Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Well, data becomes information becomes knowledge.
Information imply organization of data, and knowledge imply processing of
information.

The description "knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular
fact or circumstance" is from a dictionary, and I won't tell which one. It
is not entirely correct.
The description "facts told, heard, or discovered" is from Oxford Advanced
Learners Dictionary, ISBN 9780194311410

If you can't communicate a fact, because it is  like "exposing an ancient
paper source to intense UV light", then other might say it is a moot fact.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history.  I would not
> have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of
> knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had.  I am
> expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the
> movement can rally round.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia.  It is part of the
> > reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not
> > so".
> >
> >
> > On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
> >
> > > Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be,
> towards
> > > the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human
> > > knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to
> determine
> > > the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades?  Surely
> > by
> > > now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
> > knowledge
> > > that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
> > > continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common position
> > > that everyone has signed up to?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
> > "knowledge
> > > > communicated or received concerning a particular fact or
> circumstance".
> > > (I
> > > > would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
> > this.)
> > > > If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate
> > the
> > > > fact, how can there be the information?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, this does not make sense.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ​
> > > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way
> you
> > > > look
> > > > > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information
> and
> > > make
> > > > > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
> > sources
> > > > is
> > > > > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> > > > > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient
> paper
> > > > source
> > > > > to intense UV light.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how
> to
> > > > > "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets
> > more
> > > > > complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its
> part
> > > of a
> > > > > multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and
> circumstances
> > > by
> > > > > bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it
> self
> > > > > changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to
> > collect
> > > > the
> > > > > sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
> > address
> > > > the
> > > > > uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
> > > > culture(language)
> > > > > from which it originates
> > > > >
> > > > > > ​
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
> > jpbel...@wikimedia.ca
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JP
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
> > create
> > > > > > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> > > > > policies.
> > > > > > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral
> point
> > of
> > > > > view.
> > > > > > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
> > projects
> > > > > > rewrite
> > > > > > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > its the cultural differences that influence the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Richard Farmbrough]

Probably that is verifiability.

On 11 Aug 2017 12:31, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

> I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history.  I would not
> have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of
> knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had.  I am
> expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the
> movement can rally round.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia.  It is part of the
> > reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not
> > so".
> >
> >
> > On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
> >
> > > Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be,
> towards
> > > the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human
> > > knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to
> determine
> > > the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades?  Surely
> > by
> > > now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
> > knowledge
> > > that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
> > > continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common position
> > > that everyone has signed up to?
> > >
> > > "Rogol"
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
> > "knowledge
> > > > communicated or received concerning a particular fact or
> circumstance".
> > > (I
> > > > would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
> > this.)
> > > > If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate
> > the
> > > > fact, how can there be the information?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, this does not make sense.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ​
> > > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way
> you
> > > > look
> > > > > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information
> and
> > > make
> > > > > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
> > sources
> > > > is
> > > > > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> > > > > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient
> paper
> > > > source
> > > > > to intense UV light.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how
> to
> > > > > "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets
> > more
> > > > > complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its
> part
> > > of a
> > > > > multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and
> circumstances
> > > by
> > > > > bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it
> self
> > > > > changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to
> > collect
> > > > the
> > > > > sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
> > address
> > > > the
> > > > > uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
> > > > culture(language)
> > > > > from which it originates
> > > > >
> > > > > > ​
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
> > jpbel...@wikimedia.ca
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JP
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
> > create
> > > > > > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> > > > > policies.
> > > > > > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral
> point
> > of
> > > > > view.
> > > > > > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
> > projects
> > > > > > rewrite
> > > > > > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so
> > who's
> > > > > > culture
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
> > > > policies.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad <
> jeb...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
> > > > _content_,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that
> > content.
> > > > > > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I'm aware that "knowledge" as a concept has a long history.  I would not
have expected the movement to have finally resolved the "problem of
knowledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had.  I am
expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the
movement can rally round.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:

> The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia.  It is part of the
> reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not
> so".
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:
>
> > Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards
> > the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human
> > knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to determine
> > the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades?  Surely
> by
> > now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of
> knowledge
> > that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
> > continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common position
> > that everyone has signed up to?
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or
> "knowledge
> > > communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance".
> > (I
> > > would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for
> this.)
> > > If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate
> the
> > > fact, how can there be the information?
> > >
> > > Sorry, this does not make sense.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ​
> > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
> > > look
> > > > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and
> > make
> > > > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the
> sources
> > > is
> > > > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> > > > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
> > > source
> > > > to intense UV light.
> > > >
> > > > There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> > > > "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets
> more
> > > > complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part
> > of a
> > > > multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances
> > by
> > > > bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> > > > changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to
> collect
> > > the
> > > > sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to
> address
> > > the
> > > > uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
> > > culture(language)
> > > > from which it originates
> > > >
> > > > > ​
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland <
> jpbel...@wikimedia.ca
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to
> create
> > > > > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> > > > policies.
> > > > > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point
> of
> > > > view.
> > > > > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where
> projects
> > > > > rewrite
> > > > > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so
> who's
> > > > > culture
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
> > > policies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
> > > _content_,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that
> content.
> > > > > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_
> > that
> > > > are
> > > > > > > highly
> > > > > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > > > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra <
> gnanga...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies
> being
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Richard Farmbrough]

The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia.  It is part of the
reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not
so".


