from_name: Dabljuh

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's administrative system

body:
Wikipedia's administrative system: An MMORPG rotten to the core

The past week or so has unintendedly resulted in a clash between me and what I call the administrative system of Wikipedia, and I couldn't help but notice a number of flaws of process. There is no cabal - But there are factions on Wikipedia. A faction is any number of individuals who collaborate in order to achieve a common goal. The administrative system increasingly shows the sign of such a faction.

In the middle ages, noblemen were to be tried by their fellow noblemen for their crimes, which resulted in hardly anyone ever getting convicted. Similiarly, the clerical system had jurisdiction over itself - and even gross sexual abuse often went on for years without anyone intervening - if at all.

On Wikipedia, administrators are given authority and technical provisions to punish disruptive users. Some SysOps would point out that the purpose of a block is not to punish, but to prevent - But since a block is not an effective prevention, as it can be evaded at the leisure of any somewhat tech-savy user, it can only serve as punishment and to get rid of unwelcome or different POV editors.

If blocked, in error or abuse, or even legitimately, an editor has basically no chance to revoke the block. He can no longer edit the relevant pages such as the Administrator's Noticeboard for Intervention. Thus, even though the policy explicitely and uncompromisingly forbids abusing blocked or disruptive users, regardless of their past, an user, once blocked, is realistically considered free game for all sorts of false accusations, abuses, personal attacks and libel.

Because of the factionalizing mechanics of the administrative system, a blocked user has basically no chance to get an abusive ban lifted. The policy quite clearly states that the originally blocked user is meant to lift blocks he invoked himself. An abusive sysop will simply not do so. And nobody else will. WikiEN-l is a mailing list mostly read by the administrative system itself, who again, naturally, almost always will side with the administrator they know rather than a random editor.

RFComments don't work, neither do RFMediations - especially when blocked. The RfArbitration system is limited by the number of cases the ArbCom can deal with in any given timeframe, and is made a mockery of justice when a blocked user is denied the ability to defend himself. And because the ArbCom members are themselves also part of the administrative system, they again tend side with problematic or long standing administrators much more easily than with problematic or new editors.

If the wrongly blocked user then decides to ignore the block, and proceeds with the trivial technical task of evading the block, in order to protect himself from false accusations, personal attacks, or - dear lord - continuing to edit mainspace articles or talk pages, this is actually seen as an invitation to administrators to resort to personal attacks, vandalize the user at will - more even than before he becomes "free game", easily resulting in blocks lasting to the end of time, literally forcing an user that wants to contribute to Wikipedia to evade or leave the project.

Ignorance and indifference to policy are normal in today's administrative system of Wikipedia. Completely unfair and unwarranted blocks occur on a daily basis, personal attacks, vandalizations of the userpages of unpopular editors - a strong pecking order. The policies are ignorable, the only thing that counts is "Don't piss off the sysops that have real power".

All of this also undermines the basic content policies of Wikipedia. Adherents of a different POV can be removed easily (although no administrator would ever be caught dead with banning an user on the basis of POV). Not to mention it removes strong editors, and replaces them with weak ones compliant to the POV of increasingly sociopathic administrators having an interest in the article.

Currently Wikipedia is too much of an MMORPG: If one editor has 500 edits, and another has 20'000, and they have a dispute, the editor with 20'000 edits always wins - especially so when he is a sysop himself, the chances for which increase almost exponentially with the number of posts. This is not a way to find consensus: Consensus must be found in debate. And debate is the hardest of all ways to fight an opposite POV - It is almost always the more successful strategy to get the opposite side blocked than to actually get down and find this sacred consensus (or compromise).

Why are administrators needed in the first place? "To combat vandalism" would most answer. But interestingly, popups, applications, bots, etc are all much more effective than the administrative power to block and to protect an article - These are either trivially easy circumvented by a determined vandal, or undermine the most basic idea of Wikipedia: That everyone can edit it - the very idea that made Wikipedia so popular, and what it is today. Regular editors can patrol RecentChanges just as much as administrators can. The only real necessity for privileged users is the management of the front page - And it doesn't take thousands of administrators to do that.

The solution to the system is to simply remove all administrative privileges, short of maybe a dozen "hard core" people needed to manage the front page, and instructed not to use their powers for anything in the mainspace. For everything else, regular users are just as well equipped for dealing with vandalism and other disruptive occurances as administrators. And for NPOV: It does not ever serve the neutrality of an article if one party is equipped with the power to block the other party.

Would the removal of all administrators result in more edit warring? Yes of course. Because no longer would one party simply get the opposite party blocked. But edit warring is not effective, it is indeed mutually assured destruction: If two parties simply revert each other all the time, they would never get anywhere - Ultimately even the most stubborn POV warrior realizes he will have to arrange with the other side. Personal attacks? Don't listen to it and grow a skin. Copyvios? Give regular users the ability to remove pictures. Delete and undelete? Merely a technical problem.

Everything is better than compromising the sanity and integrity of the "Encyclopedia" Wikipedia.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
* Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> No, the *real* oldbies were the ones who used computers without a
> wimpy graphical interface... maybe a printing terminal using a modem
> switchable between 110 baud and the "high-speed" 300 (like they had
> at the high school I attended in the early '80s)... or even punch
> cards (like they also used when I was in high school, taking a class
> in Fortran).

Ok, stop... you're making me all nostalgic. I think it all started to go
downhill when the modems became capable of transferring text faster than
you could read it (aka 2400 baud). :]


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] Brion is *the man*

body:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 01:44:46PM +0100, Rob Church wrote:
> On 17/06/06, Tomer Chachamu <the.r3m0t at gmail.com> wrote:
> > /me thought image deletions were permanent for disk-space reasons.
>
> Why the hell does everybody seem to have thought that? There was
> never, as far as I am aware, any policy related to saving disk space
> that would cause that. It's simply that there was a lack of code until
> now. :)

Likely (puts helpdesk hat on) because they knew that that otherwise
useful functionality wasn't provided, and in lieu of an *actual* reason
why not, they modeled it in their head, and that's what they came up
with.

Apply 'telephone' to the result; blather, wince, repeat.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


subject:
[Wikitech-l] double apostrophes in titles (was: Categories on
	nap.wikipedia.org don't work)

body:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 08:26:12AM -0600, Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> > And there's at least one more possibility: today I happened to
> > notice that there's also a Unicode double apostrophe character,
> > U+02EE.  I'm not sure, but it might be tailor-made for Neopolitan.
>
> Again, there are multiple Unicode double apostrophe characters,
> but this one is also not punctuation but a letter: "modifier letter double
> apostrophe".

Which, if I correctly followed all the earlier conversation, means
that yes, it's exactly what the Neapolitan people want.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


from_name: John Lyden

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/17/06, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Ok, stop... you're making me all nostalgic. I think it all started to go
> downhill when the modems became capable of transferring text faster than
> you could read it (aka 2400 baud). :]

By that measure, my downhill was 9600 baud.

Of course, I jumped right from my 1200 baud Multitech to a 14.4K on my
486. Jump to lightspeed!

-Ras

--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp at gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac


from_name: Wildrick Steele

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
On 15/06/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/15/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > The current solution, making them different pages, is IMO much worse
> > than favoring one or the other, since it requires people to basically
> > copy/paste definitions across multiple pages, and make sure changes stay
> > in sync.  Look, for example, at "traveling" versus "travelling", which
> > currently actually have wildly different content despite being the same
> > word with a minor variation in spelling (this was the first example I
> > checked).
>
> This whole thing seems silly, bordering on extremely silly. Should
> Wikipedia have separate articles for petrol and gasoline?
>
> Possible solution (if it's absolutely critical that color and colour
> both have top level non-redirected articles): Put all the content in
> {{colr}} and transclude it. If you include a heading near the top and
> people use section editing, they won't even know!
>
> Steve
>

Right, if it were that simple, this would have long been solved before.
Please check out the tons of discussions on it, for instance here:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/March_06#First_quarter_2006_US_vs._UK_flamewar

Everyone is welcome to re-start the discussions, but I doubt it will change
anything.

