Fred Bauder wrote: > I think the assumption is that any Wikipedia will adopt the general > policies found on the English Wikipedia, but tailor them for local > conditions. A project which wishes to significantly deviate from the > general principles of everyone can edit, neutral point of view, and using > reliable sources should probably be independent. > > Perhaps it is time a definite policy is drafted and published. > I have consistently supported the five pillar approach. Four of these should apply to *all* Wikimedia projects, and the fifth, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia can only apply to the wikipedias. Indeed, the sister projects are all based on some departure from that pillar.
Important as it may be, reliable sources was not one of the original principles. It grew out of subsequent necessity, and has become an important second-level principle. It should not be accorded a higher status because of the inherent instability and unreliability of defining "reliable." That everyone can edit and neutral point of view are important, as are free content and assuming good faith. Compared to the bureaucratic brick that Europe's functionaries would call a constitution the US Constitution is a model of brevity. Brevity is essential if a document is to receive the respect of the general population. Remove from the US Constitution all those plumbing bits, like limiting a president to two terms, that are unlikely to have an effect on the daily lives of the citizens, and the document is simpler still. Few, if any, countries receive such unquestioning support for their constitutions; in part, the ability of citizens to cite its main points is no doubt a factor in that support. Who can possibly cite, or even find, the principles that underlie the European constitutional document. Suggesting that the general policies of the English Wikipedia should be adopted on other projects is counterproductive. There may have been a time to do this at a very early stages of the new projects, but that time is long past. However popular the current US president may be around the world doesn't change the fact that the citizens in the countries of the "free world" did not democratically elect him as their leader. Each existing project must have the opportunity to accept those principles, and the best way to insure that they do is to keep them simple and without interpretive embellishments. I already tend to believe that what we now have at [[WP:5]] is already too verbose. Drafting and publishing a policy is one thing, but unless everyone has the opportunity to feel that it is consistent with their beliefs, it will not be viewed with respect. Addressing such issues was certainly a part of my vision for supporting the Volunteer Council last year. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