On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors"  wrote:

> Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards
> the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human
> knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to determine
> the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades?  Surely by
> now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of knowledge
> that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
> continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common position
> that everyone has signed up to?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
>
> > Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or "knowledge
> > communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance".
> (I
> > would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for this.)
> > If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate the
> > fact, how can there be the information?
> >
> > Sorry, this does not make sense.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > ​
> > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> > >
> > >
> > > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
> > look
> > > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and
> make
> > > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources
> > is
> > > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> > > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
> > source
> > > to intense UV light.
> > >
> > > There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> > > "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
> > > complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part
> of a
> > > multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances
> by
> > > bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> > > changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect
> > the
> > > sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address
> > the
> > > uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
> > culture(language)
> > > from which it originates
> > >
> > > > ​
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> > > >
> > > > JP
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad, 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > > > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> > > policies.
> > > > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
> > > view.
> > > > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> > > > rewrite
> > > > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> > > > culture
> > > > > is
> > > > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
> > policies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
> > _content_,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_
> that
> > > are
> > > > > > highly
> > > > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> > > > global
> > > > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/
> abstract
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
> > culture
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on
> > article
> > > > > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> > > > analysis
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external
> links,
> > > > > words,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and
> Featured
> > > > > > articles
> > > > > > > on
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be, towards
the end of the second decade of a mission to bring the sum of human
knowledge to the world, and in the middle of a major effort to determine
the strategy of the movement into its third and fourth decades?  Surely by
now there is a clear, concise and actionable agreed definition of knowledge
that we can point to when people ask what all that money has been and
continues to be raised for?  Why not just point to that common position
that everyone has signed up to?

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or "knowledge
> communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". (I
> would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for this.)
> If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate the
> fact, how can there be the information?
>
> Sorry, this does not make sense.
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > ​
> > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
> >
> >
> > ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you
> look
> > at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make
> > it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources
> is
> > dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> > continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper
> source
> > to intense UV light.
> >
> > There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> > "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
> > complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a
> > multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances  by
> > bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> > changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect
> the
> > sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address
> the
> > uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of
> culture(language)
> > from which it originates
> >
> > > ​
> >
> >
> > On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> > >
> > > JP
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> > policies.
> > > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
> > view.
> > > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> > > rewrite
> > > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> > > culture
> > > > is
> > > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the
> policies.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on
> _content_,
> > > but
> > > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
> > are
> > > > > highly
> > > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> > > global
> > > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic
> culture
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on
> article
> > > > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> > > analysis
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > > > words,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > > > articles
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > > > approaches
> > > > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
> > demonstrate
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> > > globally
> > > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > > > determines
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Information is "facts told, heard, or discovered" (Oxford) or "knowledge
communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance". (I
would say data and not knowledge, but knowledge is good enough for this.)
If you can't observe the fact or circumstance, and can't communicate the
fact, how can there be the information?

Sorry, this does not make sense.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > ​
> > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
>
>
> ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look
> at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make
> it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is
> dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source
> to intense UV light.
>
> There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
> complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a
> multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances  by
> bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect the
> sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the
> uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language)
> from which it originates
>
> > ​
>
>
> On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland 
> wrote:
>
> > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> >
> > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> policies.
> > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
> view.
> > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> > rewrite
> > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> > culture
> > > is
> > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> > > >
> > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
> > but
> > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
> are
> > > > highly
> > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> > global
> > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> > analysis
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > > words,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > > articles
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > > approaches
> > > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
> demonstrate
> > > that
> > > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> > globally
> > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > > determines
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but
> local
> > > and
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > subjective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
> > pf
> > > > much
> > > > > > > importance
> > > > > > > Ziko
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug.
> 2017
> > um
> > > > > > 14:42:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
> gnanga...@gmail.com
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

No, _verifiability_ can't be different, but _acceptance_ of oral sources
can be different.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland  wrote:

> Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
>
> JP
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
>
> > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies.
> > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> rewrite
> > world history to focus on their own local view.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> culture
> > is
> > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> > >
> > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
> but
> > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> > > highly
> > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> global
> > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > >
> > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> analysis
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > words,
> > > > and
> > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > articles
> > > > on
> > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > approaches
> > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
> > that
> > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> globally
> > > > > shared
> > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > determines
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> > encyclopedic
> > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> > encyclopedic
> > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
> > and
> > > > very
> > > > > > subjective.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
> pf
> > > much
> > > > > > importance
> > > > > > Ziko
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017
> um
> > > > > 14:42:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> > > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> > > community
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
> for
> > > > > banned
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
> > are
> > > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
> > the
> > > > best
> > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes
> live,
> > > > ince a
> > > > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its
> community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
> > > projects,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community
> spends
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad <
> jeb...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the
> maintenance
> > > and
> > > > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > > > not increase them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
> > strain...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
> > > > resolution,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

No, the projects are not that different. Actually I believe the claim that
they are so very different is counterproductive. Now we can't make common
solutions because a few people on *some* project blocks the roll-out. For
example, we could make solutions for quality improvement, but some project
claim they have a superior process (actually very few have a real quality
process).

