[Foundation-l] Do we need a Code of Participation?

Thu Nov 15 18:16:43 UTC 2007

I think you meant to write:

Unless you agree to Keep the Faith, you will be banned from Wikipedia.

It's "assume good faith", not "keep the faith".

On Nov 9, 2007 7:50 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> on 11/9/07 2:39 AM, The Cunctator at cunctator at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > This is sad and pathetic. And I mean "pathetic" in the sense of
> > "arousing sadness and compassion".
> >
> > A code of conduct tells people "We don't trust new people, and we have
> > problems with each other, and we don't know how to build a community."
> >
> Cunc, a code of conduct is a set of guidelines - like road signs - they
> help
> people to go in the right direction. The Community that was built was
> going
> in the wrong direction; we're trying to correct that. Keep the faith.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
> >
> > On 11/5/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> I've been thinking a bit about the whole issue of civility, and other
> >> expectations that we may have from our editors.
> >>
> >> While Wikimedia has a stronger tradition of civility than most online
> >> communities, we still often fall short -- and perhaps part of the
> >> reason is that we never ask our users to explicitly "opt into" the
> >> core cultural principles of Wikimedia. Rather, we expect that they
> >> will "soak them up" simply by being exposed to them in practice.
> >>
> >> There are a few reasons why I think an explicit opt-in to a small
> >> number of core principles would be a good idea:
> >>
> >> * It means the user has to make an explicit choice. This may make them
> >> more likely to think about those principles, to internalize them, or
> >> to recall them later.
> >>
> >> * It makes it clear that, "Ignore all rules" or not, there are
> >> non-negotiable principles upon which the project is founded.
> >>
> >> * It establishes more firmly the idea of "being a Wikimedian" -- it
> >> contributes to a shared identity, across all projects.
> >>
> >> I favor an opt-in statement that is _not_ a bunch of legalese "Terms
> >> of Use", but short and to the point (possibly even illustrated :-).
> >> Implementation-wise, it would be something that's part of the sign up
> >> procedure. Rather than adding yet another checkbox, we could simply
> >> use the existing account creation captcha image as a confirmation
> >> method.
> >>
> >> If we do this, it would, in my view, be wise to ask any existing user
> >> to also confirm their agreement with these principles upon their next
> >> login.
> >>
> >> Here's a (very rough) example text:
> >>
> >> - - -
> >> I agree that, as a member of this community, I shall
> >> * treat others with respect and kindness, and assume good faith in
> >> their actions;
> >> * participate in service to the mission of this project:
> >> [one-line summary of project's mission, e.g. "to create a freely
> >> licensed encyclopedia"]
> >> * disclose any conflicts of interest, and recuse myself from editing
> >> where they could impair my judgment.
> >> - - -
> >>
> >> Obviously this would still need a lot of editing. Whichever bullet
> >> points would be considered most important, I believe the total number
> >> should be limited to 3 to 5.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >> --
> >> Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
> >> Erik
> >>
> >> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> >> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>