Thank you, Anthere, for stating so clearly everything
:)
Just making a few comments here & there, please take'em as my own views
on things.
Nicolas...you must be joking :-)
I did not write that. I never state things clearly like this :-))
It is something that was written in the first year of Wikipedia. I do
not know exactly when, for it is anterior to the software phase II.
Problably the first months.
I love historical texts.
I am glad to see that Christopher agreed with it.
No one else made any comment though
There is the problem.
Three years ago, we had a statement of principles, while only one person
was supporting the whole project
Now, we are trying to set association, and we have none.
Here is a sentence I would have loved to see in a global charter we
would all have adopted together
We agree to
* respect the autonomy of member associations, but require of all
adherence to WikiMedia mission, and commitment to quality, openness and
respect of members
...or anything similar
...with above description of WikiMedia mission
--------------------
For example: rather than trust humans to
correctly identify
"regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so
that people are automatically given full privileges once they have
been around the community for a very short period of time. The process
should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have
to do anything to start contributing to the community.
The only issue i can see is that, if the algorithm is opened, you may be
sure some people will try to abuse it. So better make sure it's really
working :)
4. Any changes to the software must be gradual
and reversible. We need
to make sure that any changes contribute positively to the community,
as ultimately determined by me, in full consultation with the
community consensus.
Gradual yes. Reversible, really depends. A database format change, for
instance, can be pretty hard to reverse. Ultimately, yes, as long it
contributes to the community as a whole, it's a Good Thing to improve
the software.
5. The GNU FDL license, the openness and _viral_
nature of it, are
fundamental to the longterm success of the site. Anyone who wants to
use our content in a closed proprietary manner must be challenged. We
must adhere very strictly to both the letter and spirit of the license.
Spirit rather than letter, i would say. Because how for instance do you
identify the 5 main contributors of an article? Pretty hard question,
isn't it? <grin>
I think we need to discuss on a case basis, when a potential violation
is spotted.
6. The mailing list will remain open,
well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia
should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The
topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at
the Wikipedia itself.
Hum. If the topic is a concern for only one language, i think the best
place to discuss it is on the language's wikipedia itself. Because you
can be sure all contributors have access to it. On mailing lists means
some people will just not subscribe.
International matters, some main channel must be decided, whether it is
Metawiki, mailing lists, smoke signals, whatever :)
Nicolas 'Ryo'