Violations of neutral point of view is perhaps the most troublesome. Check
out how Nazis from WWII is described in the various versions of
"Wikipedia", you will be amazed.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Strainu  wrote:

> 2017-08-08 12:20 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > something different from Wikipedia.
>
> Each version of Wikipedia is a different encyclopedia. There are
> vastly different inclusion policies and general policies between
> the different encyclopedias out there, what links them is that they
> provide information from all areas of knowledge.
>
> > This is about core content policies.
> > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> rewrite
> > world history to focus on their own local view.
>
> Having a policy about it does not solve the issue. Having a policy one
> can't really change will make it even worse.{{citation needed}} :)
>
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> >> its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> culture is
> >> more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> >>
> >> On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
> but
> >> > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> >> > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> >> highly
> >> > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> >> > Armenian genocide for example.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> >> > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> >> > >
> >> > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
> and
> >> the
> >> > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> >> > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> analysis
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> words,
> >> > and
> >> > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> >> articles
> >> > on
> >> > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> >> > approaches
> >> > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
> that
> >> > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> globally
> >> > > shared
> >> > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> determines
> >> > > what
> >> > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> encyclopedic
> >> > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> encyclopedic
> >> > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
> and
> >> > very
> >> > > > subjective.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> >> > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
> >> much
> >> > > > importance
> >> > > > Ziko
> >> > > >
> >> > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017
> um
> >> > > 14:42:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> >> ability
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> >> community
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
> for
> >> > > banned
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
> are
> >> > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
> the
> >> > best
> >> > > > > guide
> >> > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
> >> > ince a
> >> > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
> >> projects,
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Asaf Bartov]

I agree with Strainu's comments above.

I described some issues with adopting policies and ill-fitting policies
under the Community Governance capacity page, in the Community Capacity
Development program:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development/Community_governance


A.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:09 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> >
> > ​
> > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources
>
>
> ​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look
> at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make
> it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is
> dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
> continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source
> to intense UV light.
>
> There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
> "Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
> complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a
> multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances  by
> bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
> changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect the
> sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the
> uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language)
> from which it originates
>
> > ​
>
>
> On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland 
> wrote:
>
> > Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
> >
> > > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content
> policies.
> > > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of
> view.
> > > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> > rewrite
> > > world history to focus on their own local view.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> > culture
> > > is
> > > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> > > >
> > > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
> > but
> > > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that
> are
> > > > highly
> > > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> > global
> > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> > analysis
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > > words,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > > articles
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > > approaches
> > > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We
> demonstrate
> > > that
> > > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> > globally
> > > > > > shared
> > > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > > determines
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> > > encyclopedic
> > > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but
> local
> > > and
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > subjective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
> > pf
> > > > much
> > > > > > > importance
> > > > > > > Ziko
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug.
> 2017
> > um
> > > > > > 14:42:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra <
> gnanga...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The moment you have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Gnangarra]

>
> ​
> Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources


​very agree, the intangible sources are a really challenge to way you look
at verifiability. Not only are wanting to gather the information and make
it possible for others to also access it the very nature of the sources is
dynamic and fragile bringing them into a tangible format risks the
continuation of knowledge gained, a kin to exposing an ancient paper source
to intense UV light.

There is a lot of fantastic work going on around the world on how to
"Europeanise" knowledge without destroying it  .  All of this gets more
complex when you learn that knowledge isnt just a few words its part of a
multidimensional connection to and in time, place, and circumstances  by
bringing it into a one dimensional world like Wikipedia is in it self
changing the very nature of the knowledge.   If our goal is to collect the
sum of all knowledge then we need to be free as communities to address the
uniqueness of the knowledge we seek within the bounds of culture(language)
from which it originates

> ​


On 9 August 2017 at 04:12, Jean-Philippe Béland 
wrote:

> Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.
>
> JP
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:
>
> > Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> > something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies.
> > Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> > The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects
> rewrite
> > world history to focus on their own local view.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's
> culture
> > is
> > > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> > >
> > > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_,
> but
> > > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> > > highly
> > > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being
> global
> > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > > >
> > > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research
> analysis
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> > words,
> > > > and
> > > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > > articles
> > > > on
> > > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > > approaches
> > > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
> > that
> > > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not
> globally
> > > > > shared
> > > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> > determines
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> > encyclopedic
> > > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> > encyclopedic
> > > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
> > and
> > > > very
> > > > > > subjective.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be
> pf
> > > much
> > > > > > importance
> > > > > > Ziko
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017
> um
> > > > > 14:42:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> > > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> > > community
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity
> for
> > > > > banned
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
> > are
> > > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
> > the
> > > > best
> > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > to establishing themselves 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Verifiability can be very different. For example oral sources.

JP

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 05:20 John Erling Blad,  wrote:

> Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies.
> Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite
> world history to focus on their own local view.
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture
> is
> > more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
> >
> > On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
> > > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> > highly
> > > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > > Armenian genocide for example.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > > >
> > > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
> > the
> > > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links,
> words,
> > > and
> > > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> > articles
> > > on
> > > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > > approaches
> > > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate
> that
> > > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
> > > > shared
> > > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence
> determines
> > > > what
> > > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for
> encyclopedic
> > > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for
> encyclopedic
> > > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local
> and
> > > very
> > > > > subjective.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
> > much
> > > > > importance
> > > > > Ziko
> > > > >
> > > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
> > > > 14:42:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> > ability
> > > to
> > > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> > community
> > > > that
> > > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
> > > > banned
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that
> are
> > > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them
> the
> > > best
> > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
> > > ince a
> > > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
> > projects,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends
> a
> > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
> > and
> > > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > > not increase them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu <
> strain...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
> > > resolution,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
> > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with
> little
> > > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff
> from
> > > > > en.wp.
> > > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
> > > with
> > > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Strainu]

2017-08-08 12:20 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
> something different from Wikipedia.

Each version of Wikipedia is a different encyclopedia. There are
vastly different inclusion policies and general policies between
the different encyclopedias out there, what links them is that they
provide information from all areas of knowledge.

> This is about core content policies.
> Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
> The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite
> world history to focus on their own local view.