Reasons include that [[color]] contains, or at least should contain,
different etymologies, pronunciations, derived terms, related terms, etc.
than [[colour]]. Another argument is that [[color]] also lists the Latin,
Spanish, etc. words, which [[colour]] doesn't of course.

Redirects are really a Wikipedia thing, and cause much disagreement over on
Wiktionary. A dictionary isn't fit to redirect the user to a different page,
when they only need to know what the word they entered exactly means.

Cheers,
Wildrick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus


subject: [Wikitech-l] Brion is *the man*

body:
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:56:24PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:50:08AM -0700, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > I don't know if we ever erased them permanently, though, and I also
> > don't know with wham frequency images are deleted, and I'm also pretty
> > sure disco space was never a real problem.
>
> Yeah, I've always had room to dance.

Well, of course, Chad.  It takes you less space to dance than, say, me.

> By the way, a message to Brion: you da man.

He sure is.

Cheers,
-- jr 'will kiss ass for food' a
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?


list: foundation-l

from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

body:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
> board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.

I am definitely interested.  It would be revitalizing for those who don't
know where they stand vis-a-vis the foundation and are feeling anxious
about it... but want to be involved.

>> Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad.
>> At the least, one should be required to submit an application
>> providing ones identity.  But to say that the fact that the membership
>
> I agree.
> Now, who is interested in making the application ?
> And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the
> paper forms ?
> These are practical issues.

Not quite answering your question, but...

The application need not be complicated;
  - user name on a wikimedia project if applicable
  - optional contribution*
  - real name and address;
  - privacy : whether this membership can be made public, whether the real
name can be made public
  - spam : whether future emails or updates are desired (note that one
yearly notice will be sent to all members; checkbox for preferring snail
mail or email)

* or, as per the older proposal, how much is being contributed (regular /
discounted dues) with a check of the length and degree of contribution for
the latter

As for who would fill the database, presumably these would be sent to the
foundation office...

>> I've said it before and I'll say it again.  It makes absolutely no
>> sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community.
>> I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want
>> that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.
>
> It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve
> our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great
> strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another
> organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could
> help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another
> vision or another perspective that current members of the community do
> not have.

It is entirely possible to have a board of trustees, with executive
duties, and a separate board of advisors; which could provide for image,
strategy, standing, goodwill, fundraising help, and extra perspective.
This has been suggested before; I recall some very old pages on Meta
listing who in the world might make good advisors.

> My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
> clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
> elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
> ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).

Both the overlapping terms and the division of appointment/election sound
fine.  It seems that at any rate the bylaws have to be modified...

>> If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will

The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
do this?

SJ


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Sitenotice use for Wikimania

body:
As announced earlier, the Communications committee is coordinating the
use of the site-wide notices on Wikimedia Foundation sites. Right now,
we need to call attention to Wikimania and encourage people to register,
so starting sometime tomorrow we will be putting up a brief project-wide
notice about this. We expect the notice to run for about a week.

When this use of the site notice ends it should be blanked again (except
for any separate notices to anonymous users being used for fundraising).
We don't want these to be overused, so an extended silent period for the
site notice should follow. After that, the next use will probably be for
the fundraiser, assuming that committee is organized and a date settled on.

--Michael Snow


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sitenotice use for Wikimania


from_name: Brad Patrick

body:
On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
> it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
> demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
> do this?
>
> SJ
>

I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre.
Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong
to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something.  You
give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member.  You attend a
meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular
local organization of that group.  Churches, civic organizations, soup
kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good
reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy
between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.

Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism
and respect for the contributions of *everyone*.  There is no us and them -
if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are.  It's simple,
and only goes in one direction.  If you edit enough, you can vote for a
person you want to see on the board.  Without money changing hands, you have
the same representation you would under any other circumstances.  The
Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place
indeed.  What happens to members who don't pay?  Are they prevented from
editing?  If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either
one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to
give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their
wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or
privileges?

As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled
in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the
lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
respected.  As soon as you cross the line into a "real world" membership
situation, that is undermined substantially, if not eliminated.  To be sure,
we have anonymous donors now.  But that is a quid without a quo - it is a
gift from an unknown individual to an organization they want to support.
Membership cannot be sustained the same way for any valid reason...there is,
again, no meaningful distinction.

The essence of this openness to all will be lost as soon as an us/them
dichotomy is established.  It does not exist today, except as a relic of the
bylaws which are long overdue to be changed.  The badges of "membership" -
if you give money, if you contribute to projects, if you volunteer for
various positions in the organization - all exist independent of that.
Other than providing a political means for takeover of the organization
directly (and that's a whole other conversation), I don't see the point.

The Apache model has some strengths, but my personal opinion is that the
difference between producing software alone and producing encyclopedias,
news, etc. yields a gap that is difficult to close.  My hats are off to the
Apache folks.  But they have a much more narrow mission and fewer moving
parts to achieve that mission.  Different parts of the free culture movement
are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of
varying degrees of interest to many.  I think the Foundation's mission is
simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on
formalized elected constituencies.  Creating representation from the
existing pattern of projects is also inherently political.  If the
Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and
projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers
and writers worldwide yet to be connected.  So, there is a shift ahead no
matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as
they have.

Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better
served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion,
as some have done.  Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as
to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look
like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this.  We may disagree on
various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the
conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.

-Brad

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf at gmail.com
727-231-0101


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
I have been waiting in vain, for some years, for the New York Times to
introduce an "anyone can read" policy.


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians

body:
Anyways, I think we should focus on a name. Apparently WikiMD is taken, so
how does MedWiki or WikiMed or WikiMedicine sound?

On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How is Wikipedia better than World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica? How
> is Wikinews better than CNN.com? How is Wiktionary better than
> dictionary.com? The idea is that when Wikimedia starts a project, we're
> the copyleft alternative to the ideal corporate source we're getting
> information from. The information Wikimedia publishes is for all the people
> with Internet access, and eventually the entire world.
>
> On 6/17/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using
> > exclusively
> > > verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where
> > people
> > > -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical
> > dictionary"
> > > when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and
> > how to
> > > make it go away."
> >
> > Okay, then how would it differ or be better than WebMD? --LV
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 6/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> >>The Foundation shall have no members.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new
> > bylaws have *no one* as members.  Unfortunately, it seems to be
> > possible for three members of the board to make this change.  I urge
> > all the board members to vote against it.  At the very least, I hope
> > the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to
> > see what they think about the idea.
>
> What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???
>
I think you're trying to get ideas on how to resolve the issue.  But
you don't seem to be acting on behalf of the board in doing so.

> It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately
> to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you
> to have answered.
>
> Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in
> discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I
> make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
> board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
>
Any chance of getting the board to set up a committee with the task of
recommending a new set of bylaws?

If not, then you're probably right - it's not worth the effort.

Anthony


from_name: Anthere

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Hello
>>
>>Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a
>>model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.
>>
>>2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members.
>>For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of
>>you may remember the discussion around the member dues.
>>That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of
>>you and I represented no one :-)
>>
>>At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of
>>volunteer representative/member representative.
>>
>
> You seem to be implying here that the original bylaws only provided
> for "contributing" members.  This is incorrect.  According to the
> original bylaws, "all persons interested in supporting the activities
> of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any
> Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline" are
> volunteer members.  Angela represented the volunteer members.  You
> represented both the volunteer members *and* the contributing active
> members (of which there were none).

My memory is that I represented only contributing active...so no one.
But the whole issue has been dropped down anyway, so it does not matter
at all, *except* that this is still what is in the bylaws.

