Founding principles: Difference between revisions
remove 'final authority'/'ultimate authority' confusion |
attempt to refactor #5, in line with talk: and apparent practice |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
# The "wiki process" as the decision mechanism on content |
# The "wiki process" as the decision mechanism on content |
||
# Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL |
# Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL |
||
# [[en:User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] |
# The [[Board of Trustees]] has ultimate authority on all matters pertaining to the Wikimedia Foundation. In practice, [[en:User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] remains final judge on certain projects (although some authority has been delegated to others; in particular [[en:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]). |
||
Several other projects are notable in their use of different principles. For example, h2g2 and some other collaborative projects have editorial boards that review content. Fred Bauder's fork [[:en:Wikinfo|Wikinfo]] project uses a sympathetic point of view rather than [[NPOV]]. |
Several other projects are notable in their use of different principles. For example, h2g2 and some other collaborative projects have editorial boards that review content. Fred Bauder's fork [[:en:Wikinfo|Wikinfo]] project uses a sympathetic point of view rather than [[NPOV]]. |
||
Revision as of 02:35, 10 March 2007
This document doesn't necessarily reflect the view of Wikimedia Foundation. Also this document may contain outdated and thus wrong information.
The Wikimedia projects as a community have certain foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate. People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project. These issues include:
- NPOV as the guiding editorial principle
- Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering
- The "wiki process" as the decision mechanism on content
- Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL
- The Board of Trustees has ultimate authority on all matters pertaining to the Wikimedia Foundation. In practice, Jimbo Wales remains final judge on certain projects (although some authority has been delegated to others; in particular Arbitration Committee).
Several other projects are notable in their use of different principles. For example, h2g2 and some other collaborative projects have editorial boards that review content. Fred Bauder's fork Wikinfo project uses a sympathetic point of view rather than NPOV.
The presence of these foundation issues is, on the one hand, one of the strengths of the existing community, and on the other, one of the factors that has led to charges of cabalism.