Having a policy about it does not solve the issue. Having a policy one
can't really change will make it even worse.{{citation needed}} :)

>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is
>> more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
>>
>> On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>>
>> > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
>> > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
>> > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
>> highly
>> > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
>> > Armenian genocide for example.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>> >
>> > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
>> > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
>> > >
>> > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
>> the
>> > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
>> > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
>> > and
>> > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
>> articles
>> > on
>> > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
>> > approaches
>> > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
>> > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
>> > > shared
>> > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
>> > > what
>> > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
>> > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
>> > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
>> > very
>> > > > subjective.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
>> > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
>> much
>> > > > importance
>> > > > Ziko
>> > > >
>> > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
>> > > 14:42:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Five pillars are moot.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
>> ability
>> > to
>> > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
>> community
>> > > that
>> > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
>> > > banned
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
>> > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
>> > best
>> > > > > guide
>> > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
>> > ince a
>> > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
>> projects,
>> > > but
>> > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
>> > lot
>> > > of
>> > > > > > time.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
>> and
>> > > > > > process,
>> > > > > > > not increase them.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
>> > resolution,
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
>> > > projects
>> > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
>> > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
>> > > > en.wp.
>> > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Policy should not have local variations, unless you want to create
something different from Wikipedia. This is about core content policies.
Those are no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view.
The one most don't follow is neutral point of view, where projects rewrite
world history to focus on their own local view.

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is
> more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.
>
> On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
> > there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> > Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are
> highly
> > troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> > Armenian genocide for example.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> > >
> > > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and
> the
> > > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis
> of
> > > the
> > > > number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
> > and
> > > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured
> articles
> > on
> > > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> > approaches
> > > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
> > > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
> > > shared
> > > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
> > > what
> > > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
> > > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
> > > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
> > very
> > > > subjective.
> > > >
> > >
> > > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf
> much
> > > > importance
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
> > > 14:42:
> > > >
> > > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the
> ability
> > to
> > > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the
> community
> > > that
> > > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
> > > banned
> > > > > and
> > > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
> > best
> > > > > guide
> > > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
> > ince a
> > > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the
> projects,
> > > but
> > > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
> > lot
> > > of
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance
> and
> > > > > > process,
> > > > > > > not increase them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
> > resolution,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
> > > projects
> > > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
> > > > en.wp.
> > > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
> > with
> > > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement,
> let
> > > > alone
> > > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule
> pushing
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > local context.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just
> as
> > > > long
> > > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about
> > it.
> > > > > Even
> > > > > > > > if 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Can we access this article with no pay wall anywhere?

JP

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:49 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
>
> This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
> > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of
> the
> > number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and
> > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on
> > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches
> > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
> > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
> shared
> > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
> what
> > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
> > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
> > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and very
> > subjective.
> >
>
> On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much
> > importance
> > Ziko
> >
> > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
> 14:42:
> >
> > > Five pillars are moot.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
> > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community
> that
> > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
> banned
> > > and
> > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > >
> > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
> > > guide
> > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
> > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > > >
> > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects,
> but
> > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot
> of
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> > > > process,
> > > > > not increase them.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution,
> > and
> > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
> projects
> > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
> > en.wp.
> > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all
> the
> > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
> > alone
> > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
> > > without
> > > > > > local context.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
> > long
> > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
> > > Even
> > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did
> not
> > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
> > > from
> > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
> change
> > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
> small
> > > > > > communities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Strainu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
> content
> > > > > > policies,
> > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> > > policies.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
> updated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not
> be
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > > > simply
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central
> policies
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > > > - 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Gnangarra]

its the cultural differences that influence the policy, so who's culture is
more significant than everyone elses that will dictate the policies.

On 8 August 2017 at 08:14, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
> there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
> Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are highly
> troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
> Armenian genocide for example.
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
> >
> > This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
> > > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of
> > the
> > > number of images, references, internal links, external links, words,
> and
> > > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles
> on
> > > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of
> approaches
> > > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
> > > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
> > shared
> > > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
> > what
> > > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
> > > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
> > > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and
> very
> > > subjective.
> > >
> >
> > On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much
> > > importance
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
> > 14:42:
> > >
> > > > Five pillars are moot.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability
> to
> > > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community
> > that
> > > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
> > banned
> > > > and
> > > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > > >
> > > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the
> best
> > > > guide
> > > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live,
> ince a
> > > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > > > >
> > > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects,
> > but
> > > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a
> lot
> > of
> > > > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> > > > > process,
> > > > > > not increase them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board
> resolution,
> > > and
> > > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
> > projects
> > > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
> > > en.wp.
> > > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all
> > the
> > > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have,
> with
> > > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
> > > alone
> > > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
> > > > without
> > > > > > > local context.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
> > > long
> > > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about
> it.
> > > > Even
> > > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did
> > not
> > > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve
> differently
> > > > from
> > > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
> > change
> > > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
> > small
> > > > > > > communities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strainu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad  >:
> > > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
> > content
> > > > > > > policies,
> > > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Yes there are cultural differences between wikipedias on _content_, but
there should be no differences on _policy_ about that content.
Note also that there are some differences on use of _facts_ that are highly
troublesome, and that comes from relaxed core policies.
Armenian genocide for example.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract
>
> This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
> > preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> > representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of
> the
> > number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and
> > characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on
> > the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches
> > and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
> > high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally
> shared
> > and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines
> what
> > is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
> > entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
> > knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and very
> > subjective.
> >
>
> On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> > And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much
> > importance
> > Ziko
> >
> > John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um
> 14:42:
> >
> > > Five pillars are moot.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
> > > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community
> that
> > > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for
> banned
> > > and
> > > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > > >
> > > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
> > > guide
> > > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
> > > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > > >
> > > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects,
> but
> > > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot
> of
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> > > > process,
> > > > > not increase them.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution,
> > and
> > > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the
> projects
> > > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
> > en.wp.
> > > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all
> the
> > > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
> > alone
> > > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
> > > without
> > > > > > local context.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
> > long
> > > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
> > > Even
> > > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did
> not
> > > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
> > > from
> > > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to
> change
> > > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for
> small
> > > > > > communities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Strainu
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core
> content
> > > > > > policies,
> > > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> > > policies.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them
> updated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not
> be
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > > > simply
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > able to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Gnangarra]

to quote, worth a read before even considering policies being global
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23901/abstract

