On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: > > I fully agree with you. Any information is educational; it just depends > of particular project scope would it be there or not. For example, you > don't want to put Shakespeare's works on Wikipedia, because the proper > place for it is Wikisource. Particular colony of ants is educational and > could be interesting for making a photo of it, but it is not likely that > it would get an article on Wikipedia. And so on. > > But, why then Board decided to force "educational" component as > mandatory in its statement? If there is no difference between > "informational" and "educational", statement "we host only content that > is both free and educational in nature" doesn't have a lot of sense, as > it would sound like "we only host content which is free" (and that's the > very known information), as "content" is more precise synonym for > "information" (to be precise "content" could be interpreted as "set of > information" or so). > > So, I would like to know distinction between "informational" and > "educational" interpreted by Board members; or it is, as you and Michael > said, just not so common interpretation of the synonyms of the adjective > "educational". >
I doubt the language selection was parsed to such a degree. Whatever the difference, it's minor, and I seriously doubt they meant to exclude Wikinews (or, for that matter, the huge volume of data hosted on all the projects that is meta-content rather than outward-facing educational material) from the umbrella mission of the WMF. Seems like there are more substantial questions about the resolution the Board could address. Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
