Mission/Unstable

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the publicly editable version of the Wikimedia Foundation Mission Statement. Please keep this notice intact, and try to find consensus for changes as always. You are also encouraged to create forks if necessary, and link them from this page.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. They will not perform knowledge blackouts of any kind. In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep the educational content from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

Suggestion: Non-free images exceptions for events, which took place long time ago[edit]

I think there should be non-free images exceptions for old events (for example older than 30-40 years), like: Olympics, various sports competitions, notable events (i.e. uprisings) and so on. Currently, most of the articles about old competitions or events looks dull and empty as there is only basic text without important pictures (like winners, opening/closing ceremony). Illustrating pictures greatly contributes into article quality, however getting such old images in free license is nearly impossible as there is very few of them and most of these authors are unknown. --- Pofka (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2013 (GMT +2)

An interesting idea, but not (I think) related to the mission itself. (Our mission does support allowing non-free image exceptions via EDPs on each project; it is simply that Commons does not accept such images at present. SJ talk  17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mission statement hasn't caught up with thorgs and user groups[edit]

Since this is an obvious omission, does it need to wait for an annual review? I've set out the minor tweak in wording here. Tony (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)