User:Sj/SIGs
Alex proposes Governing Committees
[edit]a hasty conception
A proposal on meta (m:Wikimedia_Project_Governing_Committees) leads to this email exchange in early 2004:
Brion:
> Wikimedia exists primarily to provide > material support (ie, servers and hosting) and maintain 'brand > awareness' (the trademark, domain names), doesn't it?
Elian: Could these points be stated explicitly in the bylaws, please? I got another impression by reading the bylaws.
Delirium: My understanding is that the bylaws are almost entirely legal statements, not really meaning to document "everyday practice".
Alex:
> Why does everything have to be stated in the bylaws, the bylaws are > just a general governing body document, they don't have anything to > do with the day to day activities of the various Wikipedia projects,
El: The bylaws say otherwise at the moment - they give the board of trustees the right to interfere with the projects. And, giving you the same answer Jimmy gave the German wikipedians: this may be fine now, but we have to think of the situation in 20 years. Even in 20 years, it should be guaranteed that the welsh wikipedians decide over the policies of the welsh wikipedia, the wikibookists over wikibooks and so on.
The wikimedia foundation is for keeping the servers running, collecting funds and defending the projects against legal threats, but not for enforcing rules (or a however defined code of ethics) upon all projects.
Delirium: If the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers, it has de facto control over everything, whether the bylaws say so or not. And even if the bylaws set up some sort of "self-government" for sub-Wikimedia entities, the bylaws can always be changed by a future Board of Trustees. Unless each Wikipedia is to purchase and administer its own servers... I don't see how we can have projects not be subordinate, at least in a legal and technical sense, to the main organization.
Jan 26 Jimbo: We are an _international_, _global_ project, not a series of _nationalistic_ projects following our own separate paths.
It is very important that steps be taken to ensure that those who don't speak English have their interests well represented, there is no question about that. But ensuring that is not the same thing as going down a path of balkanization.
Anthere chimes in ([1]), asks if there is a charter somewhere (meta page odd and not useful).
Ant repeats early site principles
[edit]1. Wikipedia's success to date is 100% a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing... shared vision.
2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.
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.
3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
4. Changes to the software must be gradual and reversible.
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.
7. Anyone with a beef should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way in the open forum of the mailing list.
8. Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way.
Suggestions
[edit]Anthere
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)
Delirium
The charter itself should stick to generalities and principles. The principle of openly available knowledge is good, but restricting it to GFDL would not be appropriate even if previous discussions have indicated that we may be stuck with it. The NPOV principle would remain as something for which we strive, without making too fine a point of just what that means. Respect for copyright would remain a principle without undue emphasis on following the letter of the law in all circumstances..
Michael Snow
The model I would suggest is that of the various organizations (fan clubs, essentially) that develop for cultural phenomena like Star Wars. Generally, they're tolerated and passively encouraged, because they help promote the project. Even though there may be some unauthorized use of images and logos, it's rarely necessary to interfere unless a group starts giving the impression that it's official and actually represents the project (in this case, Wikipedia and the foundation). This fits in well with Jimbo's Benevolent Dictator model.
Elian proposes electing wiki representatives
[edit]long-time conception sees the light
one-three people from each community, elected "as the official contact persons and take care of communication, approach the foundation if there are problems etc."
Aphaia agrees that the m:Wikimedia Embassy seems not to be working so well.