Biographies of living people bring up legal issues, this matter does not.
________________________________ From: Delirium <[email protected]> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:05:14 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles. > Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is > unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up > ideology. As administrators are appointed/elected volunteers serving > according to project rules, rather than formal employees, it is impossible > for there to be any illegality in dismissal. There is therefore a > considerable precedent not to interfere, which would be detrimental to our > ideological foundation. > That's not really true at all--- *actual*, direct, overturning of local community decisions is rare, but meta- and foundation-level discussion of general principles and management issues, with a view towards encouraging change on specific wikis, is common and constitutes probably the majority of this list. For example, after the relicensing debate, probably the second-largest debate here is a lengthy "meta level intervention" in the English Wikipedia's handling of biographies of living people. -Mark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
