Difference between revisions of "Talk:ELinuxWiki:Policies & Guidelines"

From eLinux.org
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
the editor should be listed as the first person to make a decision on content compliance. if there is a debate or disagreement over the compliance the editors decision should be reviewed by a 3 or 5 person panel where the decision of the editor should be reviewed. the editor should not be part of the panel. the decision of the panel should be final.
 
the editor should be listed as the first person to make a decision on content compliance. if there is a debate or disagreement over the compliance the editors decision should be reviewed by a 3 or 5 person panel where the decision of the editor should be reviewed. the editor should not be part of the panel. the decision of the panel should be final.
 +
 +
prpplague
 +
 +
:This is OK, but it begs the question of who's on the panel.  I'm not sure how wikipedia builds it's arbitration committee, but maybe we need to have a specific set of designated arbiters (including people from sponsors and the the general community).  We have a task force so constituted now, but I hate to press these guys into long-term service for this. Not to just avoid the issue, but let's see how things go for a while, and just state for now that the policy is to have an independent arbitration committee decide such issues. --[[User:Tbird|Tbird]] 00:58, 9 November 2006 (EET)
 +
 +
== other policies to document ==
 +
Here is a list of other policies to document.  These are either not listed
 +
yet, or have not been finalized:
 +
* site branding (only small logos at bottom, no big commercial presence or CELF branding.)
 +
* editorial policy for reverse-engineered information (we already had lots of discussion on this - we need to capture it)
 +
--[[User:Tbird|Tbird]] 00:58, 9 November 2006 (EET)
 +
 +
== license policy ==
 +
Here some notes on the rationale for the license policy:
 +
* Tim wants dual-licensed "GFDL or GPLv2" for all implicitly licensed content
 +
Rationale is:
 +
* Want to allow text to flow to Wikipedia, if desired
 +
* Want to allow text and code to flow to GPL v2 projects, if desired
 +
 +
It is perceived by some that GFDL text could not flow to GPL v2 projects.
 +
It is perceived by some that GPLv2 text could not flow to Wikipedia.
 +
Hence, the rationale to dual-license.
 +
 +
== Encyclopedic content ==
 +
We should document the rationale for pushing encyclopedic content to Wikipedia,
 +
and possibly give some examples of the types of material to keep here and the
 +
type of material to push there.
 +
 +
One example here:
 +
The Sony page here might contain a list of Sony products that incorporate Linux,
 +
or it might mention that Sony is one of the founders of the CE Linux Forum.
 +
Those facts would be inappropriate for a general Wikipedia article on Sony.
 +
--[[User:Tbird|Tbird]] 01:08, 9 November 2006 (EET)

Latest revision as of 23:08, 8 November 2006

the editor should be listed as the first person to make a decision on content compliance. if there is a debate or disagreement over the compliance the editors decision should be reviewed by a 3 or 5 person panel where the decision of the editor should be reviewed. the editor should not be part of the panel. the decision of the panel should be final.

prpplague

This is OK, but it begs the question of who's on the panel. I'm not sure how wikipedia builds it's arbitration committee, but maybe we need to have a specific set of designated arbiters (including people from sponsors and the the general community). We have a task force so constituted now, but I hate to press these guys into long-term service for this. Not to just avoid the issue, but let's see how things go for a while, and just state for now that the policy is to have an independent arbitration committee decide such issues. --Tbird 00:58, 9 November 2006 (EET)

other policies to document

Here is a list of other policies to document. These are either not listed yet, or have not been finalized:

  • site branding (only small logos at bottom, no big commercial presence or CELF branding.)
  • editorial policy for reverse-engineered information (we already had lots of discussion on this - we need to capture it)

--Tbird 00:58, 9 November 2006 (EET)

license policy

Here some notes on the rationale for the license policy:

  • Tim wants dual-licensed "GFDL or GPLv2" for all implicitly licensed content

Rationale is:

  • Want to allow text to flow to Wikipedia, if desired
  • Want to allow text and code to flow to GPL v2 projects, if desired

It is perceived by some that GFDL text could not flow to GPL v2 projects. It is perceived by some that GPLv2 text could not flow to Wikipedia. Hence, the rationale to dual-license.

Encyclopedic content

We should document the rationale for pushing encyclopedic content to Wikipedia, and possibly give some examples of the types of material to keep here and the type of material to push there.

One example here: The Sony page here might contain a list of Sony products that incorporate Linux, or it might mention that Sony is one of the founders of the CE Linux Forum. Those facts would be inappropriate for a general Wikipedia article on Sony. --Tbird 01:08, 9 November 2006 (EET)