On 2009-08-06 12:01, Jade Harold wrote: >> Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as >> WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. > > Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project > try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and > WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items > define well the basic behavior of community decision making and > treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it > foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already > notice the importance. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
Let's get down to basics: 1. What's the purpose of Wiki[p|m]edia? Roughly, to distribute "all knowledge". That's the mission. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement) 2. How do we do that? *What* knowledge? *Whose* knowledge? What is it, in short, that separates Wikimedia's projects from other things out there? Well, that'd be the [[m:Founding_principles]]. NPOV, freedom to contribute, wiki process, free license. (and existence of a dispute resolution, if needed). A few further policies, like [[WP:NOTLAW]], are of course necessary to cover our backsides... 3. How do we get around doing this in practice? How do we make the daily work as efficient as possible? In terms of what's in, what's out, exactly how should decisions be made, etc, etc. That is - to me - the point of policies such as WP:NOT#Community and a few other points in WP:NOT. For me, the first two points determine very much what will be the result of our work. The philosophy and the ideas behind the project. The third point is technicalities which governs how we'll get there. Sure, some paths will be easier, some will be harder; some paths will match better with certain cultures or mindsets, other paths will match other mindsets. But! This is all about the path to the goal, not the goal in itself. *If two paths arrive at equivalent encyclopedias, I see no reason why the foundation or anyone else outside the community should care: it's the community's choice.* So, my two cents would be: Don't confuse the process, the encyclopedia writing, with the goal, the encyclopedia. The *writing* is not - should not be - the goal. Right? \Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l