I am suddenly having doubts.
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 ?
No one made any comments ?
Does that mean everyone agree, or no one read ? :-)
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 ?
Mav, was there not a beginning of a draft of a charter somewhere ? Did
not we have a discussion about that ?
I found
, with a very
wise comment from Little Dan at the top
We need this. That is the charter that will set the ciment between the
various languages.
We need a charter.
Don't you think ?
Anthere a écrit:
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.