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 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 <jeb...@gmail.com>:
> > > 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 smaller lacks them, and a lot has outdated or only partial policies.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,
> > <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>
>



-- 
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>

Reply via email to