Ziko, Thanks for these thoughtful posts, it's always good to consider the long term and what we might learn from our experience on other projects. Of course, it's up to the Wikivoyagers themselves to decide how they want to run their project, but a bit of advice and insight never hurts!
The Australian businessman Kerry Packer once quipped that before Parliament made a law, they should be required to first repeal one. While we cannot make this a requirement on Wikimedia projects, it's a good rule of thumb to live by. On English Wikipedia, we have a dense tangle of rules, policies and essays that has raised the bar for entry to new users. This tangle has developed over the years as a result of kneejerk reactions to things like the Siegenthaler incident and the Essjay controversy. With a relatively clean slate upon which to write, the Wikivoyagers can consider the structure of their project in a holistic way, being proactive in thinking about how they will manage such incidents before they actually arise, and avoid choking their project up with hundreds of rules created as a reaction to unfortunate incidents that could have been avoided by deciding on a simple set of rules to start with, and then consistently enforcing them. Not being a travel writer, I don't have the foggiest on where the lines should be drawn, that should be left to the experts on the projects (with input and assistance from the WMF legal department, ideally). But it sounds like they're already off to a good start if the project "still a rather limited set of rules, and wishes to remain so." Kind Regards, Craig Franklin _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l