On 3/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"You cannot actually change anything in Wikipedia."
Is somewhat confusing ("we store all past article versions" would probably get the point across better)
Agree with Geni. The point you're making here is a bit tortured and explained in a very convoluted way. Something like "No change in Wikipedia is permanent" would be better, with explanation about how it can be undone etc.
"5. We are deeply committed to quality. " Just not true IMHO. "Quality" seems to be a byproduct of a system, rather than a "commitment" as such. Everyone wants a quality encyclopaedia. That's just a given. The fact that it happens stems more from millions of individual actions rather than any top-down "commitment".
6. "We don't want you to trust us." - could be explained a lot better. Why not just explain it as "We try and synthesise other information for you in a useful way. Sometimes we get it wrong, so check the sources for yourself."
7. "We're not alone" - I don't like equating this "movement for Free Knowledge" with the Wikimedia Foundation. You could make reference to "competitors" in this movement. Like MIT recently announcing that it's putting all its course material online for free.
"9. We're not a dictatorship. " - I dispute this. Jimbo is quite clearly, explictly, unambiguously the ultimate arch-dictator of Wikipedia. He has never renounced this right, and occasionally exercises it. Now, fortunately, some dictators are benevolent... :)
"We're here to stay."
Is somewhat smug.
Yeah, not so keen on the tone of this one. I can see what you're getting at, but perhaps the emphasis could be more on the fact that we tolerate imperfections today while we build towards tomorrow.
No mention of
"we really mean it about the image copyright stuff"
Which rather a lot of our uploaders really don't seem to know.
Also no mention that the encyclopaedia isn't written by priveleged "editors" known as "admins". And why not a comment to the effect that adding nonsense doesn't get you very far (whatever Stephen Colbert thinks), that vandalism doesn't last long, etc...
All that said, I do like the idea of this list ;)
Steve