This article explores the relationship between linguistic culture and the
> preferred standards of presenting information based on article
> representation in major Wikipedias. Using primary research analysis of the
> number of images, references, internal links, external links, words, and
> characters, as well as their proportions in Good and Featured articles on
> the eight largest Wikipedias, we discover a high diversity of approaches
> and format preferences, correlating with culture. We demonstrate that
> high-quality standards in information presentation are not globally shared
> and that in many aspects, the language culture's influence determines what
> is perceived to be proper, desirable, and exemplary for encyclopedic
> entries. As a result, we demonstrate that standards for encyclopedic
> knowledge are not globally agreed-upon and “objective” but local and very
> subjective.
>

On 4 August 2017 at 10:18, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> The number of pillars depends on the language version...
> And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much
> importance
> Ziko
>
> John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um 14:42:
>
> > Five pillars are moot.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
> > > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that
> > > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned
> > and
> > > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> > >
> > > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
> > guide
> > > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
> > > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> > >
> > > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but
> > > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of
> > > time.
> > >
> > > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> > > process,
> > > > not increase them.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution,
> and
> > > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> > > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from
> en.wp.
> > > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> > > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let
> alone
> > > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
> > without
> > > > > local context.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as
> long
> > > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
> > Even
> > > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> > > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
> > from
> > > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> > > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> > > > > communities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strainu
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > > > policies,
> > > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
> > the
> > > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> > policies.
> > > It
> > > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > > > something
> > > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > > simply
> > > > be
> > > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_
> policy
> > > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > > > baseline
> > > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > > > Perhaps
> > > > > > with 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Ziko van Dijk]

The number of pillars depends on the language version...
And whether some rules is called pilöar not dpes not seem to be pf much
importance
Ziko

John Erling Blad  schrieb am Do. 3. Aug. 2017 um 14:42:

> Five pillars are moot.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
> > discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that
> > create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned
> and
> > blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
> >
> > By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> > atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best
> guide
> > to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
> > project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
> >
> > We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but
> > meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of
> > time.
> >
> > On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> > process,
> > > not increase them.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> > > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> > > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> > > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> > > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> > > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing
> without
> > > > local context.
> > > >
> > > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> > > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it.
> Even
> > > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> > > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently
> from
> > > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> > > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> > > > communities.
> > > >
> > > > Strainu
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > > policies,
> > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
> the
> > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> policies.
> > It
> > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > > something
> > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > simply
> > > be
> > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > > baseline
> > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> > research"
> > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
> about
> > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
> projects
> > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
> point
> > of
> > > > > view"…
> > > > >
> > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > > policies
> > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > > pages,
> > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
> would
> > > have
> > > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeblad
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Peter Southwood]

Citation needed,
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
John Erling Blad
Sent: Thursday, 03 August 2017 8:45 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

I believe policies on subprojects of Wikipedia are common by necessity, while 
the policies of Wikipedia and Wiktionary are common by coincidence.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 
wrote:

> Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by 
> coincidence.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of John Erling Blad
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
>
> Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies 
> > should be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the 
> > start of a project then let the project develop their uniqueness, 
> > individuality from there.  If it gets put on meta it will become a 
> > you must do this and only this to the wikilawyers removing all 
> > community input into the process.  Also for many people they dont 
> > follow meta so what will also happen is that these will get changed 
> > and the new policy will become via a forced  cascade to the 
> > communities.  I for one could never support any process being 
> > created as a means to take away from the community its own solutions
> >
> > On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content 
> > > policy
> > from
> > > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could 
> > > have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> > > <keegan.w...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> > > > <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable 
> > > > > points
> > > (NPOV,
> > > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside 
> > > > > those, individual projects generally have latitude to run 
> > > > > things as their community needs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is 
> > > > explicitly different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from 
> > > > wiki to wiki, as
> > > fair
> > > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > > >
> > > > Things are not so simple.
> > > > ​​
> > > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ~Keegan
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > >
> > > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this 
> > > > email
> > > address
> > > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscr
> > > > ib
> > > > e>
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ..

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

I believe policies on subprojects of Wikipedia are common by necessity,
while the policies of Wikipedia and Wiktionary are common by coincidence.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by
> coincidence.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of John Erling Blad
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
>
> Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should
> > be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a
> > project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality
> > from there.  If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this
> > and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the
> > process.  Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also
> > happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become
> > via a forced  cascade to the communities.  I for one could never
> > support any process being created as a means to take away from the
> > community its own solutions
> >
> > On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content
> > > policy
> > from
> > > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could
> > > have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell
> > > <keegan.w...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable
> > > > > points
> > > (NPOV,
> > > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside
> > > > > those, individual projects generally have latitude to run things
> > > > > as their community needs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is
> > > > explicitly different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from
> > > > wiki to wiki, as
> > > fair
> > > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > > >
> > > > Things are not so simple.
> > > > ​​
> > > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ~Keegan
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > >
> > > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > > address
> > > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib
> > > > e>
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mai