>>Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally
>>inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*.
>>I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole
>>sections about membership :
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
>>
>>Does that section fit with reality ?
>>
>
> It provides for a type of member which doesn't exist, and in my
> opinion should not exist.  It needs to be modified, but it doesn't
> *have* to be completely overhauled.

True. No more than 50% needs rewritting ;-)

>>Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership
>>part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
>>
>>This new version has a very short "membership section".
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
>>The Foundation shall have no members.
>>
>
>
> So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new
> bylaws have *no one* as members.  Unfortunately, it seems to be
> possible for three members of the board to make this change.  I urge
> all the board members to vote against it.  At the very least, I hope
> the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to
> see what they think about the idea.

What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???

It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately
to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you
to have answered.

Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in
discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I
make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.

>>The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki)
>>is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees
>>organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation
>>membership.
>>
>
> That is only the reality of the situation because the board has made
> it so.  According to the bylaws, the membership "shall consist of all
> persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who
> have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to
> the election ballot request deadline. The only other qualification for
> membership shall be the creation of a user account on some Wikimedia
> project. Volunteer Active Members shall have all the privileges of
> active members."
>
> Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad.
> At the least, one should be required to submit an application
> providing ones identity.  But to say that the fact that the membership
> is defined too broadly is equivalent to there being no membership at
> all is not at all valid.

I agree.
Now, who is interested in making the application ?
And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the
paper forms ?
These are practical issues.
Another practical issue is that I am currently the only board member
interested in trying to do that. Given that trying to rewrite bylaws is
meant to take a few hours, I'd be happy to know what you guys think and
what other board members think.

And I get mostly silence.

>>Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
>>Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
>>on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
>>model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy
>>members in the future.
>>DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very
>>much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good
>>part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2
>>famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only.
>>Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9.
>>Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such
>>case, they would be appointed.
>>
>>What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would
>>really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the
>>community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision.
>>Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
>>
>
>
> Again I think your terminology is confusing.  Right now there are 4
> members of the board who are part of the community, and there is 1
> member who very well might not be on the board much longer.  Only 2
> members of the board were *voted in* by the community, but that
> doesn't mean they are the only members who are part of the community.

I am a bit confused here. I think only JImbo, Angela and myself are part
of the community...

> I've said it before and I'll say it again.  It makes absolutely no
> sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community.
> I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want
> that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.

It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve
our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great
strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another
organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could
help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another
vision or another perspective that current members of the community do
not have.

>>The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
>>Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
>>garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
>>collective running. This is very much the model of our local
>>associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I
>>think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european;
>>whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much
>>american and hard to understand by europeans.
>>
>
>
> I don't think the American/European dichotomy is a valid one.  There
> are a large number of membership non-profit organizations in the
> United States.  In fact, I'd guess most public charities in the US are
> membership based organizations.
>
> Now maybe it's true that Europeans don't have very many private
> non-membership foundations.  I don't know about this.

I know only membership associations in France. Foundations are very very
very unusual in France at least. Usually, there are created by big
bosses who need to use part of their commercial benefits in a charity.

>>I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it
>>*alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no
>>*active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned
>>on the board wiki.
>>
>
> I don't think very many of the current members (let's say, everyone
> who voted in one of the two elections) are aware that there is
> currently a proposal to take away their membership.  I'll have to
> think about how best to publicise this.

Since there will still be two elected members, I think most would not care.

We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the
board by 2 more members.
Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself.
There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members.
Elected are renewed every 2 years.

My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).

Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of
more.

Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.

My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new
proposition AND that board members vote.
Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.

So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and
5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.

>>As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the
>>Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an
>>individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty
>>(estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one
>>would be best for you).
>>
>
> If the foundation explicitly drops its members I think the community
> will grow more and more distant.  I think at some point there will be
> a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple
> now-worthless trademarks.

If the Foundation explicitely drops members, I think more associations
will erupt. The Foundation will have its own life with big guys, staff
and those of us with clear political goals, and the associations will
have other lives, with the community input.

At least, that is a possibility :-)

> If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will
> be a fork.  Ultimately I don't know if this is a good thing or not,
> though.  That depends on how effectively the model is implemented.
>
> Anthony


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
On 6/17/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For the record, the Einstein article was only protected recently
> > because a stubborn editor was insisting on changing the formatting to
> > meet his own personal requirements and was revert warring. However
> > after a week of this he finally agreed to stop after he was instructed
> > as to how to modify his own monobook.css to make it display for him
> > how he wanted to. It is currently unprotected.
>
> Why was an article protected to stop a *single editor* from modifying
> it? Wouldn't banning him from the article (and blocking him from
> Wikipedia if he failed to respect the ban) have been more effective?

Probably. But as you know, there are many ways these things play out,
and in the end the article was successfully unprotected after seven
days without any difficulties in this respect. IMO the "right answer"
is usually any solution which ends up resolving the immediate problem
and doesn't create new long-term problems, so in this case I think it
worked out fine.

In any case, it was not protected as a result of any of the reasons
the reporter discussed in the NYT article, and is not under long-term
semi-protection at all. Its inclusion in the article is somewhat
gratuitous?the reporter clearly did not investigate the details of its
protection status and just grabbed its title from a list somewhere (a
small crime in comparison with the more fundamental misrepresentations
in the article, of course).

FF


body:
On 6/17/06, Dabljuh <samw at student.ethz.ch> wrote:
> Currently Wikipedia is too much of an MMORPG: If one editor has 500 edits, and another has 20'000, and they have a dispute, the editor with 20'000 edits always wins - especially so when he is a sysop himself, the chances for which increase almost exponentially with the number of posts. This is not a way to find consensus: Consensus must be found in debate. And debate is the hardest of all ways to fight an opposite POV - It is almost always the more successful strategy to get the opposite side blocked than to actually get down and find this sacred consensus (or compromise).

I just wanted to address this paragraph in particular.

Edit counts mean absolutely nothing in day-to-day interactions except
when a user is very very very new (i.e., they have less than 50 edits
or so). I think it is a safe generalization to say that very new users
are indeed not often valued as much as long-time contributors. There
are sane reasons for that, even if we do want to say that new users
are always welcome.

If one could actually correlate edit counts to success on the Wiki ?
something for which I imagine there is a high possibility, even if it
has not here been proven ? it is likely because a user with a large
number of edits has invested more time here, understands how things
work a bit better, and understands what sorts of arguments do and do
not register. (New and outraged users usually think that decrying
"censorship" is a useful strategy, for some reason; in reality, it
just makes them look like total nutballs who can't construct a
convincing argument.) It is also the case that users who stick around
and edit a lot are likely to be noticed and recognized by others as
good editors, and others are more likely to be sympathetic to them.

It is not the case the edit counts, as raw numbers, mean much. I do
not know my own edit count nor anyone else's who has been around
enough for me to notice them positively. I suspect others' experiences
are similar. The only place where I have ever seen quantitative edit
counts discussed and compared is the Request for Adminship page, where
it is used as an acknowledged rough metric for editing experience.

Just my two cents. I think there is a minority of Wikipedia admins who
actually do make things miserable for others in various ways, and I
think it is very possible that certain variations of "groupthink" do
end up having unpleasant effects. (The neverending search for
"potentially offensive usernames" is a ridiculous and current example
of this, in my opinion. If it is not offensive enough to generate
numerous recommendations to change it, it is not offensive enough for
me to give a damn, personally.)

But beyond those feelings, I do not think that Wikipedia is "rotten to
the core", and I do not think that most administrators abuse their
powers in content disputes, which seems to be the chief allegation in
this screed.

FF


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians

body:
> I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
> like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell you
> about my proposed project:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read the
> whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first post
> to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.

Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki
mailing list at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l

Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages
should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate
Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians


body:
Anthere wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the
> board by 2 more members.
> Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself.
> There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members.
> Elected are renewed every 2 years.
>
> My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
> clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
> elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
> ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
>
> Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of
> more.
>
> Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
>
> My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new
> proposition AND that board members vote.
> Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
>
> So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and
> 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.

