Talk:Founding principles: Difference between revisions

no creating articles for anons, as of the past few months, tho, a? yaaaa Schzzly 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion?

I note that the content page is widely referenced from the en wikipedia, and probably elsewhere. It has been cited in a number of arbcom decisions as well as a number of lesser matters. I do not believe that a characterization of it as "personal opinion" is in any way accurate. UninvitedCompany 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the questions that were raised on Talk:Wikipedia policies is regarding "Wiki Process" (which also appears on Simplified Ruleset). Is it the same thing as "process" as defined on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines ("a central and organized way of doing things, generally following certain policies or guidelines"), or "the steps of clicking 'edit this page,' editing the text, and clicking 'save page'" like Kernigh suggests? Hermeneus 22:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is not a personal opinion, it is not well a debated one, especially in regard to "wiki process". I have simply translated it as "3. Wiki: Wikipedia is baseed on wiki." In this way, it could refer to software process as well as editing process, as well as any policy or guideline which has been derived from it. Vapour 04:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Consensus has now been updated with a chart depicting wiki process. --Kim Bruning 12:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reformulation

In Japanese wikipedia, I have attempted to reformulate the foundation principle as 1. Wiki, 2. Encyrcopedia, 3. Copyleft 4. Freedom to edit. This cover both editing and reading wikipedia, which ought to be explained in "Introduction to Wikipedia". Principle 3 relate specifically to use of wikipedia as encycropedia while Principle 4 specifically refers to editing wikipedia. On this basis, I have created separate editing (key) policy which is 1. Freedom to edit, 2. Encycropedia, 3. Copyleft 4. NPOV. "What wikipedia community is not" and "Respect other contributors" "arbitration" are incorporated under "Freedom to edit". In my view, "freedom to edit" is the basis of wikipedia community. Vapour

Can this be changed?

This page claims that the principles in it are inviolate. This seems to imply that the page itself is inviolate. I have come here on a quest to get something done about anonymous editors on en wikipedia. Can anything be done?

Moreover, what about the Jimbo principle? This page claims that Jimbo's level of authority is changing, but the linked pages give me no clue as to how this is the case. But it would seem this principle can be negotiated, or? Mgekelly 01:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you want done. Are you sure it's a good idea? I used to edit anonymously on en.wikipedia. en:User:Kim Bruning / 80.126.238.189 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am 100% in favor of requiring users to register before editt Wikipedia. It is harmful to the community to not be able to reliably leave a message for someone and know that the correct person will receive it, vs. someone else who happens to share the same IP. I think it would buld a better community if all people have a registered account. Johntex 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto the user account requirement. For one thing, I just realized that I'm not logged in (the Warning isn't very big); so how would you respond to me? I have a user account here; I'm not required to use it.

The vandalism I'm referring to is to articles I've either created or contributed to; the answer isn't to let someone else deal with the vandalism while I write articles or do editing that contributes to the content of Wikipedia rather than restoring the content that's been corrupted. Letting go of my past work when good faith edits are made is one thing. Letting go of articles I've worked on to vandalism is quite another; I've seen quite a bit of vandalism missed because the editor doing the revert wasn't familiar with the article and didn't recognize it as vandalism, reverting to a version that was vandalised as well.

Frankly, for there to be "issues beyond debate" runs contrary to what I have seen Wikipedia to be. This content should also be governed by the "wiki process". I just don't understand what the thought behind this was. If someone actually wants to be anonymous, that's not a problem. A valid e-mail address isn't required; create a user name and a password and you're set. This gives other users the opportunity to communicate with the user; it also give admins the opportunity to block them when their vandalism warrants it. Not requiring users to register may have been a good idea when Wikipedia was young and not well understood, but now it creates major headaches. Are any of the decision-makers for these policies actually monitoring the amount of vandalism by IP users? Or correcting it? Do you realize what is involved? It doesn't stop with reverting the vandalism; then the progressive vandalism tags need to be placed on the user's Talk page. Which is a total waste of time when it's a shared IP address. At least if the user were registered, we could be sure that we communicated to the vandal, whether they read it or not.

