Talk:Community guidelines/en

From Strategic Planning
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Aren't "Rules of Engagement" for things like military or police operations? Is Wikimedia.org a police state? CQ 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Are you seriously going to read any of them and suggest that it's anything like a police state? If anything, we err very strongly to the other direction.  :-) -- Philippe 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
That said, if the phrase has military/police connotations as per the linked WP article, perhaps a different page title, like code of conduct, might be preferable? I don't think CQ is objecting to the content of the page, just to the title.--Eloquence 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I'm not going to push back strongly, except to say that every business setting I've worked in has used the same language - including on a call we had a couple days ago with Wikimedia's own consultants. :) I think the term is far more widely used outside the military world, for example at [1]. -- Philippe 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Also the question as to the "purpose" of Strategic Planning:Users. Is there a problem for "regular people" participating here within their own group space? A lot of contributors are made to feel like "nobodies" within most Wikimedia projects. This is a huge problem and very well known as central to impeding Wikimedia's progress within the context of a maturing Internet. Is Strategic Planning just for admins, sysops and bureaucrats? I know it isn't. I must believe it isn't. CQ 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
No, strategic planning is for everyone, and there is no separation based on roles. You have the same voice as anyone. I just didn't (and still don't) know what the intended use of the page is. Is it to discuss a particular issue? Is it to work for a particular proposal? Any of those, and many other uses are fine. I just wondered what this intended use was for that one.  :-) -- Philippe 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
- by the way, if you believe that's a major issue for Wikimedia, I hope you'll think about a path to get past it and write it up as a Proposal. -- Philippe 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Cool :) Community is important. CQ 21:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
How about "Community Guidelines"? On other Wikis, I've used, "Wiki Zen" :-) --Eekim 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
If we're going to change it (which I'm still not convinced is necessary, but willing to go with the flow on if others feel strongly), now's the time, before we get a ton of translations with that page name.... -- Philippe 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Community Guidelines is much more appropriate, in my view. CQ 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
OK, its been moved. :) -- Philippe 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Wow that was a chore! Good thing you did it now! Thank You very much:) CQ 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Shouldn't the translation template and the language template also be moved? --Solstag 23:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[]

just an idea...

About the fragment I copied and pasted below, I suggest you both pay a visit to a proposal called "stupidity of increasingly smaller crowds", and in its talk page there's a link to another proposal (something on sustainability) by one Bodnotbod. Please do it before you decide to create a proposal. I might be wrong, but I believe you are all talking about the same issue, and I would like to see a strong team working on it. saludos, Thamus 04:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[]

'A lot of contributors are made to feel like "nobodies" within most Wikimedia projects. This is a huge problem and very well known as central to impeding Wikimedia's progress within the context of a maturing Internet. Is Strategic Planning just for admins, sysops and bureaucrats? I know it isn't. I must believe it isn't. CQ 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC) No, strategic planning is for everyone, and there is no separation based on roles. You have the same voice as anyone. I just didn't (and still don't) know what the intended use of the page is. Is it to discuss a particular issue? Is it to work for a particular proposal? Any of those, and many other uses are fine. I just wondered what this intended use was for that one.  :-) -- Philippe 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC) - by the way, if you believe that's a major issue for Wikimedia, I hope you'll think about a path to get past it and write it up as a Proposal. -- Philippe 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)'