Commons:Project scope/Update 2013/FAQ/vi

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Project scope/Update 2013/FAQ and the translation is 23% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Project scope/Update 2013/FAQ and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Commons scope review

Scope Review 2013 links:

Dịch thuật

Tổng quan

Liên kết tới quy định hiện tại

Thảo luận: Câu ngữ giới thiệu phạm vi

Nội dung: Tập tin

Discussion: Pages, galleries and categories

Discussion: Areas of particular concern

Discussion: Identifiable people

Các đề xuất khác

Principles

Why should we discuss this now? And why should I care?

Over the last few months there have been more urgently-expressed discussions within Commons as well as outside about issues concerning the small proportion of our holdings that relate to sexual imagery and to privacy & the rights of the subject. Both have complex moral and legal dimensions, and neither has yet been fully resolved. It makes sense to review all of our scope policies at the same time, and to ensure the greatest possible exposure of these issues throughout the entire Wikimedia community.

Why the big fuss? Why not just let policy evolve naturally?

Many proposals for change have been made, but there has not recently been sufficient follow-through, nor a wide enough exposure within the wider community, for those proposals to have reached any firm conclusions.

Who is behind this review initiative? Are you trying to push something through against consensus?

I am MichaelMaggs, a bureaucrat on Commons. I'm generally supportive of Commons as an institution, though think that many things could be improved. You can read my thoughts at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-19/Op-ed. According to Commons:Bureaucrats, "Bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues" (this may be rather different from the typical role on other sites such as the English Wikipedia). This is an attempt to help the community come to a resolution of these rather difficult issues. While I do have some ideas and have put them forward on the relevant pages for community discussion as possible compromise positions, I'm not wedded to them and have absolutely no problem if the community wants to go in some other direction.

Why don't you just adopt the policies of Wikipedia?

Commons always has a far broader free-content remit than that that of supporting the narrow focus of an encyclopaedia. Commons provides media files in support not just a single project like the English Wikipedia but all of the WMF projects, including Wikisource, Wikibooks, Wikivoyage and many more. These sister projects of Wikipedia often have a need to use media on Commons that could never be used on the Wikipedias as they are not - in Wikipedia’s narrow sense - “encyclopaedic”.

I've come from Wikipedia, and know nothing about Policy on Commons. Can't you sort this out yourselves?

Probably, yes, but it wouldn't be desirable. The WMF projects can only link to Commons media if they are actually part of Commons' collection. Users from all the the WMF projects have a real interest in making sure that the Commons collections are suitable for their needs.

Tại sao chúng ta đều thảo luận "Phạm vi" và "Người có thể nhận diện được"? Chúng là hai thứ khác nhau.

Về mặt lịch sử, nó cũng đã được xử lý một cách riêng biệt trên Commons, về mặt ngoại vi, cả hai đều định ra được một tập tin nên được giữ lại hay bị xoá bỏ do "không nằm phạm vi".

Tiếng Anh của tôi không được tốt lắm. Tôi có thể đóng góp bằng ngôn ngữ của mình hay không?

Can I add an idea/proposal that does not fit into the existing structure?