Vision / Mission

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Vision / Mission

Mathias Schindler-2
Hi there. When reading
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission/Unstable&oldid=521244,
I ask myself if this Mission Statement covers Wikisource, Wikiquote
and Wikimedia Commons, as they may lack neutrality (with a good
reason). In a new version, this has already been fixed, however, the
"official" version appears to be the neutral one
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Mission_and_Vision_statement).

I guess everyone wants to keel those three projects.

Mathias

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vision / Mission

Rich Holton
Mathias Schindler wrote:

> Hi there. When reading
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission/Unstable&oldid=521244,
> I ask myself if this Mission Statement covers Wikisource, Wikiquote
> and Wikimedia Commons, as they may lack neutrality (with a good
> reason). In a new version, this has already been fixed, however, the
> "official" version appears to be the neutral one
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Mission_and_Vision_statement).
>
> I guess everyone wants to keel those three projects.
>
> Mathias
>

I think I see your point. However, it seems to me that quoting a
non-neutral statement is still "neutral" in the context of a collection
of quotations. The same applies to source documents. Thus, both
Wikiquote and Wikisource would be "neutral educational content", so long
as there was not systematic bias (and remember that they are always
works in progress).

Similarly, a particular image, video, etc. can be non-neutral, but an
open collection of them would still be neutral, so long as there is not
systematic bias.

Certainly, we don't want any of those projects to be collectively
biased. If we only kept quotations that supported one position, and
eliminated those that did not support that position, it would be a "bad
thing", and would go against our mission, right? Thus, I do think we
want to keep the concept of "neutral" in our mission statement.

-Rich

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vision / Mission

metasj
In reply to this post by Mathias Schindler-2

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Mathias Schindler wrote:

> Hi there. When reading
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission/Unstable&oldid=521244,
> I ask myself if this Mission Statement covers Wikisource, Wikiquote
> and Wikimedia Commons, as they may lack neutrality (with a good
> reason). In a new version, this has already been fixed, however, the
> "official" version appears to be the neutral one
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Mission_and_Vision_statement).
>
> I guess everyone wants to keel those three projects.

"Keel haul them, I say!"

You can quote or source me on this, or store the sound of my POV words in
a file... I don't see how that makes the place that stores such data POV.
Raw works, like points of view, may not be NPOV.  Tales told to make sense
of them, and ways used to show off a work or write of where it came from,
should be.

Quotes and raw works should be sourced.  They do not live in a void.  This
puts the N in their POV state...

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Vision / Mission

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Mathias Schindler-2
On 5/1/07, Mathias Schindler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi there. When reading
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mission/Unstable&oldid=521244,
> I ask myself if this Mission Statement covers Wikisource, Wikiquote
> and Wikimedia Commons, as they may lack neutrality (with a good
> reason). In a new version, this has already been fixed, however, the
> "official" version appears to be the neutral one
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Mission_and_Vision_statement).

I do not see why Commons, Wikiquote, and Wikisource cannot be neutral
repositories. There are just different ways in which neutrality is
implemented there, e.g., the metadata, the arrangement, the selection,
and so forth. Moreover, all these projects are embedded (through
sister project links) into the overall educational context of the
Wikimedia universe.

I would, in fact, argue that neutrality in these projects is just as
essential as in any other, so I cannot support the removal of
"neutral", but we might think about other ways to phrase this
requirement to be more generic ("to collect and develop .. in a
neutral fashion"?) .
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l