[Wikipedia-l] Re: Time to set up Wikimedia ProjectCommittees

[Anthere]

Elisabeth Bauer a écrit:

> The wikimedia foundation is for keeping the servers running, collecting 
> funds and defending the projects against legal threats, but not for 
> enforcing rules (or a however defined code of ethics) upon all projects.
> 
> greetings,
> elian

Hummm....plus perhaps, what Jimbo has been defining from the very 
beginning of the project : a certain number of *core* issues which make 
all of us part of ONE big project, not a collection of loose ones.

To my opinion, as respect wikipedia itself (it might be slightly 
different for other projects)
* it is a generalist encyclopedia, meant to gather free knowledge (-> gfdl)
* it will make that information freely available to anyone (readers do 
not pay to read wikipedia)
* in as many languages as possible
* with free participation (everyone is welcome, regardless of his 
nationality, sex, color, age, education, and no one has to pay to 
participate)
* with participants bound to be respectful of copyright issues, of 
neutrality requirement, and of other participants (three types of 
violation which are likely to grant banning)

And...I think that is just about it.

That is what Jimbo (and other core contributors) has been repeating over 
  and over in the past three years. And I think that should be what the 
board job should also be about (on top on promotion, representation, and 
technical issues).

A guarantee that these core issues are always respected, no matter what. 
  That no wikipedia will ever change the copyright, will ever ban people 
for their political opinion, will ever refuse participations from people 
with less than a phD...whatever

For this reason, articles such as Section 4.4., which states that

	the Board of Trustees shall be empowered to order suspension of 
membership or the suspension of particular or specific user privileges 
at its sole discretion of any member upon receipt of a verified 
complaint of misconduct;

is not clear enough.

I think again at what I have been expecting (and what I still expect) 
from Jimbo as help.

I will only give one example : it is up to each local wikipedia to 
ensure that no disruptive individual mess things up. So, it is to each 
local wikipedia to decide who should be banned; Not to any board, whose 
members will not know the specificities of the local wikipedia, nor the 
bottom line of the issues at stack.
However, if anyone does believe the banning was wrong, not in line with 
wikipedia core principles (such as banning someone for holding an 
undesirable political opinion), the issue should be brought in front of 
the board, and the board study the case, and eventually have the person 
unbanned.

Or declare that a wikipedia is not part of the wikipedia project if it 
is no more following the gfdl requirement.

That means in effect, that only few, but major decisions, should be 
taken by the board itself, as regards policies. Minor policies are not 
part of those. Perhaps, that should be explained more clearly in the 
current document.