Oh, an important clarification.
Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the
community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least
the majority should be from the community.

The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united
team with complementary skills.
The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit
diversity of view points.

Ant


from_name: SJ

subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] the easy way or the less easy way

body:
On 6/17/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
> > it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
> > demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
> > do this?
> >
> > SJ
> >
>
> I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre.
> Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong
> to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something.  You
> give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member.

Not necessarily dues.  Calling oneself a member is often a null quid
and provides nothing that is actually used by the member, save the
sense of belonging and support...

> Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism
> and respect for the contributions of *everyone*.  There is no us and them -
> if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are.  It's simple,
> and only goes in one direction.  If you edit enough, you can vote for a
> person you want to see on the board.  Without money changing hands, you have
> the same representation you would under any other circumstances.

Money isn't the issue here.  There's nothing wrong with a membership
system that requires no dues.  "If you edit enough" -- that's what one
currently gives in exchange for the right to vote.

> Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place
> indeed.  What happens to members who don't pay?  Are they prevented from
> editing?

I don't know where you are getting any of this...

> As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled
> in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the
> lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
> respected.

That was a quick cut and paste from previous discussions on meta;
there are subtle issues of pseudonymity to handle -- does it matter if
one Real Person has many different membership carsd?  How much does it
matter?  How well can we improve our tech infrastructure to provide
for filling out forms authenticated by project user-id?  And also
issues of privacy -- if some part of the Foundation knows something
about a user (IP, real name, phone number), how many others will come
to know the same thing?

We would all benefit from a more subtle discussion of these matters,
even aside from membership.

> like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this.  We may disagree on
> various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the
> conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.

Yes.  I'm very glad that you are participating in it.

SJ


list: textbook-l

from_name: Michael R. Irwin

subject: [Textbook-l] Austrian Wikiversity in German

body:
Hi all,

A link has been added to a "Austrian" Wikiversity in advertised as in
German Language to the bottom of the front page of the English prototype
of Wikiversity at English Wikibooks.

http://wikiversity.at/MyWiki/index.php?title=Hauptseite

at bottom of:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity

Is this an authorised prototype of a Wikiversity or should the link be
removed?

It seems odd that we would want multiple Wikiversitys in the same
language.   It is certainly my conclusion that we prefer Wikiversities
broken out by language so people can participate effectively
internationally as feasible one the same sites.   Similar to how
Wikipedias have mostly been established around language where feasible.

If this is not a Wikimedia site then I think the link should be deleted
immediately and perhaps it should be put in our legal queue for action
as appropriate when resources are available.  The site is using a
variation of Wikipedia's puzzle globe logo and is clearly intended to
leverage off of Wikimedia Foundation's existing and pending successful
projects' reputation to gather traffic.

regards,
lazyquasar


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 6/17/06, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>The practice of repeatedly issuing "final warnings" has to stop - you
>>can just see the vandals laughing at you (sometimes literally) when
>>nothing ever happens. Issue warnings, then a final warning, and if they
>>don't improve their behaviour, block them.
>>
>>
>
>It would be good if we could put users on probation. Occasionally I've
>taken the effort to track a vandal, watching and reverting their
>edits. But it would be nice to be able to say "this user's next edit
>is 90% likely to be vandalism, hence, let's screen it *before* it goes
>live". All the edits of probationary users could appear on one screen,
>and people watching that list could pick out the occasional good ones
>to let through, much like moderating a mailing list.
>
>Steve
>
>
This is something of a perennial proposal. The main problem I see with
it is the potential for edit conflicts - if a valid edit goes through
between when the probationary edit is made, and when it is approved,
there might be trouble merging the two edits together.

John


body:
What should the notice say?

On 6/17/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> As announced earlier, the Communications committee is coordinating the
> use of the site-wide notices on Wikimedia Foundation sites. Right now,
> we need to call attention to Wikimania and encourage people to register,
> so starting sometime tomorrow we will be putting up a brief project-wide
> notice about this. We expect the notice to run for about a week.
>
> When this use of the site notice ends it should be blanked again (except
> for any separate notices to anonymous users being used for fundraising).
> We don't want these to be overused, so an extended silent period for the
> site notice should follow. After that, the next use will probably be for
> the fundraiser, assuming that committee is organized and a date settled
> on.
>
> --Michael Snow
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Nathan Carter

subject:
[Foundation-l] (volunteer) job position : Ombudsperson
 checkuser (or checkuser Ombudsperson or whatever)

body:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:

>Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread
>to all wikis?
>
>
It is used on all wikis. I know it has been used on Wikinews quite a bit
lately.

>Might cc this thread to the various Wikipedia lists and the Wiki
>Ambassaders or other language chapters looking for partners.
>
>
Great idea.

>Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.
>
>Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no
>deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there
>is or is not a problem.   Three way spread with complicated opinions
>probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is
>really going on or a simple no conclusion.
>
>regards,
>lazyquasar
>
>
>
Generally the idea of an ombudsperson is to work independently, that way
things can be resolved quickly, although having a group of people may
work if the issue is still in dispute.
Cheers,
Nathan


subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians

body:
James Hare wrote:

>Hello, fellow Wikimedians!
>
>I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
>like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell you
>about my proposed project:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read the
>whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first post
>to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
>
>Sincerely,
>Messedrocker
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Hi Messedrocker,
Your proposal is certainly interesting. My only question is what would
the project provide that could not be achieved by say a portal on Wikipedia?
I am guessing that it is madatory that the information comes from
verifiable sources in the scientific community and not just some Joe
down the street who wants to give the recipe for his grandma's
concoction to cure the flu to the world for free.
Cheers,
Nathan (Cartman02au)


subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians


subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians

body:
James Hare wrote:

>Hello, fellow Wikimedians!
>
>I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
>like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell you
>about my proposed project:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read the
>whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first post
>to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
>
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures

body:
On 6/17/06, Wildrick Steele <wildrick.steele at gmail.com> wrote:
> Redirects are really a Wikipedia thing, and cause much disagreement over on
> Wiktionary. A dictionary isn't fit to redirect the user to a different page,
> when they only need to know what the word they entered exactly means.

Hmm. A redirect is the electronic equivalent of "See xxx". There's
nothing un-dictionary-like about "Variant spelling of xxx, see xxx".

But hey, Wiktionary can fight its own battles...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
On 6/17/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> For the record, the Einstein article was only protected recently
> because a stubborn editor was insisting on changing the formatting to
> meet his own personal requirements and was revert warring. However
> after a week of this he finally agreed to stop after he was instructed
> as to how to modify his own monobook.css to make it display for him
> how he wanted to. It is currently unprotected.

Why was an article protected to stop a *single editor* from modifying
it? Wouldn't banning him from the article (and blocking him from
Wikipedia if he failed to respect the ban) have been more effective?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
On 6/17/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > "Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy"
>
> Anyone can use the public library.  But if you're too disruptive,
> you'll be asked to leave.

Essentially the problem is the outside world wants it to mean
something it could never possibly be mean. I think we get an
excessively hard time over this - you don't see companies taken to
task when "Free prize giveaway" turns out to cost 50c per participant
for the postage to claim their "free prize". "Anyone can edit" -
virtually everyone is given the chance to edit. We don't take bullshit
though.

Steve


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
  Different parts of
> the free culture movement
> are more or less affected by each undertaking of the
> Foundation, and are of
> varying degrees of interest to many.  I think the
> Foundation's mission is
> simply too broad to decide to govern it through
> direct reliance on
> formalized elected constituencies.  Creating
> representation from the
> existing pattern of projects is also inherently
> political.  If the
> Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be
> towards languages and
> projects with many fewer articles and users now, and
> millions more speakers
> and writers worldwide yet to be connected.  So,
> there is a shift ahead no
> matter which way you look at it, provided the
> projects continue to grow as
> they have.

