User talk:Roux/Constitution

I think it might be best to work out general issues here, while specific concerns with subsections would be best handled at the talkpages of each transcluded section. And please take as a general caveat that all statements I've made anywhere in these pages are prefaced with "If this is adopted by the community..." → ROUX ₪ 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

I have a few random thoughts relating to how I've been conceptualising this over the past while.

I think the most important thing we need to get nailed down first is the concept of rights. So far, everything at the Rights page is really just a synthesis of extant policies.
I very strongly feel that if we are to nail down the rights all Wikpedians have, we must delineate responsibilities as well; one without the other is relatively meaningless.
Defining the roles of various groups on Wikipedia might best be done in terms of what they are not. As I put on the main page (which will hopefully get overwritten), "Delineating what is outside a particular usergroup's remit may be more effective inasmuch as it provides boundaries against scope creep while allowing freedom within those limits."
Following from the above, we need to be vigilant against scope creep, while retaining flexibility enough to fit the general principles of the Wiki model and WP:IAR.

That's about it for now I think. → ROUX ₪ 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some necessary prerequisites

Obviously this will be a work in progress for some time. And in order to complete it, some other things will need to be decided:

The role of Jimbo in the community; is he a 'constitutional monarch', an 'absentee landlord', 'El Presidente', or some mixture of the above? I believe discussions are ongoing with regards to this.
The specific role of ArbCom (including Jimbo's involvement with it). This will likely be sorted out in short order at WP:AC/DP.
Desysopping process. There seems to be a general drift towards the idea that one is needed, though no agreement on what or how. I am working with others on a proposal, so I recognise this may be a pet issue of mine and may have no bearing on this particular project.
The role and/or structure of the ACPD, whatever happens to it. I'm getting the general impression that if it ends up happening, it will have a remit laying somewhere between a specialist Wikiproject and the non-DR mirror image of Arbcom (DevCom?). As such, if it is approved by the community, it should probably be included under Governance? Or maybe Policy?
Anything else I'm missing?

I'm not suggesting those issues get hammered out here--in fact I would suggest that they not be hammered out here, as this document should be descriptive (of how things are) first and prescriptive (how things will continue to develop/ideals) second. Just suggesting that we (assuming anyone else engages...) cannot complete this task without the other issues being settled, and thus this may serve as a push to really work on other issues. → ROUX ₪ 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributed

Here are some vaguely organised thoughts. Wikipedia needs both the rule of law and democracy. Historically and logically the rule of law comes first: contributors need to know what the rules are, and the rules need to be effectively enforced. Without the rule of law, democracy has no secure existence. The rules then need to reflect the rights and responsibilities of the contributors, who are free and equal as people. Lastly the constitution needs to set up a formal structure that gives effect to the rules and rights. Groomtech (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IAR

Time to bin it. Ridiculous. In conflict with everything else. Doesn't synch with reality, in the application of pillars, policies, ArbCom rulings, etc. Tony (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably too large a windmill for me to tilt at. I would support it, but I doubt it has a snowball's chance. → ROUX ₪ 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do shared accounts violate the copyright?

The proposed Constitution siys the following:

Multiple users are not permitted on a single account due to licencing requirements of the Gnu Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0

While multiple users are not permitted on a single account, this has nothing to do with our copyright. The only potential connection here would be the attribution requirements; if multiple people don't mind their edits being attributed to the same name, there is no copyright problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was based on the policy regarding shared accounts. → ROUX ₪ 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any claim that there are copyright issues on WP:NOSHARE or ar meta:Role account. Where was it based on? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]