I remind people about the existence of Wikia for things that diverge
from the standards,
The point of calling something a Wikipedia is not just the inter-wiki
links, but the expectation of the type of material and authorship that
WP has been representing.
There will obviously be variation, somewhat dependent on , frankly,
national characteristics. It is not accidental that de is stricter
about V & RS than en--to give a positive illustration. Some of it is
legal systems--the European WPs can not accept fair use images.
Whether a WP is POV depends on where you view it from. We would expect
some national POV. We would not expect it being taken over by a more
specific group pushing a point. Whether a WP permits OR is also a
continuum--there are continual discussions about how far "common
sense" can be extended, & I wouldn't expect total agreement on that,
or on BLP, or on anything that depended upon human interpretation of a
general principle.
Some cannot be literal in execution, though they may be in principle.
Even "no ownership"--in en WP there are some topics that are
essentially owned, because the effort of the necessary editors to
overcome this is not present. I might even accept a WP that allowed a
particular state of an article to be signed. Some less-edited ones in
practice are.
Some may be cases where the original WP implementation may have been
too rigid: I would accept a WP that insisted on real names to edit
articles., though I do not advocate it.
But some things are more specific: I do not think the Foundation
should accept the use of the name by a WP that charges for access.
And even some principles have to be conceded: I would like it that no
WP is censored, but I can think of some where this might not be a real
possibility and that community would need to accept a safe degree of
self-censorship.
I simply do not know whether I would accept a WP operated by an
educational foundation of some sort--or conceivably even a government
educational agency.
David Goodman DGG
On 2/26/07, Steve <subsume(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the point of your line
of questioning.
Is this just slippery slope, or do you feel that Original Research is
absolutely on par with the things you suggest?
-S
On 2/26/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
Would you accept POV Wikipedias ?
Would you accept Wikipedias that are not Free ?
Would you accept Wikipedias where articles about the same subject state
completely contradictory things .. one being in one language the second in
another language ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 2/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/02/07, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra(a)ukr.net> wrote:
> Wikipedia might in some way feature such
original content
Which ones, for example?
There are languages in which their Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia
*ever* written in the language. I can hypothetically imagine such a
Wikipedia allowing original research or even signed articles,
Britannica-style.
("No ownership of articles" is a rule on en:wp, but I can imagine it
not being one on other WMF wikis.)
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.