Anthere wrote:
Kurt Jansson wrote:
I think it's very important that the people (often just one or two) working on a new international Wikipedia are already indoctrinated with our ideals (or have a social Wp-habitus, if that sounds nicer ;-).
Hum Kurt, I have no idea what "Wp-habitus" means. But I would strongly suggest not to use the word indoctrination.
First because, it smells Stalinism, Goulag and little red book (but maybe it doesnot smell that way in english ?)
These connotations of "indoctrination" depend on the context. I would object if such a sentence were used in and article, but not on the mailing list where it is clearly informal and reflects a developed set of habits rather than something that has been imposed by higher powers.
Lars Aronsson wrote: I think this is an important question, and my best suggestion is to appoint one or two ambassadors for each language, who can act as site owners towards the other users and as translators/reporters to Bomis and developers. Therefore I welcome the newly set up embassies.
Ah, and who do you think would appoint a "site owner" ???
Ambasadors as site owners seems like a contradiction in terms. Talking about directors of a non-profit organization would make more sense.
With a non-profit corporation, the corporation would become the owner rather than any individual. One criterion should be that no one country should have 50% or more of the directors. This may conflict with a frequent requirement that a majority of directors be from within the incorporating jurisdiction, but this varies considerably (at least across North America). If this becomes a problem a little jurisdiction shopping would be in order.
Jimbo ? I think it will be perceived the wrong way by most... People on this list ? most internat wikipedians would probably consider it an anglosaxon decision Internat wikipedians themselves ? They could appoint anybody with a good reputation, rather than somebody caring about these "ideals". Self-appointement ? Reporting and translating is one thing. "Owning" is another.
The first set of directors might very well be arbitrary, but one of its duties would be to develop a set of rules acceptable by Wikipedians for the naming of future directors.
I believe that in addition to directors, the group should also have a set of Trustees. They would not normally have corporate decision making powers, but would be in a position to step in to ensure survival of the project if the directors completely screw up. Their right to step in would need to be strictly defined.
Maintaining the neutral point of view and avoiding copyright violations should be the easiest part of the job.
Nope, I, unfortunately, do not think so. People are not naturally neutral. That is not so bad when many people can work at the same time on an article (though...). But just *defining* neutrality is an issue on the french wiki. If you are sure it is easy, and if you speak french, come and help me please. Right now, it is on hold till courage, time and opportunity come back :-)
You're right! Defining neutrality will always be a problem. Don't think that the English Wikipedia is exempt just because it's bigger. People with prejudices never see them as prejudices. As for copyright, protecting the GFDL nature of Wikipedia copyrights is a far greater challenge than catching copyright violations by contributors.
But how strict are the non-English Wikipedias on issues such as
"Wikipedia is not a
dictionary" (not a gazetteer, not a product catalog, not a consumer
report, etc.)?
Some of us support it is also a dictionary... :-)
I would consider three of these four to be secondary issues where different languages could easily develop their own guidelines. Product catalog is a different matter because it relates to issues of advertising and consumerism
Is it or will there be a problem to assert authority to weed out poor contributions in the small and slow-growing non-English Wikipedias?
I rather support keeping poor contributions, they might grow better in time.
Yes. Who makes the judgement that something is a "poor" contributions? Asserting authority would certainly be worse than anything we have now. The ones complaining so much about the poor articles should simply improve them themselves. If they feel that there are so many that they don't have enough time to improve them, that's their problem for being such perfectionists. Maybe they should just lighten up.
The fact is I think most contributors basically agree with the main issues (such as encyclopedia, collaboration, neutrality, consensus) but they are not necessarily the ones that speak up. When you are a small number, the effect of somebody speaking loudly to challenge these "ideals" gets a lot of power, far too much power on others. I don't think a central power "asserting authority" will solve that point : some contributors just don't want to hear anything about what an english might have said on that subject (like Jimbo's opinion on what neutrality is), they just consider that, being on an international wikipedia, their opinion has more weight.
Most political revolutions, coups-d'état, etc. are the work of dedicated minorities, without regard to where they come from on the political spectrum. Naturally, they want to diminish the influence of those with opposing points of view. The large majority of people is not confrontational, and they prefer the path of least resistance. The majority will concede issues where they disagree for the simple purpose of avoiding a fight. This can be a problem for a small group that has not enough strong-willed people with opposing views. I think each language group will need to deal with these problems separately, and, apart from the need to adhere to a very limited number of core principles, each may end up very different.
Eclecticology