The amount of time I've spent dealing with vandalism by anonymous users has eaten up my article creation time. I don't have an unlimited amount of time to spend here; if I wind up spending it all on reverting vandalism, I guarantee you I'll leave. I wonder how many good editors have been lost because of this? 66.73.172.95 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that a large amount of our edits are done by anonymous users.Kim Bruning 20:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, 97% of vandalism comes from IPs. I'm in favor of moving it down a peg to number 3. Richard001 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL not used on Wikinews

4."Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL (working on changes via GFDL 2.0)" While all the projects might use the "copyleft" concept, Wikinews does this with a Creative Commons license( currently Attribution 2.5). --67.169.212.172 06:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is almost curt. What is the rationale for each of these issues?

What is the reasing behind each of these issues? Saying that they cannot be discussed seems opposed to the wiki-spirit. Even saying that they will never be changed seems strange to me. Things evolve and that is why people have discussions.

Especially the part about Jimmy Wales seems strange for a community website like this. Please note that I am a new user/member of Wikipedia and have missed all previous discussions. I could check the web, but i think our community should be mature enough to talk about all these issues without resorting to censorship/rudesness or just ignoring the issues internally. Hicham.vanborm 03:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Beyond debate"?!

Hi.

I can't understand why these are "beyond debate". Things should be _allowed_ to be debated. Saying it's "beyond debate" implies perfection -- a sort of infinite perfection that is impossible to attain (except for God, but He did not make these rules, people did.). If someone has a GOOD point then they should be allowed to express it. --70.101.145.181 02:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to assert that something is beyond debate is simply to indulge in a rhetorical trick meaning: “I’m up for a fight! Are you?”

Huh? 70.101.144.160 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No response

Has any one besides me noticed that there are no responses to the questions asked here? Why are we bothering? ChiDom 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Very annoying. I guess oldtimers don't want to have the same discussion over and over again. But then they should have made better pages and explanations then this. I was looking for the background of Wikipedia (ownership, why in america, copies,descisionmaking,...), and most of these things are not explained very well. Especially the reasoning behind the current situation is lacking. Hicham.vanborm 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, cool! I'm trying to get people to write these things down, but see what luck I've had :-) Would you folks want to help me? Kim Bruning 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I have no idea how we can help. Thing is to find people who know the reasons behind it and are willing to make the whole thing public. I am sure we could find out by digging through forums and 'complaining' websites, but it should just be here on Wikipedia (or Meta-wiki). If it isn't it seems like somebody wants to keep it secret or at least talk as little about it as possible.Hicham.vanborm 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Jimbo God?