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Five pillars are moot.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
> discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that
> create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned and
> blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.
>
> By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
> atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best guide
> to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
> project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.
>
> We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but
> meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of
> time.
>
> On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and
> process,
> > not increase them.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:
> >
> > > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> > > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> > > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> > > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> > > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> > > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
> > > local context.
> > >
> > > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> > > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
> > > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> > > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
> > > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> > > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> > > communities.
> > >
> > > Strainu
> > >
> > > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > policies,
> > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
> It
> > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > >
> > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > something
> > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> simply
> > be
> > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> should
> > > be
> > > > localized if necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > >
> > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > baseline
> > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > Perhaps
> > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > >
> > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> research"
> > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
> of
> > > > view"…
> > > >
> > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > policies
> > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > pages,
> > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> > have
> > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > >
> > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > >
> > > > Jeblad
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Peter Southwood]

Only when they are common by necessity, not when they are common by coincidence.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
John Erling Blad
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should 
> be in the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a 
> project then let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality 
> from there.  If it gets put on meta it will become a you must do this 
> and only this to the wikilawyers removing all community input into the 
> process.  Also for many people they dont follow meta so what will also 
> happen is that these will get changed and the new policy will become 
> via a forced  cascade to the communities.  I for one could never 
> support any process being created as a means to take away from the 
> community its own solutions
>
> On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content 
> > policy
> from
> > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could 
> > have common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> > <keegan.w...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable 
> > > > points
> > (NPOV,
> > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside 
> > > > those, individual projects generally have latitude to run things 
> > > > as their community needs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is 
> > > explicitly different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from 
> > > wiki to wiki, as
> > fair
> > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > >
> > > Things are not so simple.
> > > ​​
> > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > >
> > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > address
> > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: 
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: 
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib
> > > e>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Gnangarra]

The moment you have a centralised policy you take away the ability to
discuss, makes decisions, and achieve consensus from the community that
create the projects. Importantly you create the opportunity for banned and
blocked editors to decide what happens in a community.

By having a base set of simple policies in the Incubator that are
atuomatically created when a project starts up you give them the best guide
to establishing themselves well before that project goes live, ince a
project is live it has to be allowed to develop its community.

We already have the 5 pillars which are the basis for the projects, but
meta is not a place that the content creating community spends a lot of
time.

On 3 August 2017 at 19:07, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and process,
> not increase them.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:
>
> > The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> > those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> > safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> > understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> > Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> > different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> > little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> > maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
> > local context.
> >
> > Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> > as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
> > if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> > realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
> > the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> > the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> > communities.
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > policies,
> > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > >
> > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > something
> > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply
> be
> > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
> > be
> > > localized if necessary.
> > >
> > > Checking Meta I find
> > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > >
> > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > >
> > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> baseline
> > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> Perhaps
> > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> > > view"…
> > >
> > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > policies
> > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> pages,
> > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> have
> > > more "ownership" of them.
> > >
> > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > >
> > > Jeblad
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello, i wrote something about a comparison of conent policies and will
have a presentation at wikicon, but at the momemt i am not at my home
computer.
Kind regards ziko

John Erling Blad  schrieb am Mi. 2. Aug. 2017 um 18:19:

> I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
> That view is probably not very popular.
>
> Jeblad
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> > when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> > probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> > stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap
> > forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> > policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these
> pages
> > will need to have been translated as well.
> >
> > note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
> 24
> > > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please
> > > see:
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > > There are three types of issues:
> > > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing
> > > keeping a project in mind)
> > > b) Enforce them
> > > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tito Dutta
> > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > remind
> > > me over email or phone call.
> > >
> > > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > policies,
> > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
> It
> > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > >
> > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > something
> > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> simply
> > be
> > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> should
> > > be
> > > > localized if necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > >
> > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > baseline
> > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > Perhaps
> > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > >
> > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> research"
> > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
> of
> > > > view"…
> > > >
> > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > policies
> > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > pages,
> > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> > have
> > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > >
> > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > >
> > > > Jeblad
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Having centralized core policies would lessen the maintenance and process,
not increase them.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Strainu  wrote:

> The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
> those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
> safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
> understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
> Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
> different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
> little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
> maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
> local context.
>
> Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
> as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
> if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
> realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
> the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
> the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
> communities.
>
> Strainu
>
> 2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> policies,
> > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> >
> > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> something
> > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be
> > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
> be
> > localized if necessary.
> >
> > Checking Meta I find
> > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> >
> > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> >
> > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
> > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
> > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> >
> > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> > view"…
> >
> > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> policies
> > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages,
> > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have
> > more "ownership" of them.
> >
> > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > Wiktionary, etc).
> >
> > Jeblad
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Common core policies should be on Meta, not Incubator.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in
> the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then
> let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there.  If it
> gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the
> wikilawyers removing all community input into the process.  Also for many
> people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will
> get changed and the new policy will become via a forced  cascade to the
> communities.  I for one could never support any process being created as a
> means to take away from the community its own solutions
>
> On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy
> from
> > Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have
> > common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> > (NPOV,
> > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > > community needs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> > fair
> > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > >
> > > Things are not so simple.
> > > ​​
> > > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > >
> > > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> > address
> > > is in a personal capacity.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Strainu]

The core policies should be the ones pushed by board resolution, and
those should be the absolute minimum required to keep the projects
safe from a legal POV. Period. Otherwise, people with little
understanding of small Wikipedias will try to push stuff from en.wp.
Just recently someone was trying to have an RFC on meta on all the
different processes that en.wp has and ro.wp does not have, with
little consideration on whether the manpower to implement, let alone
maintain, these processes exists. No thank you to rule pushing without
local context.

Having a community take a rule from en.wp is different, just as long
as some kind of discussion happens within the community about it. Even
if the rule is really useless or harmful and the community did not
realize that in the beginning, at least it can evolve differently from
the English one. Have a centralized repository and trying to change
the rules there by consensus would be much more difficult for small
communities.

