[Wikipedia-l] Re: Time to set up charter

Wed Jan 28 05:29:32 UTC 2004

Nicolas Weeger a écrit:
> 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'