I can agree with your dislike of formalized elected
constituncies.  My personal dislike of them is largely
logistical.  What I liked about the Apache Model it is
*not* a representaion model.  Maybe I read it
differently than everyone else, I don't know.  It
seemed to me perfectly scaleable and I envision it as
very suitable for including new languages worldwide.

> Those who are concerned about this kind of
> governance issue would be better
> served, I think, by focusing attention on board
> composition and expansion,
> as some have done.  Jimmy and the other board
> members are of an open mind as
> to what the future of the board will be, what it
> will/should/could look
> like, and there is a lot of discussion about all
> this.  We may disagree on
> various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope
> everyone agrees the
> conversation is healthy and beneficial to the
> organization.
>

I do not mean to ignore the near-term composition and
expansion of the board by discussing this model.  It
is good everyone is examining the possibiliies of the
future Board, but there is a great need for a larger
infrastucture within the WMF (If you only edit at
Wikipedia you probably do not see this need).  And it
is not just to know who is member or who may vote in
Board elections.

The expanded Board and expanded commitees even would
not solve the issues as the Apache Model would
regarding communication of needs, repeatedly
duplicating efforts across languages if not projects,
and need for a bottom-to-top chain of authority.
Authority is not the right word but when people need
specific solutions they should not be coming to the
top to get it worked out, but there is no other chioce
right now.  For example the issue of guidelines for
acceptable Wikibooks.  They come to this list where
most people can't even fully understand the problem
because you have to be familair with Wikibooks to
really understand it.  How many people go and
investigate the Wikibooks site, and read deletion
archives before giving there opinion on the matter?
And were the Wikibooks editor ever actually given
useful guidelines at the end of such discussion?  Is
any current comittee working on it for them? This
could be handled in a much better fashion if there was
Project Level organization.

This is what I see the Project Level Officers doing
(Now all other Project Level Members are just a pool
of people who can become officers and vote on officers
and maybe start a no confidence vote to bring an early
election, they are not some sort of Parlimentary
Representatives):

*Writing and in the future reviewing blanket common
policies and providing any translations neccessary
through requests at the Foundation level.  These
policies are not adopted project-wide but are working
drafts that the language communities can either adopt
as is or modify to their liking.

*Keep an record of difficult project specific
questions that have been asked of proffesionals
(lawyers, developers, etc.) and see that they are
translated for everyone's reference.  At Wikisource
this would include a lot of Copyright information.

*Be the help desk for any such questions or problems
in the future and send difficult ones on to
proffessionals at Foundation Level.  I think they
should also be given a token amount of attention from
the Foundation for these concerns.  For example if
Wikisource officers decide Protect Section is a
priority for Wikisource they should be given some
guarantee of developer attention even though any
Wikipedia related bug has triple the votes.  Although
this should have limits of course.

*Be the point of contact for any Foundation level
comittees.  Right now people seem to go to whoever is
around IRC at the moment, which is not generally the
most knowledgable person.

*Actively investigate language communities and keep
records of their progress and make recomendations
either to the community itself or any applicable
Chapters that deal with that language regarding growth
and promotion.  This will also help indentify any
innovations that can then be shared project-wide and
also notice any problems at an early stage.  I do not
know how this would done exactly but it is needed.

*Set quality goals for the project as a whole and
write reccomendations for best practices.  Ensure
translation of this of course.  This is something that
is being done well in many larger communities (i.e.
en.WP's list of core topics) but smaller langs need
more guidence as they have everyone busy creating
content.  Also the Officers could work on some kind of
incentives to encourage editors to work on these
quality issues.

This was really long and I didn't even talk of
Foundation level stuff.  But it is similar, the
members are a pool of people with a low bar for entry
not some kind of representatives.  Just people that
are willing to work on Foundation level stuff and can
be appointed to commitees etc.  I would imagine the
Foundation basically collects money, deals with
press/outside organizations, and  organizes
developers, lawyers, and translators.  Of course the
Board sets goals and trys to do what is most useful to
as many projects as possible, but as of now I do not
even know that they are aware what would be most
useful in many cases.  This model is basically much
more efficent and acknowledges the reality that each
project has specific concerns that are not understood
by people from other projects.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
In message
<980278fa0606171146h719fef74g2bc6333b4d42e826 at mail.gmail.com>, John
Lyden <rasputinaxp-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>On 6/17/06, Conrad Dunkerson
><conrad.dunkerson-XfrvlLN1Pqtfpb/ySbbPhw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Ok, stop... you're making me all nostalgic. I think it all started to go
>> downhill when the modems became capable of transferring text faster than
>> you could read it (aka 2400 baud). :]
>
>By that measure, my downhill was 9600 baud.
>
>Of course, I jumped right from my 1200 baud Multitech to a 14.4K on my
>486. Jump to lightspeed!

Some of us started out on 10 c.p.s. teletypes and input our first
programs on paper tape....

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
Right now, it seems that the membership model is so inclusive, it seems  more
reasonable to ask who is *not* a member?

This is not so unreasonable a question. Plenty of people contact us daily
about advertising with us, or using us as a place to add links to their sites.
Just Friday I got a call from a PR firm that suggested we pay them to add
content about all of their clients. Are they "members"? (Note that other PR
firms have been making edits and complaining if they are reverted. Are they
members too?)

Willie on Wheels has thousands of "edits." Is he a member?

Some of the most active members on this list make very few real content
edits. Are they members?

Membership in any organization implies a certain level of responsibility.  By
granting membership--and with it, the right to vote--we are allowing people
to determine the future direction of the organization. It seems that this
would  necessitate something more than just goodwill, presence, or a vested
interest in  the course of the foundation.

Danny


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

body:
On Jun 17, 2006, at 2:49 PM, geni wrote:

> There is also the issue that someone with 20,000 would have rather a
> large stake in the project.
> --

Being one that "broke" 20,000 edits early this month, I would argue
that the more you edit and contribute to the project, the more you
appreciate its value, and the more your tolerance for abuse (read
personal attacks, circumventing  blocks, etc.) diminishes. That is a
good thing. If some users (usually those advocating a specific POV
such as Mr. Dabljuh) find this intolerance too much to bear, he may
be better starting a blog to promote his POV, rather that try to
change the system/policy/community consensus to fit his views.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
In message
<b8ceeef70606171049m44476aeay82699290e4f6e2d0 at mail.gmail.com>, Steve
Bennett <stevagewp-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> writes
>On 6/17/06, Steve Summit <scs-qx95VtOkOx/QT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > "Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy"
>>
>> Anyone can use the public library.  But if you're too disruptive,
>> you'll be asked to leave.
>
>Essentially the problem is the outside world wants it to mean
>something it could never possibly be mean. I think we get an
>excessively hard time over this - you don't see companies taken to
>task when "Free prize giveaway" turns out to cost 50c per participant
>for the postage to claim their "free prize". "Anyone can edit" -
>virtually everyone is given the chance to edit. We don't take bullshit
>though.

"Anyone can edit" = Everyone is invited to contribute to the
encyclopedia, but if you misbehave we reserve the right to withdraw the
invitation in your case.

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
Jimmy Wales may argue that the NYT got the situation exactly
backwards, but the reality is that this is a semantic game and in this
case the contrarian position the NYT is arguing is, if not ultimately
correct, an important one to have. Wikipedia benefits by having
outsiders challenging Wikipedia to be and remain open and free.
Institutions by their nature are conservative and self-protecting, and
their commitment to their claimed ideals must face constant challenge
for them to remain true to said ideals.

