56
edits
Wikimedia: Difference between revisions
lk interwiki link standard
(clarify last point; it's a proposal) |
(lk interwiki link standard) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
However, some participants in the [[Wikipedia]] and other [[GFDL corpus]] projects have raised concerns with the people and processes employed by the foundation. They claim that, as a volunteer organization, it probably has growing pains, and it's unclear if it will outgrow these. Most of the criticisms have to do with [[wiki management]] problems on which there is little well-understood practice. | However, some participants in the [[Wikipedia]] and other [[GFDL corpus]] projects have raised concerns with the people and processes employed by the foundation. They claim that, as a volunteer organization, it probably has growing pains, and it's unclear if it will outgrow these. Most of the criticisms have to do with [[wiki management]] problems on which there is little well-understood practice. | ||
*Treating use of ISO language codes in mediawiki's [[interwiki link | *Treating use of ISO language codes in mediawiki's [[interwiki link standard]] as if they are invocations of Wikipedia in that language, not simply references to "that page in that language". | ||
:But the interwiki links point to the page in another language | :But the interwiki links point to the page in another language | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed. | :This complaint is completely incoherent. If the original complainant could explain himself, I'm sure that any such problem would be eagerly addressed. | ||
::This claim doesn't look incoherent to me. For example [[Wikipedia:fr:Commerce �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to what [[interwiki link | ::This claim doesn't look incoherent to me. For example [[Wikipedia:fr:Commerce �quitable]] or [[w:fr:Commerce �quitable]] map incorrectly to what [[interwiki link standard|should be]] at [[fr:Wikipedia:Commerce �quitable]]. It is not up to the service to decide what languages to serve in, nor is it up to the service to decide how to carve up space within that language. Not only that, but the name of the service is itself expressed in a language. | ||
:::From a <tt>computer-pov</tt> this doesn't matter. It is for the computer the same. | :::From a <tt>computer-pov</tt> this doesn't matter. It is for the computer the same. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
*Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders, to the bizarre extremes of assuming that the Wikipedia mailing list consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts. (possibly wikipedia-specific?) | *Promoting its own [[community point of view]] as if it were actually a [[neutral point of view]], ignoring [[systemic bias]] questions, and letting [[sysop vigilantiism]] and [[sysop vandalism]] occur freely against outsiders, to the bizarre extremes of assuming that the Wikipedia mailing list consensus on legal issues overrules the best legal advice of actual qualified legal experts. (possibly wikipedia-specific?) | ||
* | *Allegedly planning to modify its contributor agreement to make Wikimedia the contributor's copyright infringement agent. This would pose some potential threat to the open content status of Wikimedia projects, by letting Wikimedia use a legal bludgeon to shut down even legitimate mirrors on the basis of even minor inconsistency with the GFDL in places where Wikimedia itself may be arguably inconsistent. At the moment it requires some degree of consensus before that could happen, since a fair number of contributors would have to sign up for any legal action. Eliminating that hurdle would significantly increase the potential for locking up the content. | ||
Generally, critics point to Wikimedia as a classic [[insider culture]], and not a good model for [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] or any other nonprofit entity that is actually trying to serve users and disadvantaged people and other living things. | Generally, critics point to Wikimedia as a classic [[insider culture]], and not a good model for [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] or any other nonprofit entity that is actually trying to serve users and disadvantaged people and other living things. | ||