John
I wasn't asking for an explanation or discussion of what contributors to
this list think "knowledge" is or ought to be (fascinating and illuminating
though that would doubtless be). I was suggesting that either someone
point to the already-agreed and easily-available common and agreed
defini
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 ent
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
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 ral
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
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
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
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 sh
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
c
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.
>
>
> 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
dyn
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,
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 e
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 hist
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 ling
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 diffe
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.
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 Wi
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
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
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
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
>
: [Wikimedia-l] Core content policy
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
>
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 si
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 banne
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
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 uniqu
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
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
w
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
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, T
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
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 wrot
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 ha
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
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 Englis
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
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
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 wou
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 t
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 polic
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 ma
42 matches
Mail list logo
