[WikiEN-l] Policy across different languages

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day David,

> What is the rationale for dumping verifiability, and what cracksmoking
> maniacs thought this was a good idea and why?

I think --- based on one of Kirill (thanks!)'s quotes --- the thing is, 
they already *have* "we are an encyclopaedia" and "we don't do original 
research" as principles, and they're trying to decide whether or not to 
copy a supporting policy for NOR across as well; it's not a case of "why 
don't we get rid of this?" but "why do we need this extra thing?".  No?

If that's correct, I can understand why they'd be wary.  There is always 
--- rightly so[0] --- resistence even to codifying "editing best 
practices" because some fuckwit out there is going to misunderstand what 
it means and insist his version be enforced with a sledgehammer[1].

It doesn't mean they're abandoning a core principle, necessarily.  As I 
see it, the core principles of English Wikipedia are:

1. _Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia_.  This implies some things, such as
    we're a tertiary source, we don't fill our project with crap.

2. _Wikipedia is neutral_.  That Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of
    view is crucial to the success of an international, stable project.

3. _Wikipedia is free content_.  Everything we do on Wikipedia is
    available under the GFDL or equivalent (I prefer the phrase "less
    silly") licence.  We don't infringe copyrights: creating stuff (text,
    images, sounds) for Wikipedia is called "generating free content";
    taking existing stuff and pretending we have a right to it[2] is
    called "bald-faced theft".

4. _Wikipedia contributors try to avoid being dicks_.  I should hope
    this is self-explanatory, however many policies people cruft --- I
    mean craft --- to help out.

5. _Wikipedia does not have firm rules_.  Good ol' IAR, here, boys. Much
    as Certain People may complain about it, it's one of the pillars on
    which rests our hopes and our success so far.

Now, '4' and '5' can be regarded as peculiar to the English Wikipedia. 
I don't know if they are or not (they're so gosh darn sensible I'd 
*hope* the other languages use them as well), but if people on, say, the 
Polish Wikipedia run around being dicks to each other I'm not going to 
lose any sleep.  However, '1', '2', and '3' are *absolutely essential*. 
  These three are the raison d'être of the international Wikipedia 
project, and for them to vanish from any sub-project would be very sad 
indeed.

The question is: do Russian Wikipedia plan to abandon the notion of 
encyclopaedia as a tertiary source, or are they just saying they don't 
want more process?


[0] I may be biased there.

[1] Maybe I'm being overly cynical.  After all, English Wikipedia has
     been groaning with the strain of so many policies for a while now,
     and yet nobody's ever done *this* ... right?

[2] As opposed to *actually* having a right to it under fair use, of
     course!

-- 
"You can't fight a war on terror if you're ending a sentence with a 
preposition."
- John Hodgman on /The Daily Show/