I would say that neither Wales for the NYT is really right-- I would
argue that Wikipedia, as it grows in size and prominence, is evolving
rapidly and in ways that no one person could possibly understand
fully. That Wikipedia will always be straddling the uncomfortable
divide between reliability and editability, just as it embodies
conflicts between universality and topicality, brevity and
completeness, accessibility and accuracy, etc. It is neither the
golden perfect lovely machine that Wales seems so insistent on
portraying nor the decadent failure its critics decry.*

I would be happier if we lived in a world where the New York Times was
writing articles promoting the promise of Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales
was its biggest critic, finding fault where others see none, but I
don't get to choose the world I live in.

That said, I found it quite interesting how Larry Sanger is now lost
from the official narrative of the creation of Wikipedia. History
belongs to the victors, I suppose. Although I became one of his most
active critics during his tenure, he does not deserve to become a
footnote, or worse, forgotten.

--tc


body:
P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
pages also members?

D


from_name: Scott Stevenson

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
I noticed that the News report mentioned [[Islamophobia]] as a protected
article. Islamophobia has been protected fro quite some time now. I think
the issues that caused it to be locked down have subsided and that article
should be unlocked.

-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]


body:
On 6/17/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
> pages also members?
>
> D

According to what should be, what was originally intended, what the
bylaws say, or what the reality of the situation is?

Depending, I'd say no, yes, maybe, or no.

You're on the Wikimedia staff.  Are their names in the "membership
book containing, in alphabetical order, the name and address of each
member"?  (see the Florida Statutes 617.0601(4) and 617.1601(3)).

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] newbie culture

body:
On 6/17/06, Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Ok, stop... you're making me all nostalgic. I think it all started to go
> downhill when the modems became capable of transferring text faster than
> you could read it (aka 2400 baud). :]

Heh, yeah I remember the time I spent a whole weekend trying to
install a 2400baud modem so I could double my download speed!

(then I saw someone with a 9600 baud modem and nearly died of envy,
frantically seeing how much stuff I could download in one afternoon
while I had access to such "high speed"...!)

Steve


from_name: geni

body:
On 6/17/06, Dabljuh <samw at student.ethz.ch> wrote:
> If blocked, in error or abuse, or even legitimately, an editor has basically no chance to >revoke the block. He can no longer edit the relevant pages such as the Administrator's >Noticeboard for Intervention. Thus, even though the policy explicitely and >uncompromisingly forbids abusing blocked or disruptive users, regardless of their past, an >user, once blocked, is realistically considered free game for all sorts of false accusations, >abuses, personal attacks and libel.

That simply isn't the case

>
> Because of the factionalizing mechanics of the administrative system, a blocked user >has basically no chance to get an abusive ban lifted. The policy quite clearly states that >the originally blocked user is meant to lift blocks he invoked himself. An abusive sysop >will simply not do so. And nobody else will. WikiEN-l is a mailing list mostly read by the >administrative system itself, who again, naturally, almost always will side with the >administrator they know rather than a random editor.
>

In most cases the block will simply expire.

> If the wrongly blocked user then decides to ignore the block, and proceeds with the trivial >technical task of evading the block, in order to protect himself from false accusations, >personal attacks, or - dear lord - continuing to edit mainspace articles or talk pages, this >is actually seen as an invitation to administrators to resort to personal attacks, vandalize >the user at will - more even than before he becomes "free game", easily resulting in >blocks lasting to the end of time, literally forcing an user that wants to contribute to >Wikipedia to evade or leave the project.

Whixh is why the sane option is the wait out the block
>
> Ignorance and indifference to policy are normal in today's administrative system of >Wikipedia.

Not true.

>Completely unfair and unwarranted blocks occur on a daily basis,
personal attacks, >vandalizations of the userpages of unpopular
editors - a strong pecking order.

Not true

>The policies are ignorable, the only thing that counts is "Don't piss
off the sysops that >have real power".
>

If you manage to piss off sysops (multiple) it suggests you are doing
something wrong

> All of this also undermines the basic content policies of Wikipedia. Adherents of a >different POV can be removed easily (although no administrator would ever be caught >dead with banning an user on the basis of POV). Not to mention it removes strong editors, >and replaces them with weak ones compliant to the POV of increasingly sociopathic >administrators having an interest in the article.
>

There is a faint posibilty that argument might hold up if all admins
had the same POV. They do not.

> Currently Wikipedia is too much of an MMORPG: If one editor has 500 edits, and another >has 20'000, and they have a dispute, the editor with 20'000 edits always wins - especially >so when he is a sysop himself, the chances for which increase almost exponentially with >the number of posts.

That would be because they are generaly right.

>This is not a way to find consensus: Consensus must be found in
debate. And debate is >the hardest of all ways to fight an opposite
POV - It is almost always the more successful >strategy to get the
opposite side blocked than to actually get down and find this sacred
>consensus (or compromise).

There is no compromise on NPOV.

>
> Why are administrators needed in the first place? "To combat vandalism" would most >answer.

Dealing with copyvios, stuff in the mediawiki namespace, dealing with
the results of XFDs and various other ods and ends.

>But interestingly, popups, applications, bots, etc are all much more
effective than the >administrative power to block and to protect an
article

False. If I block you you have to mess around chnageing IP. If I use a
range block you have to get a new ISP.

If I hard protect there is nothing a vandle can do.

>These are either trivially easy circumvented by a determined vandal,

So are bots. In fact it would be generaly posible to know out even
determided vandels but it is rarely worth the extra effort to do more
than repeatedly spaping them down.

>or undermine the most basic idea of Wikipedia: That everyone can edit
it - the very idea >that made Wikipedia so popular, and what it is
today.

Take away blocks and you very soon find that no one can edit. Ever
hear of spambots?

>Regular editors can patrol RecentChanges just as much as administrators can.

They can only revet. They can't stop vandles.

>The only real necessity for privileged users is the management of the
front page - And it >doesn't take thousands of administrators to do
that.
>

So you support the protection of the front page. So much for your
anyone can edit stance.

> The solution to the system is to simply remove all administrative privileges, short of >maybe a dozen "hard core" people needed to manage the front page, and instructed not >to use their powers for anything in the mainspace.

The main page is in the main namespace.

> Would the removal of all administrators result in more edit warring? Yes of course. >Because no longer would one party simply get the opposite party blocked. But edit >warring is not effective, it is indeed mutually assured destruction:

I'm failing to see any destruction

>If two parties simply revert each other all the time, they would
never get anywhere - >Ultimately even the most stubborn POV warrior
realizes he will have to arrange with the >other side.

Why? If the other side is older than him he just has to wait.

> Personal attacks? Don't listen to it and grow a skin. Copyvios? Give regular users the >ability to remove pictures.

Um no. how do we prevent them from removeing pictures we don't want
them to remove?

> Delete and undelete? Merely a technical problem.

huh?

--
geni


body:
What are the benefits of membership?

On 6/17/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
< you get to "belong" and call yourself a member.

I would say this sums it up well.  Not necessarily based on dues; the
definition of membership helps people identify with a group or cause.
Some people like the foundation and would want to be members.  Others
would not.  Those that would, might be glad to have a little icon or
<cough> userbox to put on their user page, might be willing to answer
some basic information about themselves such as a general survey,
might be glad to have the opportunity to sign up for regular
information or to be reminded about events such as fund drives and
conferences.  By making a small effort each year to identify as
members, they would have a stronger sense of participation in the
Foundation.

When becoming a member of my local NPR affiliate, I have the 'right'
to be solicited by them to renew my membership.  I'm not aware of any
other rights I have; though I get some member-related swag.
Nevertheless, I feel good about said membership process, better than
just saying "yes, I'm a listener".

As to anonymity...

> > in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the
> > lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
> > respected.

I don't know anyone actively interested in being a member of the
foundation (whatever that means) who wants their identity to be hidden
*from the foundation*.  Hidden from other editors and from the general
public, perhaps.  I can imagine the former being the case in a
theoretical sense; but I would like to know of a single example so
that we're not setting up a complete hypothetical as a strawman.

