/29, Florence Devouard <anthere at anthere.org>:
> 
> > I have been thinking over it in the past few
> weeks, and here is the
> > result of my list.
> >
> > * Community
> > * Diversity
> > * Quality of service
> > * Transparency
> > * Freedom
> > * Independance
> >
> > Text is rough draft for now
> >
> <snip>
> > Quality of service is a priority
> > We will try our best to give access to high
> quality Wikimedia project
> > content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as
> provide access to
> > regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps
> of Wikimedia project
> > content.
> > To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination
> of knowledge, we do
> > not enter into exclusive partnerships, with
> regards to access to our
> > content or use of our trademarks.
> >
> <snip>
> 
> Personally I don't feel that the order should be
> that important in
> this post, although it is true that in a conflict
> between the values
> (for instance between the Quality of service and the
> transperency,
> which I expect to come up quite some times for
> staff, or between
> Freedom and Quality of Service on one side and
> Independence on the
> other) it should be roughly clear how valuable each
> of these values
> are, which are the core values (Maybe we should look
> back to the
> mission and goal stated in the articles of
> incorporation and bylaws
> for that) and which are "how we tend to work". How
> we tend to work
> might be very important to us though, so it is of
> course still a very
> important value. However, in an equal conflict, the
> core values
> (Freedom, Quality of Service) should imho always
> prevail over the "how
> we tend to work" (Community, Diversity,
> Transperency). Independance is
> in the middle between those I think.
> 
> But this also brings up to me that Quality of
> Service is not really a
> fitting description. I find it very important that
> the content is
> available. However, not per se only through our
> website service, but
> maybe in the future also through DVD's, OLPC's,
> books and PDF's. And
> who knows what else. I'd suggest to change that to
> Availability of
> content or something similar, maybe someone else has
> a better
> description.
> 
> Thanks for bringing this up to our attention,
> 
> Lodewijk

How aout "Accessibility"?

In dealing with free content for en.WS I always think
of the two main concerns as "Freedom" and
"Accessibility".  There are many PD works which are
free from copyright but will never be scanned and put
online because they only exist in a collection with
retricted *access*.  I think this is the issue
Florence really means to address here, all the legal
freedom to distribute modify something is useless if
you cannot get access to it.

Birgitte SB


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