Why does Jim Wales have absolute, ultimate authority on every matter? If he can be shown to be God, or even a lesser deity of some sort, I would completely support this. But I'm just wondering who came up with this policy (if it was Jim himself I'd be a little worried) and why it is so. I can't seem to find the answer anywhere.--K-UNIT 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, why does the Foundation issues page say that Jimbo Whales is the ultimate authority, and the authority of the Board of Trustees is merely delegated, while the Board of Trustees page says that the Board of Trustees is the ultimate authority. As a former trustee of a (non-Florida) non-profit corporation, I would find these pages more convincing if they closely mirrored the wording of the relevant Florida non-profit law regarding the authority of various corporate officers. --69.173.172.233 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that both the page and the policy itself predate the formation of the Board of Trustees. Also, Jimbo's role in the selection of trustees probably says more about his authority than does his role as a trustee or officer. UninvitedCompany 02:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article, "people who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project," is borderline offensive to me. Not only does it say that the issues are above debate, it all but says that if we don't like it, we can go find another hell-hole to hang around in. I would edit the page to soften the language a bit at least, but I guess that's beyond reproach, just like Jimbo. I have no inclination to leave, but this article does make me mad as hell. 67.70.104.165 (en|fr|commons) 06:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is basically saying that this is totally set in stone that not even the slighest change is acceptable. This is supposed to be a consensus-based "society" (or whatever the heck it is), and consensus can change, and even a slight change means that some of these things may need to be changed. The wording also seems to imply that they are FORCED to do it, even if they follow the rule regardless of their disagreement... (which is wrong wrong wrong!) 70.101.144.160 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that Jimmy Wales is no longer the chair of the WMF, it really would worthwhile to consolidate and make consistent the assorted references hither and yon that make various contradictory statements regarding the role of "Jimbo Wales", or "the chair of the foundation", or indeed "Jimbo Wales, as head of the foundation". (I just wish I knew what to make them consistent with.) It would be even better were JW to declare when he's acting in an "official" capacity at all, but that may be more than one can hope for. Alai 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I still didn't yet receive an answer to my original question...--K-UNIT 03:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "why" is to get us into "making windows into men's souls" territory. But as a pragmatic observation, JW directly appoints (or is) 60% of the Foundation board, so if he wishes by that route to affirm that he is Lord High Editor in Chief of any and all wikimedia projects, he certainly has the means to do so. In practice, it's a combination of the top-down, the bottom-up, and the good-old-fashioned "completely muddled". Alai 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Very well put. Moreover, I'm not posing this question to challenge any dogmas, I simply am seeking answers. And it seems utterly ridiculous to me that I can not get the answer to a very simple, clear, and reasonable question on, arguably, the most important page in the entire Wiki community. For over four months I have been waiting, yet still, nothing. If that doesn't cause one to lose faith in the various Wikimedia organizations then I don't know what will.--K-UNIT 05:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that the situation is rather non-transparent, I'd doubt you'll get any answer that significantly improves on the one(s) I've given, at least until such time as said underlying situation changes to some degree. (Such as the role of "leader of en:wikipedia" being altered, or becoming more clearly defined.) Nor do I think that "why" is an especially simple question. Broadly speaking, the "what" is that JW began with complete control, as instigator of Wikipedia and the person ponying up the funding, and has variously delegated portions thereof; retained portions, but not necessarily been active in exercising them; or actually relinguished portions. (The tricky part is working out which is which, and when any given function is actually being exercised.) Alai 03:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

At Jimbo's say-so "no follow" was recently added to en.wikipedia links without question, despite the community at large rejecting this idea repeatedly, despite Jimbo having announced his own profit-making search project in the preceding week and so having a fairly clear conflict of interest and despite there being no need for the change. So although Jimbo no longer has much to do with Wikipedia in a day-to-day sense, 5) is still true after all these years. 5) sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the more noble rules. Is 5) something that Jimbo will be able to pass on in his will? It should be junked.

On the last point, I assume that the Foundation would be able to appoint a "issue #5 successor" (even if it's not entirely explicit that the WMF determined the present one, rather some unspecified other process). Control of the board of trustees I shall leave as an exercise. Alai 13:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page editable

Apologies for the trite question, but if "The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate" then why is this page even editable? 68.205.119.151 16:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All pages are editable. It's a foundation issue. UninvitedCompany 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's paradoxical if this page is editable, though.--K-UNIT 22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

w00t for t3h oxymorons! 204.52.215.107 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits that change the meaning so as not to reflect consensus will likely get reverted. Edits that improve the wording might not. --Damian Yerrick 21:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyleft Licnsing of Content

It seems that some users on Wikipedia are using this foundation issue to ban any "fair use" images of living people. I think this compromises the quality of Wikipedia, as it prevents the use of cast photos and screenshots in articles about movies and tv shows. I suspect that most wikipedians view the "free" in the name to mean "no cost" not "free lisence". This was my interpretation until recently, and I don't support the idea that "fair use" photos of living people are not allowed on Wikipedia. I suspect most wikipedians would agree with me, but will never speak up on this or any other issue. That said, I would never violate Wikipedia policy on this matter.

The question that needs to be asked is this: Does this foundation issue require that all policies relating to "fair use" images, not allow them for any living persons?64.180.0.39 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See Licensing policy FAQ draft. --Damian Yerrick 21:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Without registering"