SJ


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
Folks,

The New York Times has an article on Wikipedia called "
 Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/technology/17wiki.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&adxnnl=0&emc=th&adxnnlx=1150543441-Nof7ctx7%20AH77qh5FKXKNw

Regards

Keith Old


from_name: Ben Yates

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
Admins do excercise editorial control, mostly in their selection of
articles for deletion (and especially speedy deletion).  I've read a
few irate bloggers talking about how the articles they added got
deleted immediately -- and while of course it's possible to argue that
those articles didn't belong in wikipedia, it's silly to say that
making *and then enforcing* this argument isn't excercising editorial
control.

Even non-admins excercise editorial control, often /en mass/.  It's
just a more participatory form of control, and a more open one.

On 6/17/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales may argue that the NYT got the situation exactly
> backwards, but the reality is that this is a semantic game and in this
> case the contrarian position the NYT is arguing is, if not ultimately
> correct, an important one to have. Wikipedia benefits by having
> outsiders challenging Wikipedia to be and remain open and free.
> Institutions by their nature are conservative and self-protecting, and
> their commitment to their claimed ideals must face constant challenge
> for them to remain true to said ideals.
>
> I would say that neither Wales for the NYT is really right-- I would
> argue that Wikipedia, as it grows in size and prominence, is evolving
> rapidly and in ways that no one person could possibly understand
> fully. That Wikipedia will always be straddling the uncomfortable
> divide between reliability and editability, just as it embodies
> conflicts between universality and topicality, brevity and
> completeness, accessibility and accuracy, etc. It is neither the
> golden perfect lovely machine that Wales seems so insistent on
> portraying nor the decadent failure its critics decry.*
>
> I would be happier if we lived in a world where the New York Times was
> writing articles promoting the promise of Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales
> was its biggest critic, finding fault where others see none, but I
> don't get to choose the world I live in.
>
> That said, I found it quite interesting how Larry Sanger is now lost
> from the official narrative of the creation of Wikipedia. History
> belongs to the victors, I suppose. Although I became one of his most
> active critics during his tenure, he does not deserve to become a
> footnote, or worse, forgotten.
>
> --tc
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Ben Yates
Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com


from_name: Kernigh

subject: [Textbook-l] Block against

body:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> BTW cf.
>
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Banned_WP_editor_Primetime
> which seems to have been accepted without question.

Great! The difference between Primetime and Zephram Stark is that someone
came to en.wikibooks and explained what the trouble was with Primetime.

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Blocking Zephram Stark from Wikibooks before he causes trouble
> is more or less a no-brainer.

This is like saying "the ocean exists" to someone who does not live near the
coast.

Except that unlike the ocean, [[User:Zephram Stark]] is not famous. I knew
this user only as a Wikibooks user with a blocked account on Wikimedia
Commons (knowing not much about the trouble on Commons). I do not go visit
Wikinews, Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wiktionary and learn the names
of all the users who are having infinite blocks. This is good, because that
means that all those annoying users who need infinite blocks are not
distracting me, nor are they successful in stealing my attention.

So for those who say that it is obvious to block this user, I respond,
"Why?"

-- [[User:Kernigh]]
   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Is this a diffing bug?

body:
Petr Kadlec wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 16/06/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> See this:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dijon&curid=99187&diff=58875067&oldid=57372678
>>
>> It looks to me like the only thing that has changed here is a couple
>> of new lines have been removed, and the words "Dijon is the capital of
>> bourgogne and " replace "The city". However, the entire paragraph is
>> highlighted in red, making it hard to see what's really changed.
>>
>> Maybe a case to bear in mind if anyone's playing with the diffing algorithm?
>
> I guess this is still the same issue that has been mentioned when the
> new algorithm was announced. See the thread at
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-February/034109.html

It wasn't really a new algorithm, just a new implementation of an old
algorithm. The problem described has been around since 2001, it persists in
both implementations.

It's a fair complaint though: the new implementation is probably fast enough
to do a word-level diff on the entire text, without doing a line-level
intermediate stage.

-- Tim Starling


body:
On 6/17/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> If one could actually correlate edit counts to success on the Wiki ?
> something for which I imagine there is a high possibility, even if it
> has not here been proven ? it is likely because a user with a large
> number of edits has invested more time here, understands how things
> work a bit better, and understands what sorts of arguments do and do
> not register. (New and outraged users usually think that decrying
> "censorship" is a useful strategy, for some reason; in reality, it
> just makes them look like total nutballs who can't construct a
> convincing argument.) It is also the case that users who stick around
> and edit a lot are likely to be noticed and recognized by others as
> good editors, and others are more likely to be sympathetic to them.
>

There is also the issue that someone with 20,000 would have rather a
large stake in the project.
--
geni


body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
>pages also members?
>
>
Absolutely!  Might want to encourage their debates to move to
Wikiversity if they get too energetic or propagandist for Wikipedia's
dignified sieving for nuggets of neutral knowledge.

Just imagine the draw if a couple of professional windbags like Murtha
and Bush, or key staff members, with all their insider access to
information were to go at it in a Wikiversity War College's political
seminar space.

Besides, all standard catcalling aside, I think you have to be a human
being to collect a paycheck from a Congressman's payroll.   Therefore
they are within our stated scope and mission.

regards,
lazyquasar


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject: [WikiEN-l] New York Times article

body:
On 6/17/06, Ben Yates <bluephonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Admins do excercise editorial control, mostly in their selection of
> articles for deletion (and especially speedy deletion).  I've read a
> few irate bloggers talking about how the articles they added got
> deleted immediately -- and while of course it's possible to argue that
> those articles didn't belong in wikipedia, it's silly to say that
> making *and then enforcing* this argument isn't excercising editorial
> control.

But it's not an administrative decision to say what should get
deleted. Presumably the articles were deleted according to deletion
guidelines -- made up by the community, not just admins -- and anyone
could have marked it for deletion; an admin simply avoided the middle
step of tagging. (A large smelly trout and minus 500 points to anyone
who hijacks the thread and makes it about rouge admins not following
deletion policy. Does [[WP:BEANS]] apply to the mailing list?) It's
not their status as admins that allows editors to decide what stays
and what goes.

> Even non-admins excercise editorial control, often /en mass/.  It's
> just a more participatory form of control, and a more open one.

Right. Admins exercise editorial control as normal editors, not as
admins. (Though sometimes they are empowered to enforce decisions.)
The power belongs in the hands of the community -- which presumably
admins are an active part of, maybe even the bulk of policy-related
edits (this would be an interesting thing to get data on).

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage  |  G/AIM:LucidWaking
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu        Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com


body:
Erik Zachte wrote

>Oh, an important clarification.
>Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the
>community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least
>the majority should be from the community.
>
>The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united
>team with complementary skills.
>The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit
>diversity of view points.
>
>
Another risk is that the expertise and skills that are available in the
community will view all Wikimedia Foundation activities as the
responsibilities and problems of the Board.  Volunteers not happy with
how the governing/management structure is arrived at may simply continue
to decline to participate other than within their chosen spheres of
influence within specific projects.

regards,
lazyquasar


body:
On 6/17/06, Dabljuh <samw at student.ethz.ch> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia's administrative system: An MMORPG rotten to the core

I assume you are referring to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dabljuh
Which is interesting reading.

Garion


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 6/17/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
>>pages also members?
>>
>>D
>>
>>
>
>According to what should be, what was originally intended, what the
>bylaws say, or what the reality of the situation is?
>
>Depending, I'd say no, yes, maybe, or no.
>
>You're on the Wikimedia staff.  Are their names in the "membership
>book containing, in alphabetical order, the name and address of each
>member"?  (see the Florida Statutes 617.0601(4) and 617.1601(3)).
>
>Anthony
>_______________________________________________
>
>
Interesting.

I had no idea that membership would be regulated by state law.   I will
have to check up on Oregon State Regulations regarding non profits.

