>Of course, your argument makes perfect sense. But being an association 
>that promotes Wikipedia and other Wiki-based projects, I would like to 
>think that we can do without the permanent protections, only with a 
>banner saying "This is a resolution voted by the board, and should not 
>be modified anymore". This allows us to send outside a message such as: 
>"look, we really believe in this wiki thing, all our stuff is managed by 
>a Wiki, anyone can edit it, and it works. Of course, we are watching the 
>pages, and if you do something silly, we'll reverse your edits, block 
>you and/or protect the page".
The funcionalities are different. Same pages are collaboratives pages, 
same pages are service pages.

In Wikipedia we have a lot of pages that are collaborative pages, but 
also a lot of pages that are service pages and are not modifiable by 
no-sysop users (i.e. Home Page). If we think that the pages that you 
analyze are service pages, the block could be correct, if we think that 
these are collaborative pages it isn't.

I am with your opinion, if persons accept the possibility of rollback 
without long discussions :)

>My questions arises from the fact that I started to look at the bylaws 
>in order to translate them in French, and §1.2 says that the seat of the 
>association (note that a Foundation is something very different from the 
>legal point of view) is where the President live, so I was wondering how 
>it fits with this resolution that says Zürich ?
I think that this point is "salomonic decision" to avoid discussions 
(happily Swiss has not a big and predominant town). Also italian 
wikimedia has taken the same decision. In any case the financial seat 
could be different.


Wikimediach-l mailing list

Reply via email to