[Foundation-l] en.WP dysfunction (was: A letter to Wikipedia collides with the non-free content policies)

Sun Jan 27 04:22:19 UTC 2008

The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF
evaluation of specific case, when the most general
pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . .
ambitious.

I really do not understand why en.WP is so
dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions
within the community without appealing to the
foundation several times a month.[2][3][4]  My biggest
concern about a meta-arbcom is that it's cases will
end up being 90% dire en.WP issues that *must* be
appealed higher-up.  en.WP seems to be having about 5
issues a month they believe they cannot deal with
themselves, and this is *without* any meta-arbcom or
other established process to appeal to.  

Why can en.WP not come to decisions within their
community?  Is it because Jimbo's historical special
relationship has handicapped them into always looking
for a higher authority to step-in?  Or are they just
bolder than other wikis and have no qualms about
making demands on everyone's time for minor issues? Is
it that they lack leaders that are willing to close
these sorts of cases?  Or have they grown so big they
can longer be managed at all?  Can we simply continue
to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something to
be done to help them become more self-suficiient?

Birgitte SB

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037363.html
[2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037403.html
[3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037136.html
[4]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/037636.html

--- Remember the dot <rememberthedot at gmail.com> wrote:

> The foundation's input would be appreciated in
> resolving this issue. A
> scanned letter addressed to "Wikipedia" was uploaded
> to the English
> Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Studentsorry.jpg
> 
> The author of the letter did not release it under a
> free license, and Mike
> Godwin, the foundation's legal counsel, clarified
> that the recipient of the
> letter (Wikipedia) does not have the right to freely
> license it.
> 
> The letter has no encyclopedic use, and was uploaded
> mainly because it is
> humorous.
> 
> So the question is: is keeping this letter one of
> the "limited exceptions"
> to
>
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy?
> 
> -- 
> Remember the dot
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs