I'm not sure if this would be a source of misunderstanding, but one thing that struck me is that a lot of what are listed as "values" here are things I think of as "means to an end", not something I think the organization should either value or not value for their own sake. "Right to knowledge" is an exception, and is our core mission basically. But the rest are community-organization principles, and should be taken or left based on how they help us achieve our aims, since organizing a community for the sake of community isn't the purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation. For example, "commitment to diversity" by itself makes no sense, because this isn't an organization working to increase diversity (we're not the NAACP or something); however, it does make sense as a means to an end because more diverse groups of contributors tend to be useful in reaching neutral and representative consensus. But I'm not sure that's at all clear from this wording. The same goes with things like "friendliness". --Delirium 04:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- To add something to the list of what we should value, though, I think "free software" or some suitable more general term. In particular, we make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software, simply because we value those things. --Delirium 05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I really must object (pun intended) to the inclusion of objectivity as one of our core values. Though it does touch on wikipedias practises and guidelines in critical junctions, I would not by any means promote it to a core value. For certain there has never been a predisposition towards relativism either in the wikipedian ethos, but betwixt the two; I really think we have fallen squarely on pluralism, as w:Isaiah Berlin would define it. -- Cimon Avaro 05:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Define "knowledge" 
A "Mix" 
Rather than "a mix" of staff, how about "a diverse mix". Would a more diverse staff and community of wikipedians be a stronger wikipedia? If you agree, how could/should diversity be measured? If you a don't think diversity is good, why not?
We're not always the first to come up with a great feature, but we sure as hell are quick to integrate it if it's libre & useful.
Um, we're technical pioneers? How exactly? Some quick examples I don't see integrated: RSS(user defined). Blame map. Streamlined uploading. Tagging. Even AJAX is libre and useful and is hardly used at all.
I think Wikipedia is pioneering in other ways, but I don't see what motivates this particular comment. --pfctdayelise 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
My values 
18.104.22.168 04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV should be mentioned here and Independence (ensure our organization stays free of influence) should be a subset of that value. (WAS 4.250) 22.214.171.124 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)