Strainu

2017-08-02 17:05 GMT+03:00 John Erling Blad :
> Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content policies,
> but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
>
> Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be something
> that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be
> able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should be
> localized if necessary.
>
> Checking Meta I find
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
>
> I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
>
> Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
> policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
> with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
>
> Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> view"…
>
> Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline policies
> pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages,
> so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have
> more "ownership" of them.
>
> The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> Wiktionary, etc).
>
> Jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Gnangarra]

I think meta is the wrong place, the coreor base line policies should be in
the incubator not meta and created as guide at the start of a project then
let the project develop their uniqueness, individuality from there.  If it
gets put on meta it will become a you must do this and only this to the
wikilawyers removing all community input into the process.  Also for many
people they dont follow meta so what will also happen is that these will
get changed and the new policy will become via a forced  cascade to the
communities.  I for one could never support any process being created as a
means to take away from the community its own solutions

On 3 August 2017 at 15:33, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy from
> Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have
> common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> (NPOV,
> > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > community needs.
> >
> >
> > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> fair
> > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> >
> > Things are not so simple.
> > ​​
> > ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> > Neutral_point_of_view​
> > ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Keegan
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> >
> > This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
> address
> > is in a personal capacity.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Without common core policies they can not claim that the projects stick
within their boundaries. Is a project without a clear policy on "no
original research", "verifiability" and "neutral point of view" Wikipedia?
Is it enough to just say it is "Wikipedia" to be "Wikipedia"? I believe
there should be clearer boundaries on what it means to be "Wikipedia", or
"Wikiversity" or "Wiktionary", or some other "Wiki*".

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Is it wise for the Foundation to be seen to controlling content in this
> way?  Would that not jeopardise their legal immunity?
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Sam Wilson  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points
> > (NPOV,
> > > > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > > > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > > > community needs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> > > different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> > > fair
> > > use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> > >
> >
> > And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original
> > research (within certain guidelines).
> >
> > —Sam
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

I used Wikipedia as an example, I would not expect core content policy from
Wikipedia to be a good fit for Wikivoyage. Still Wikivoyage could have
common ploicies on Meta the same way Wikipedia would do.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points (NPOV,
> > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > community needs.
>
>
> ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as fair
> use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
>
> Things are not so simple.
> ​​
> ​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#
> Neutral_point_of_view​
> ​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

What happens now is that policies from enwiki is adopted "as is", but a lot
of the rules enwiki does not make sense at all.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland  wrote:

> I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English,
> will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental
> principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is
> independant,
>
> JP
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
> > That view is probably not very popular.
> >
> > Jeblad
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> > > when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> > > probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> > > stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big
> leap
> > > forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> > > policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these
> > pages
> > > will need to have been translated as well.
> > >
> > > note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
> > 24
> > > > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment,
> please
> > > > see:
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > > > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > > > There are three types of issues:
> > > > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but
> localizing
> > > > keeping a project in mind)
> > > > b) Enforce them
> > > > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Tito Dutta
> > > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > > remind
> > > > me over email or phone call.
> > > >
> > > > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > > policies,
> > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
> the
> > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> policies.
> > It
> > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > > something
> > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > simply
> > > be
> > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > > baseline
> > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> > research"
> > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
> about
> > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
> projects
> > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
> point
> > of
> > > > > view"…
> > > > >
> > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > > policies
> > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > > pages,
> > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
> would
> > > have
> > > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeblad
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Sam Wilson]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, at 06:53 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
> >  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points (NPOV,
> > copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> > individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> > community needs.
> 
> 
> ​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
> different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as
> fair
> use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].
> 

And English Wikiversity (and maybe other Wikiversities?) allows original
research (within certain guidelines).

—Sam

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:05 AM, John Erling Blad  wrote:
​​


> Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
> policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
> with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
>
​

Precedent has​

​that the Board of Trustees can issue resolutions urging communities to
adopt certain policies, such as the resolution on Biographies of Living
People in 2009 [0].

0.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

>  I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points (NPOV,
> copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
> individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
> community needs.


​The English Wikivoyage has a "Be fair" policy, which is explicitly
different from NPOV [0].​ Copyright also varies from wiki to wiki, as fair
use for non-free content on the English Wikipedia exemplifies [1].

Things are not so simple.
​​
​0. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair#Neutral_point_of_view​
​1. ​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content


-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Todd Allen]

 I'd definitely agree there. There are a few non-negotiable points (NPOV,
copyright and licensing, nonfree content, etc.), but outside those,
individual projects generally have latitude to run things as their
community needs. And a project with thirty users and a thousand articles
will not be well served by some of the rules that make sense for projects
with thousands of active editors and millions of articles.

That being said, having some baseline stuff as a point of reference isn't a
bad idea, but individual projects should be free to modify or reject any
parts that don't make sense for them.

Todd

On Aug 2, 2017 4:24 PM, "Jean-Philippe Béland" 
wrote:

> I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English,
> will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental
> principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is
> independant,
>
> JP
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
> > That view is probably not very popular.
> >
> > Jeblad
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> >
> > > its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> > > when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> > > probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> > > stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big
> leap
> > > forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> > > policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these
> > pages
> > > will need to have been translated as well.
> > >
> > > note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
> > 24
> > > > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment,
> please
> > > > see:
> > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > > > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > > > There are three types of issues:
> > > > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but
> localizing
> > > > keeping a project in mind)
> > > > b) Enforce them
> > > > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Tito Dutta
> > > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > > remind
> > > > me over email or phone call.
> > > >
> > > > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > > policies,
> > > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of
> the
> > > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial
> policies.
> > It
> > > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > > something
> > > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> > simply
> > > be
> > > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > localized if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > > baseline
> > > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> > research"
> > > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be
> about
> > > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some
> projects
> > > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators
> point
> > of
> > > > > view"…
> > > > >
> > > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > > policies
> > > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > > pages,
> > > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects
> would
> > > have
> > > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeblad
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