Someone seems to take issue with this and keeps trying to remove it. Ironically, they do it without registering. 192.75.48.150 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good that you decided to start up discussion about this, since it's obviously an important and touchy issue. Personally I think it's good to stress that you don't need to register to edit, since that's an arbitrary roadblock to editing that some people won't bother to do, which could potentially cost us good editors. Being registered doesn't really make you any less anonymous. What do others think? Delldot 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In principle, yes, I think it would be, since the problem with it is that it implies open-ended commitment of manual labour to dealing with ever-increasing amounts of vandalism. In practice, probably not, given the "essentially beyond debate" preamble, the "leaving the project" hint, and issue #5. Having said that, I think it's also fair to say that it does enjoy fairly wide support. It's probably most useful to address this via measures somewhat short of requiring registration (such as stable versions, anti-vandalbot measures, and whatever else). Alai 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia today, non-logged in users can not create pages, and many pages are "half protected" so they can not be edited by anons. Considering these restrictions, it does look a bit strange to mention the importance of being able to edit without registering. // habj 16:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it does say "ability of anyone to edit articles", not "ability of anyone to edit any article". (Of course, the former isn't strictly speaking absolutely true either, since after all, some people are blocked or banned...) I suppose these are best regarded as "guiding principles", rather than rules per se. Alai 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Title of page

I find this title not very descriptive. "Foundation issues" could be about anything, really. Anyone who can come up with something better? // habj 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Last sentence

The last sentence, about accusations of cabalism, is difficult to understand. IMHO it needs more explanation. // habj 12:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ultimate authority?

Among the issues: "Jimbo Wales as ultimate authority on any matter (although some authority has been delegated to others; see Arbitration Committee and Board of Trustees)". Is this still precisely true as of now? The Foundation is now robust and Jimbo is no longer its president, but he is still the ultimate authority?—Nat Krause 06:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is not true legally, it is true in formality to most extents, if you catch my drift. Cbrown1023 talk 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think now it can only apply for English Wikipedia. For other projects he hasn't acted in this way anyway and after the Foundation settled, the Board of Trustees is the ultimate decision-maker. At least I understand this situation. This part was supposedly copied from English Wikipedia or written by its participant. --Aphaia 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to contradict #3 ("wiki process as the final authority") which is also untrue since the introduction of en:WP:OFFICE. Angela 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we need policy standardization... but to do that, we we need the board to tell us what they want us to go by. :) Cbrown1023 talk 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of the two is especially confusing, since as I understand it, they're quite different. In the case of the (en:)ArbCom, the functions are delegated only insofar as he wishes them to be, on a case by case basis, makes all appointments to same, etc, etc. In the case of the Board, exercise of those functions has been permanently transferred (though rarely exercised on that basis). However, there's clearly a residual "semi-ultimate authority" role that JW in practice exercises, but which isn't really clearly defined anywhere, and which as Aphaia says, differs in practice from project to project. Ideally, someone with a clear understanding with the exact state of affairs would refactor #5 (and #3, as Angela says). In practice, I suspect we might have to make some Brownian edits and see where it eventually stabilises. Alai 05:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, before noticing this page, I had been under the impression that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees was the ultimate authority.—Nat Krause 08:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's in theory true. But in practice, while JW is fairly evidently a "more ultimate" authority than the ArbCom (say) -- he says it, they say it, everyone else says it -- the relationship with the Board is a closed book to most 'pedians. Alai 04:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The additional question which is implied by this conversation, then, is, what justifies Jimbo's authority on en.wikipedia (or all wikipedias)? My understanding is that ArbComm has its authority because it is delegated by whoever owns the servers—which, I thought, was the Board of Trustees. If Jimbo has more authority than ArbComm, does that mean it has also delegated by the Board of Trustees?—Nat Krause 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom had said authority delegated to it at a point where Wales was unambiguously the person in charge, and it hasn't subsequently been 'undelegated'. So one can only suppose it still has that authority, and it's still subject to being overruled or dissolved by him, as he said it was at the time. Note that it's still appointed by JW (despite the use of the term "election" in the annual vote-fest).

