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

Thu May 11 09:51:38 UTC 2006

Birgitte SB wrote:

>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Birgitte SB wrote:
>>    
>>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>I believe you misunderstand me here.  I strongly
>believe that most policies should be up for
>reevaluation.  Many things seem like great ideas, or
>seem as though they would naturally go hand in hand
>until you actually start *working* on them.  Newcomers
>who active on a project are certainly welcome in my
>view.  I see them as future established users.  I
>think you have hit the nail on the head with "Good
>rules support existing practice rather than shape it."
> The problem with the original suggestion is such
>advertisement would atract people who have no
>understanding of existing practice. That is my
>concern.  I feel anyone familar with existing practice
>will be aware of policy disscussion through the normal
>in-project channels.
>
Fair enough.

>I have not really experienced "unending debates about
>policy".  Most proposals actually need little debate
>at all.  Maybe that is a scale issue.  I really am
>open to hear anyone interested in Wikisource to come
>add a voice to policy discussions.  But I would expect
>them to keep an eye on the Scriptorium.  Most
>everything that applies to Wikisource on a broader
>sense is disscused there.  Maybe I am wrong, but
>imagine a large scale advertisment would attract
>people who are more interested that Wikisource does
>something they believe it should than *how* it does
>something.  I am very much interested in the more
>pragmatic input which I believe requires some
>familarity with how Wikisource operates.
>
Maybe we're not as far apart as I suspected.  All the more reason to sit 
down for a chat in Boston. :-)

Ec