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

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

> What I wrote below is my vision of Wikipedia (the big project)
> I have little vision of the other projects, perhaps could other people 
> express their sentiments on those ?
>
> I am serious there. Perhaps am I wrong on one of these points. I tried 
> to state the core principles of the Wikipedias. Perhaps I made a 
> mistake ? Perhaps for example, are we planning to make people pay for 
> it in a while ?
>
> Is there a ***charter*** somewhere ?
>
> We need a charter.
>
> Anthere a rit:
>
>> 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.
>
The points that you make are certainly very good in principle.  I may 
question a few details, but that does not detract from the big picture. 
 To receive more comment you needed to say something more controversial. 
 The problem is that most people would agree as I do.

The type of charter that you envision should have come first before the 
by-laws.  Once the "charter" was formally accepted the by-laws would 
empower the Trustees to guarantee its being a core principle. 
 Unfortunately, agreement appears to be the best way to ensure that 
nothing gets done.  The most effective dictators are the ones who do not 
appear dictatorial.  It's been a long time since I read it, but I think 
that Macchiavelli said something to that effect..  A parent cannot 
forbid a child's first steps out of a fear that the child could thereby 
hurt himself.  

What should have been a credible first draft of the by-laws has by 
virtue of overtly dictatorial adoption become a lightning rod for 
criticism.  It has thus been a counterproductive process, and could even 
be seen by some as an encouragement to establish forks.  Ownership in a 
project depends as much on the intangibles as on the material goods. 
 For many of us the selfless commitment of time has been the price of 
ownership, and the mere suggestion that the kid who brought the bats and 
balls can take them all away is bound to send some scurrying to find 
alternative solutions.

In a legal sense the Board of Trustees CAN do anything it wants, but it 
should never emphasize that.  Rather it should emphasize a hands off 
approach, and a commitment to defend core principles without meddling 
beyond that.  That commitment should also be seen as a separate 
commitment by *every* individual member of that Board, reinforced by the 
way in which they participate in plain view across the project.

The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles.  The 
principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to 
GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have 
indicated that we may be stuck with it.  The NPOV principle would remain 
as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of 
just what that means.  Respect for copyright would remain a principle 
without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all 
circumstances..

Ec