[Foundation-l] RfC: Mission & Vision Statements of the Wikimedia Foundation

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

>Brianna Laugher wrote:
>  
>
>>Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
>>the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can
>>come up with its own?
>>    
>>
>Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charte_Wikiquote_FR
>
No problem with this process in principle, but any formal adoption 
should probably wait until the vision/mission proposal is more advanced.

>>Seems like MediaWiki software development would be worth mentioning as
>>well, considering how important it is to the projects...
>>    
>>
>I am not convinced it should, given that MediaWiki developers wish to 
>maintain a certain independance (whether they succeed doing that is 
>another issue).
>
The words "essential infrastructure" would seem to already imply 
adequate software development.

>>Anyway my main complaint is that I don't see how either of these
>>statements would prevent "wikistalk" being successfully proposed, or
>>how they explain why video game guides are inappropriate for
>>Wikibooks. Or why people shouldn't upload ten photos of their friends
>>and dog at Commons. Or why they shouldn't write about their school
>>teacher.
>>Needs some adjective somewhere like EDUCATIONAL.
>>    
>>
>Ah...
>Look Brianna. In french, there is a saying "you can not have the butter 
>and the money from the butter at the same time".
>
In English: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

>Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be 
>developped by community, NOT by the Foundation.
>If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation 
>somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing 
>the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the 
>editorial policy.
>
>I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is
>The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow 
>these exact rules.
>
>Versus
>The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the 
>Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
>
The problem is bigger than Wikimedia.  People are afraid that if they 
reach for the brass ring they will fall off the merry-go-round horse.

Personally, I have no objection to video game guides, but would have 
serious concerns about "Wikistalking" or personal photo albums.  The 
point is not about any one of these, but about the fact that we all 
think differently about what should be included and where.

Adding the adjective "educational" somewhere doesn't help because 
opinions on just what is educational are likely to open a whole new 
round of debate. 

The mission statement is a big picture document.  It is about wishes and 
possibilities, not about restrictions.  Where needed those restrictions 
can come later.

>My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat 
>participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That 
>this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new 
>language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees 
>to support this project, with this charter.
>
I think it's a little early for a proposal of this kind.  While there is 
some merit to such a charter, the greater the detail the greater the 
difficulty in developing a common position.  This could easily be seen 
as an attempt by the major languages to dominate the smaller.

Ec