From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


I doubt if this would be legal and I'm very sure it wouldn't be ethical, but I'll concede it may not be fattening. Whether you are a martial arts instructor or you are teaching people about poisons there has to be an element of responsibility as to who you enable to do harm to others. I also suspect that some anti terrorism laws might be triggered by this project. That said there are some good ideas here, it would be good to have a wikibook on how to unionise a workforce or how to organise a non-violent campaign. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that knowledge about operating an insurgency would be valuable to the project. We shouldn't withhold knowledge out of fear. Writing about military and insurgency tactics isn't illegal. Scholars publish papers on them all the time (eg. Vietnam War), and those scholar don't forbid "bad people" from learning from those papers. Are we going to delete the images and diagrams used in en:Gas-operated_reloading and other gun-related articles out of fear about some "bad person" possibly learning about guns and how they operate? We're here to share knowledge; we shouldn't lock it up. Wikipedians defend porn images on Commons, so why won't they defend knowledge about managing an insurgency? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use Porn as an analogy remember we don't run a separate porn wiki and no one is proposing that we do so. Yes there are images on Commons that many if not most people would consider pornographic, but then there are also images that would be useful to someone studying military and paramilitary techniques. The difference is that you are proposing a project that specialises in insurgency techniques - and just as a porn project would go into more detail about porn so an insurgency site would go into more detail on that topic than Wikipedia would. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but WMF tends to try to be mainstream (or slightly left of mainstream), while this sort of project would tend to give them a reputation for being more radical. They probably don't want that reputation. They strive to be "neutral" which actually means in most cases being biased toward the status quo or minor reforms of the status quo. A movement that favors radical measures tends to also support radical reforms, or at any rate to have rather strong opinions about the needs for its desired reforms, such that the perceived importance of the goal makes it seem worth resorting to drastic and possibly costly actions. Leucosticte (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] is taken[edit]

Just looked it up on WHOIS... it seems that .com, .org and .net are all taken. However, might I point out that is not taken. 19:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taken? Yes. Not for sale? No. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the .org; it's a pretty good generic top-level domain for any sort of organization, for-profit or non-profit. Leucosticte (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation?[edit]

Is it proposed to make this a WMF wiki? I was about to say, "I don't think the donors are going to want to spring for that..." before realizing the inadvertent pun. Anyway, WMF has deep pockets, so they'd probably worry about litigation; plus you saw from my situation how sensitive they can be about discussion of illegal activities — even past illegal activities, much less future illegal activities. Granted, that was a situation involving the enwiki arbcom, while this would be the WMF board and/or bureaucracy making this decision.

I would suggest using some sort of free speech webhosting, preferably DreamHost since they seem to be the best of the bunch, which isn't saying much. If you know of a better one, please let me know. Hosting out of Scandinavia seems to be a popular option these days for controversial sites. Leucosticte (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A manual[edit]

Since what you propose looks like a manual, or a collection of manual, wouldn't it possible to write pages on wikibooks ? --Psychoslave (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]