[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia Commons

Tue May 9 03:54:04 UTC 2006

Birgitte SB wrote:

>--- Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>You do not get my point. When policies are to be changed, when the way 
>>things work are to be changed, this is when you should inform the 
>>communities in advance. Some careful marketing communication is what is 
>>needed. Marketeers call it customer relations. And you /need /to inform 
>>your customers; when you do, you talk to all your customers when you 
>>don't you have to deal with them one at a time and you may find that 
>>customers do no longer give you their custom. Given how busy you are, 
>>you would not even notice.
>>    
>>
>I disagree with this sentiment in general terms.  If
>the "customers" are not making an effort to watch the
>pages where policy decisions are disscused, they
>should not expect to courted by those wishing to
>change policy.  The community that is actually doing
>the work of maintaining a project should have the
>ability to set policy without going out of their way
>to court the fly-by-night users of the project.  I do
>not think it is wise to try and alienate the less
>active userbase, but it is unrealistic to wait for
>their reaction before making any decisions.  
>
This seems like a somewhat frigid approach.  It's true enough that 
policies are developped by the most active members, but many policies 
should allow for viable alternatives.  If a newcomer has a different way 
of doing things that does not conform with established formatting norms 
there should be room to develop those ideas without his being pilloried 
because he does things differently.  "Ignore all rules" should always 
remain a viable policy.  This does not mean that we need to accept every 
bit of idiocy that comes along.  Nor does it mean that core principles 
must be abandoned.  Good rules support existing practice rather than 
shape it.  Poor rules, even by the most active members, tend to be 
ignored as people go ahead and do their own things. 

Almost all rules should be open to change, because a community thrives 
on new ideas.  Very few rules should be the subject of persistent 
enforcement.

>The English Wikisource recently made a major change to
>it's incluson guidelines (which involves the eventual
>deletion of around 200 pages).  We held open
>disscusion for over three weeks, and the material is
>now being slowly phased out without a mass deletion. 
>Although there was a small amount of advertising
>amoung people with a specific interest, the
>participants in the disscusion did not vary from the
>regular editors.  I cannot agree that it should have
>been advertised at large across projects.  I am very
>happy with the way we have handled this situation
>which quite at odds with your sentiments.
>
I presume you're referring to the source code articles.  With many of 
these the contributors haven't been around for a long time, and that's 
probably an indicator of a failed sub-project.  Still, the safe and fair 
approach is to give personal notice to any contributors that are still 
around, and leaving them ample time to respond.

>It would not be productive during a major policy
>disscussion to issue an invitation to people who have
>no idea how a project operates on a day-to-day basis. 
>The community which actually *works* on a project
>needs to be the ones to set policy.  If the people you
>consider "customers" find that the community no longer
>serves their needs, they should work to carve out such
>a niche themselves.  These projects are all operating
>with a limited amount of volunteers and I cannot
>imagine any of them would ignore the corcerns of
>people willing to get their hands dirty.  But when
>someone has the mindset that they are a "customer" and
>want to reallocate these existing voluteers to take
>care of their pet issues, well I won't be so impolite
>as to express what I think of that.  Now they are
>welcome to share these concerns.  Many people can
>vouch that I am willing to drop my current project to
>help them deal with issue I agree is important when
>they bring to my attention.  But to say projects
>should not attempt to set policy unless they
>personally invite over all the people who are standing
>on the sidelines is ridiculous.  Even if such people
>are the most informed, intelligent, reasonable people
>on earth, they will not be a useful addition to policy
>disscusions until they have worked within the project
>and achieved such understanding that can only be
>gained by experience.  The fact that infrequent users
>may not *like* the communities policy descision is not
>reason enough to hold off on any decision till they
>have been consulted.
>
I don't know about the applicability or implications of the term 
"customers", but I can certainly discuss the matter without using it.

Most people have little interest in getting involved in policy matters.  
They may be interested in specific content areas, and see unending 
debates about policy as a total waste of time.  They continue to work 
well on their specialty, and will only discuss policy when their own 
area is affected.  That's fine.  For them the discussion _starts_ at 
that point.

I very strongly believe in the autonomy of the projects; I had a big 
argument with a significant Wikipedian about that during the earliest 
days of Wikisource.  Although it would be patently ridiculous to invite 
absolutely everyone to participate in some of these discussions, it is 
just as ridiculous and even unjust and arrogant to suggest that informed 
Wikimedians cannot make useful contributions to a current debate.  
Absence of input may not be a valid reason to hold off decisions, but it 
is a valid reason to hold off enforcement in inappropriate circumstance. 

Ec