Thanks for the info.

Regards,
lazyquasar


from_name: Dabljuh

body:
Please take the problems a bit more serious.

They are there - some things may be in fact different, but
outright denying the very possibility that there could
be problems, like you do, denies you the ability to
look for solutions and instate change before it is too late.

The revocation of all admin privileges (and a modification
of user privileges to ensure the continued functionality
of Wikipedia) is certainly not a popular option, although
I would say it would work. Very differently from how it does
now, but ultimately better because it would more resemble
a scholastic system of peers, rather than a game of
block-a-mole  - or so I claim.

If you have better options to remedy perceived problems,
please bring them forward. But outright denial does not help.


from_name: Michael R. Irwin

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 6/18/06, Michael R. Irwin <michael_irwin at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>A link has been added to a "Austrian" Wikiversity in advertised as in
>>German Language to the bottom of the front page of the English prototype
>>of Wikiversity at English Wikibooks.
>>
>>http://wikiversity.at/MyWiki/index.php?title=Hauptseite
>>
>>at bottom of:
>>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity
>>
>>Is this an authorised prototype of a Wikiversity or should the link be
>>removed?
>>
>>
>
>See earlier discussion here:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/006165.html
>
>It's not operated by Wikimedia and should probably be removed or
>labeled as such. de.wikiversity.org is an official prototype, though.
>
>
Ok.

I am removing it.

I see no reason why a direct competitor should be given equal space on
our English prototype front page with an official project of ours.

regards,
lazyquasar


from_name: Wildrick Steele

subject: [Wikitech-l] numberofadmins magic word

body:
 The new magic word {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} doesn't seem to work as expected. On
en.wiktionary it gives 19 (while there are 38), and on en.wikipedia produces
496.

Cheers,
Wildrick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] numberofadmins magic word

body:
On 17/06/06, Wildrick Steele <wildrick.steele at gmail.com> wrote:
>  The new magic word {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} doesn't seem to work as expected. On
> en.wiktionary it gives 19 (while there are 38), and on en.wikipedia produces
> 496.

Bah. Corrected now in SVN trunk, I hope.

SQL: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM user_groups WHERE ug_group = "sysop"
Result (on en.wikt): 38

however

SQL: SELECT ss_admins FROM site_stats WHERE ss_row_id = 1
Result (on en.wikt): 19

An oversight of mine which reveals an oversight in the code that we
should probably fix, and update in MakeSysop too.

Rob Church


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians

body:
On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using exclusively
> verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where people
> -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical dictionary"
> when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how to
> make it go away."

That seems like a fundamentally bad idea from the get-go.  Wikimedia
is probably not the best entity to sponsor the creation of the
emergency medical hologram.

Kelly


subject: [Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
SJ wrote:

> As to anonymity...
>
>> > in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that
>> part of the
>> > lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
>> > respected.
>
> I don't know anyone actively interested in being a member of the
> foundation (whatever that means) who wants their identity to be hidden
> *from the foundation*.  Hidden from other editors and from the general
> public, perhaps.  I can imagine the former being the case in a
> theoretical sense; but I would like to know of a single example so
> that we're not setting up a complete hypothetical as a strawman.

There certainly are people sufficiently active to be considered
potential members who have concluded that they do not want to share
their identity with the Wikimedia Foundation. But I don't think that's
really the issue to be concerned about here. It's the much larger number
who want that identity or other personal information hidden, as
indicated, from other editors or the general public. Let me explain.

The Florida statutes governing nonprofit organizations have detailed
requirements, including many tied to legal membership in the
organization. Given that we have the potential for a very large
membership, this could get quite complex. The idea of using membership
dues as a way to generate funds for Wikimedia was a nice-sounding
notion; in reality, complying with the full requirements of a membership
infrastructure would have substantial technical and administrative
overhead. If the developers are offering to create the code to set this
up and people really want to pay membership dues on the scale necessary,
maybe we should, but already some skepticism is warranted.

One point that has been alluded to is that the Foundation would maintain
records of members' names and addresses. Florida law also provides that
members are entitled to inspect and copy various Foundation records.
This includes, significantly, the record of members itself.

The laws regarding "membership" in this context are based heavily on the
equivalent principles for shareholders in for-profit corporations. In
such corporations, participants may have various business reasons to
solicit each other at their addresses (proxies, buying and selling of
shares, etc.). The corporations also have the resources to dedicate to
the system, as well as the motivation, since they're ultimately
dependent on it for capital.

Many of these principles do not translate easily to the nonprofit
context. The legal membership model probably works well for some common
examples, such as a club organization or the homeowners' association for
a condominium complex. I don't know if it suits our community very well.
Not because it's inconvenient for Jimbo and the professional staff,
though it may be, but because if the community is fully informed about
the legal consequences, I'm not so sure we would choose it.

Let me say it clearly for all of you. If you want to participate in
legal membership in the Foundation, considering just how broadly we
contemplate the concept of membership, you are effectively expressing a
willingness for your name and address to become a public record. Any
member can get a Florida attorney (Jack Thompson comes to mind) to
represent them and ask for the membership records on their behalf. And I
don't expect it will be possible to screen out in advance members you
consider undesirable any more effectively than we can do so for project
editors.

Given how strongly attached some of the community is to privacy and
anonymity, I don't know if that's a choice we want to be forcing on
people. Certainly it's not a model we should adopt without making sure
people have thought carefully about it.

Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership
with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in
the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so
we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their
privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how
membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively
few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this
effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not
represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire
exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition
of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community
(and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to
factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A
community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs.
closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.

Or, finally, after considering the benefits and drawbacks of legal
membership, we might choose a path without using it. Certainly the
Wikimedia Foundation needs to incorporate the community into its
functions, but it ought to be possible to do that, formally or
informally, in ways that avoid the drawbacks of the legal regime. We
might even occasionally talk in terms of members, but ultimately should
be careful to disavow the statutory definition if we follow this course.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Jon Awbrey

subject: [WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

body:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

first post.

after six months in WP I am totally fed up.

it is no longer worth the headache trying to
write quality articles or to improve articles
in this ennvironment.

but i would like to post some of my observations
in hopes that it might help out somehow, someday.

WP is a meeting ground for several types of people.
the main types i've observed fall under these heads:

1.  accurate reporters (AR's).
2.  responsible scholars (RS's).
3.  infantile vandals (IV's).
4.  expert disrupters (ED's)

in the present state of WP, the rules in practice and the prevailing attitudes of admins
are all skewed in favor of IV's and ED's, while the AR's and RS's don't stand a chance.

by "rules in practice" i mean the way that policies and guidelines actually get enforced.
the sad thing is that the "rules in principle" state all the right ideas, but people who
are born and bred to check facts don't have a chance against puppet mobs of pseudo-newbies,
who seem bent on nothing short of making the world safe for their current state of ignorance.
"assuming good faith" and "not biting newcomers" are so much easier for admins to parrot
that it has rendered them the most naive dupes of expert disrupters who have learned how
it easy it is to exploit their naivete.  in short, WP is like email before virus protection.

this is one of the biggest reasons that WP's reputation in responsible communities
has gone from "not especially reliable source" (NERS) to "dump of popular errors" (DOPE).
it is my impression from my acquaintances that more and more responsible scholars who buy
into the ideals of WP in the beginning quickly find themselves disamyed by the realities,
and just go way quietly after a short while of seeing their efforts go to waste here.

i really do hope that something that lives up to the stated ideals and policies of WP
does come into existence someday, so i will try to put aside my present discouragement
and focus on the kinds of experiences that can be converted into constructive critique.

to be continued ...

jon awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-06-18

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test External image... FAILED!
Running test External image from https... FAILED!
Running test External links: Clickable images... FAILED!
Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!

Passed 388 of 404 tests (96.04%) FAILED!