Brianna Laugher wrote:
>On 17/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
>>>the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can
>>>come up with its own?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charte_Wikiquote_FR
>>
>>
>OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
>
>By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?
>
There's a lot of ambiguity that has developed around the use of the term
"project". Resolving this would be very helpful.
>>Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be
>>developped by community, NOT by the Foundation.
>>If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation
>>somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing
>>the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the
>>editorial policy.
>>
>>
>OK...but there is a long precedent of the Foundation (well, actually:
>Jimbo) setting editorial policy. Jimbo's opinion is frequently cited
>in all manner of discussions and it was his direct intervention in
>Wikibooks that WAS the whole videogame guides thing.
>
I believe that the Catholic Church should review the doctrine of papal
infalibility. In theory it only applies when he speaks 'ex cathedra',.
but that is a difficult concept for the flock to grasp.
>>I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is
>>The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow
>>these exact rules.
>>
>>Versus
>>The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the
>>Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
>>
>>
>
>So...one of these statements should be about what the Foundation is or
>is not willing to support, right?
>
>I am trying to tie these statements to Erik's statement that these are
>the things that would be cited in deciding if a new project should be
>supported or not.
>I think it would be not hard to get enough people to support a "Games
>guide wiki". What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would
>not support it?
>
>What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support
>Wikistalk? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki )
>
>What, in these statements, explains why WMF would not support
>Wikihowto, Wikipeople/Wikimorial , Wikiviews (opinions/reviews)? Is it
>*only* the lack of community support, or is there something I don't
>see in these statements?
>
I think you are reading far too much into Anthere's answer. Where to
put a games guide is not a particularly important question. The
important point now is how we decide. Presuming that WMF would or would
not support a project, and using that to generalize a policy is not a
sound basis for developing policies. What decides whether or not we
have Wikistalk as a project may be as simple as the common sense
judgement of the people who decide. If any project proposal is really
new, how can there possibly be a pre-existing policy about it?
>>My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat
>>participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That
>>this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new
>>language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees
>>to support this project, with this charter.
>>
>>
>Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great
>idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are
>there guidelines for what a charter should cover?
>
You make it look like you are looking for answers from everyone else but
yourself. If such a charter is a good idea, then maybe the niext step
could be to develop what it should contain.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>On 17/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Wouldn't this be a good time to expand on specific visions for each of
>>>the projects? If not here, then where? Nowhere? Or each community can
>>>come up with its own?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes. Please develop charters for each project.
>>
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charte_Wikiquote_FR
>>
>>
>OK. I wasn't aware of this, but I think it's a great idea.
>
>By 'project' do we mean Wikiquote (all languages) or French Wikiquote, though?
>
There's a lot of ambiguity that has developed around the use of the term
"project". Resolving this would be very helpful.
>>Editors are telling us all the time that the editorial policy should be
>>developped by community, NOT by the Foundation.
>>If in its statement, which is recorded in its *bylaws* the Foundation
>>somehow clarifies video games guides are not appropriate (I am forcing
>>the point here on purpose), then, the Foundation is setting up the
>>editorial policy.
>>
>>
>OK...but there is a long precedent of the Foundation (well, actually:
>Jimbo) setting editorial policy. Jimbo's opinion is frequently cited
>in all manner of discussions and it was his direct intervention in
>Wikibooks that WAS the whole videogame guides thing.
>
I believe that the Catholic Church should review the doctrine of papal
infalibility. In theory it only applies when he speaks 'ex cathedra',.
but that is a difficult concept for the flock to grasp.
>>I do not think it should be this way. The way you ask is
>>The Foundation decides to create a project and the project should follow
>>these exact rules.
>>
>>Versus
>>The community decides to create a project with this goal, and the
>>Foundation likes the idea and decides to support it (or decide not to).
>>
>>
>
>So...one of these statements should be about what the Foundation is or
>is not willing to support, right?
>
>I am trying to tie these statements to Erik's statement that these are
>the things that would be cited in deciding if a new project should be
>supported or not.
>I think it would be not hard to get enough people to support a "Games
>guide wiki". What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would
>not support it?
>
>What, in these statements, explains why the WMF would not support
>Wikistalk? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lookup_directory_wiki )
>
>What, in these statements, explains why WMF would not support
>Wikihowto, Wikipeople/Wikimorial , Wikiviews (opinions/reviews)? Is it
>*only* the lack of community support, or is there something I don't
>see in these statements?
>
I think you are reading far too much into Anthere's answer. Where to
put a games guide is not a particularly important question. The
important point now is how we decide. Presuming that WMF would or would
not support a project, and using that to generalize a policy is not a
sound basis for developing policies. What decides whether or not we
have Wikistalk as a project may be as simple as the common sense
judgement of the people who decide. If any project proposal is really
new, how can there possibly be a pre-existing policy about it?
>>My suggestion (and this was a collective desire of board retreat
>>participants) is that each project develop a very detailed charter. That
>>this charter be adopted by all languages of this project. That new
>>language starting should adopt this charter. And the Foundation agrees
>>to support this project, with this charter.
>>
>>
>Are the existing projects exempt from this? I think that's a great
>idea (although I can see it being very difficult for Wikipedia). Are
>there guidelines for what a charter should cover?
>
You make it look like you are looking for answers from everyone else but
yourself. If such a charter is a good idea, then maybe the niext step
could be to develop what it should contain.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l