But JW's own current role is where things become entirely murky. Basically, it seems in effect to not have changed at all on en:, just the rationale for it: initially he was Ultimate Authority as the site's actual owner, then as Chair of the WMB, and now as... well, himself, seemingly, on the basis that his "role hasn't changed". The trouble with this is that our 'single point of failure' issues are unnecessarily worsened, as 'recent events' have surely illustrated. (JW makes series of unilateral decisions, and disappears up a Himalaya for several days; chaos ensues, with no-one sure whether the WMB can do anything to resolve this, or whether the Arbcom can -- much less the mere 'community'.) Such statements as he's made himself on the matter, such as at one point implying he only had such leadership role as the community wished, but mainly by his occasional actions asserting such authority, and his general silence on the matter, have increased the confusion on this point. If he or the Board would make some sort of clarifying statement about what decisions can be made only by him (so the community can understand and accept this), and which aren't conditioned by such "reserve powers" (so that these decisions can then be made independently of him where necessary), things might run a bit smoother in a number of respects. Alai 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• If the Wikimedia Foundation owns the wikmedia sites, and if the board care enough, they can even pass resolutions rectifying or abandoning these policies. Jimbo Wales' opinons are important, but the board has official authority.---Hillgentleman | 書 |2007年03月17日( Sat ), 05:11:50 05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed the note to something less alarming. The previous note accidentally made it seem like the page was deprecated, which is (hopefully) not the case. --Kim Bruning 12:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that was indeed the intent. As to whether it's accurate on that basis: who knows? Similar caveats would apply to the caveat, as that which the caveat applies to the rest of the page... Maybe it should say something to the effect of, "the degree to which JW is the ultimate authority is ultimately vague". (The 'constitutional monarchy' model seems to be a little imprecise about what country it's comparing itself with... and in which century. (I'm hoping sometime after Magna Carta, but post-Glorious Revolution seems a bit much to hope for.) Alai 05:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:V

So are the core principles of No Original Research and Verifiablilty in English wikipedia actually not considered foundation issues?Hillgentleman 06:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because they relate specifically to Wikipedia's mission, and are not applicable to some other projects. For instance, Wiktionary engages in certain limited forms of original research (or at least what would be regarded on Wikipedia as original research), and likewise I think WP:V would not apply in certain parts of Wikibooks. (although I'm not very familiar with Wikibooks; perhaps that's not the case). -- Visviva 16:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributor access to deleted contribs

What if a contributor wants access to his or her deleted contribs and it's blocked because someone else's contributions on the same page violated GFDL? That's what's been occurring with BJAODN over on Wikipedia. 204.52.215.107 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, ask an administrator to e-mail it to you. See w:Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary review. --Damian Yerrick 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"View source" instructions changed recently?

The "View source" page for semi-protected pages, I'm fairly certain, has recently changed. It used to suggest using the w:Template:editprotected template, just as the current wording is for "View source" for fully-protected pages. That version seems to have been more in keeping with Foundation Issue #2, and while editing the English wikipedia as an anon user, I've used the template repeatedly to suggest useful changes to a semi-protected page; further more, semi-protection is often longer term (because of simple vandalism) that full-protection (because of edit-warring), so the suggestion to use the template to suggest changes on the talk page seems even more important for those pages.

I have no idea who makes decisions about the content of the "View source" pages; if it's wikipedia specific I can't find it. Can someone here at meta point me in the right direction? Or use your muscle if I'm making sense with my concern? Thanks -- 146.115.58.152 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Euclid

There's an interesting analogy between these foundation issues and Euclid's axioms: five statements that are essentially considered to be beyond debate -- four succinct ones and a fifth one that's much longer and more complicated and generates a lot of debate, and everyone wonders whether it's really necessary. After a couple of millenia of trying to prove it, people instead discovered non-Jimbonian geometry. Joriki 16:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Items to add to the list?

• "Personal affairs and interactions of editors off-wiki are usually not relevant to the community unless they impact on the project"
• "Good respectful civil interaction for interpersonal communication"

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyleft and CC-By?

I‘m not able to see a connection between the issue „copyleft“ and the actual licensing as CC-by which actually is no copyleft license. Maybe this issue should be reworded taking the term „free cultural works“ into account. Regards, Code·is·poetry 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 

Clarification sought

Over at enwiki, we're trying to clarify i. what Jimmy's authority with the project is, and ii. whence comes this authority (i.e. Foundation or community). This page suggests that his authority on "certain projects" is retained "by convention". My interpretation of this is that this authority is not Foundation-imposed, although of course this invites the question of why it's mentioned on this page. Is there a clear answer to this question? Sarcasticidealist 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)