I oppose to that. Like that communities with bigger number, i.e. English,
will impose their rules to other communities. It's a basic fundamental
principle of Wikimedia projects since the beginning that every community is
independant,

JP

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:19 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
> That view is probably not very popular.
>
> Jeblad
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
>
> > its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> > when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> > probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> > stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap
> > forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> > policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these
> pages
> > will need to have been translated as well.
> >
> > note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are
> 24
> > > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please
> > > see:
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > > There are three types of issues:
> > > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing
> > > keeping a project in mind)
> > > b) Enforce them
> > > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tito Dutta
> > > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> > remind
> > > me over email or phone call.
> > >
> > > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > > policies,
> > > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.
> It
> > > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > > >
> > > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > > something
> > > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should
> simply
> > be
> > > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies
> should
> > > be
> > > > localized if necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Checking Meta I find
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > > >
> > > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> > baseline
> > > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> > Perhaps
> > > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > > >
> > > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original
> research"
> > > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point
> of
> > > > view"…
> > > >
> > > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > > policies
> > > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> > pages,
> > > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> > have
> > > > more "ownership" of them.
> > > >
> > > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > > >
> > > > Jeblad
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

I wonder if deviation away from a central core policy should be banned.
That view is probably not very popular.

Jeblad

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
> when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
> probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
> stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap
> forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
> policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these pages
> will need to have been translated as well.
>
> note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator
>
>
>
> On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are 24
> > communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please
> > see:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> > Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> > There are three types of issues:
> > a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing
> > keeping a project in mind)
> > b) Enforce them
> > c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tito Dutta
> > Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to
> remind
> > me over email or phone call.
> >
> > On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> > policies,
> > > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> > > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> > >
> > > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> > something
> > > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply
> be
> > > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
> > be
> > > localized if necessary.
> > >
> > > Checking Meta I find
> > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> > >
> > > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> > >
> > > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound
> baseline
> > > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those?
> Perhaps
> > > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> > > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> > > view"…
> > >
> > > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> > policies
> > > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user
> pages,
> > > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would
> have
> > > more "ownership" of them.
> > >
> > > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > > Wiktionary, etc).
> > >
> > > Jeblad
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Gnangarra]

its nice idea most just usurp the english policies to start with anyway
when they need it so having a base line on meta would be good though
probably it would best to have it set up automatically in the incubator
stage so that they get moved across when the projects takes the big leap
forward and the community that develops the project can develop these
policies as they grow.   It also means that as part of the jump these pages
will need to have been translated as well.

note I'm currently involved with a wikipedia in the the incubator



On 2 August 2017 at 22:29, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Hi,
> Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are 24
> communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please
> see:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_
> Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
> There are three types of issues:
> a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing
> keeping a project in mind)
> b) Enforce them
> c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Tito Dutta
> Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
> me over email or phone call.
>
> On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content
> policies,
> > but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> > smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> > takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
> >
> > Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be
> something
> > that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be
> > able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should
> be
> > localized if necessary.
> >
> > Checking Meta I find
> > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> > - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
> >
> > I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
> >
> > Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
> > policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
> > with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
> >
> > Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> > diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> > original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> > neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> > view"…
> >
> > Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline
> policies
> > pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages,
> > so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have
> > more "ownership" of them.
> >
> > The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> > Wiktionary, etc).
> >
> > Jeblad
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[Tito Dutta]

Hi,
Some works and study was done for Indic Wikimedia projects (there are 24
communities) after a detailed consultation and needs-assessment, please
see:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indic_Wikipedia_Policies_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf
There are three types of issues:
a) Localizing policies (translating is not the only way, but localizing
keeping a project in mind)
b) Enforce them
c) For smaller communities having a group of editors working on these



Thanks
Tito Dutta
Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
me over email or phone call.

On 2 August 2017 at 19:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content policies,
> but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
> smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
> takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.
>
> Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be something
> that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be
> able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should be
> localized if necessary.
>
> Checking Meta I find
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
> - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
>
> I can't find anything like "Verifiability".
>
> Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
> policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
> with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?
>
> Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
> diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
> original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
> neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
> view"…
>
> Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline policies
> pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages,
> so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have
> more "ownership" of them.
>
> The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
> Wiktionary, etc).
>
> Jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Core content policy

[John Erling Blad]

Nearly all Wikipedia projects has virtually the same core content policies,
but with slightly different wording. Nearly all, because a lot of the
smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies. It
takes a lot of time to actually make them and keep them updated.

Creating and maintaining the core content policies should not be something
that small projects should invest a lot of time in, they should simply be
able to point to existing policies on Meta. The central policies should be
localized if necessary.

Checking Meta I find
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_no_original_research_policy
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view

I can't find anything like "Verifiability".

Would it be possible for Wikimedia Foundation to make some sound baseline
policies, and with the option for local projects to refine those? Perhaps
with assistance from editors on Wikipedia?

Lets try to make the policies accurate, without "no original research"
diverging into verifiability of external sources. It should be about
original research in content on Wikipedia. Likewise, at some projects
neutral point of view has become "do not diverge from creators point of
view"…

Would this be possible? It would be really nice if those baseline policies
pages could be copied to the individual projects like central user pages,
so they would be "internal" to the projects. Thus the projects would have
more "ownership" of them.

The same thing apply to other meta projects (Wikipedia, Wikibooks,
Wiktionary, etc).

Jeblad
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,