subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
As I originally expected, we're seeing more and more "no" answers to
moderation.  That's too bad.

Good luck, everyone, trying to implement other solutions, or with the
status quo: I think the list will continue to be mired in constantly
flowing excrement.  Those with a low toleration for it will continue to be
driven off.

The rest will be a reply to Anthere (her comments are preceded by ">>"):

>> 1. I would *really* appreciate that you refer to me as
a she and not as a he. Respecting people gender is
important

Of course that's important--I simply didn't know whether you were male or
female, and simply (and wrongly) assumed you were male.

>> 2. I think conflict issue could be solved in most
cases by discussion and appeasement. That could imply
that some - non involved in a conflict - take time to
calm things down, publicly or privately. I don't
support blocking mails as a way to quiet things down

Good luck, again, with your proposed solution.

>> 3. On wikipedia (the encyclopedia), it is possible to
participate anonymously. Only Jimbo has the right
(except for couple of occasions, but I think there was
no abuse) to *ban* people. This is done after careful
and lenghty examination of case. This mean wikipedia
is - to a certain point - respecting freedom of
speech. How could it be that the mailing list do not
follow the same line ?

I would have thought it was obvious that there is a HUGE difference
between banning someone from Wikipedia and making the mailing list
moderated.

>> Why could it be that more
freedom of speech is allowed on wiki than on the
mailing list ?
What you imply with your moderation system is that a
mailing-list sysop will be given more power than
encyclopedia-sysop.

There's nothing at all unusual about moderating mailing lists, as surely
you must know.  Many mailing lists are moderated.  Some moderators are
virtual tyrants, and others are basically rubber stamps that might as well
not exist.  If the community decides--as it has not--to adopt a moderated
list, then it seems strange to say that there is a "freedom of speech"
issue involved at all, unless you're of the opinion that all moderation
implies an infringement of freedom of speech.

> I think there should be 2-4 moderators.  I made the
> suggestion and I am
> willing to act as part-time co-moderator, but not as
> the only moderator.
>BS
>KQ
>Ed
> Julie Kemp
> Mav
> April
> Axel
> Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the
> software)
> Magnus (ditto)
> Lee Crocker (ditto)

>> 4. This is a *general* mailing list (and don't try to
sneakily say it is been done behind everybody's back.
The subject has been raised several time, and it took
at least 2 months before being there - you were not
there - or not listening).

Perhaps indeed I wasn't there, but it certainly came as a surprise to me
and others when you started enforcing the rule, which I happen to agree
with.  (So, you can stop arguing with me now.  I agree with you.  :-) )

>> A general list moderated by
only english (one exception who likely will not have
the time) people is an english list.
But I understand non-english users will not be trusted
since not known.

You didn't understand.  In the very next sentence,

> There should also be a French language moderator.

I suggested that there should be a French language moderator among any
moderators of Wikipedia-l.  Also, the proposal now on the table is to
moderate WikiEN-l, leaving you with even less to worry about.

> :-)  Actually, I did
> have four years of French in high school, so I could
> do an OK job but I
> think I'd probably miss things like (the French
> equivalents of) "your
> mother wears army boots."

>> 5. I won't recognise you as a french moderator should
there be need of one. I don't see 4 years in french at
school as a credential to give you this role when you
care so little about us. Actually, there are no french
with a real moderating role right now. But we are
polite enough :-)

It wasn't clear enough that I was joking, Anthere.  Of course I'll admit
I'm unqualified to moderate French language posts to Wikipedia.

> Anyway, there's an important question you left off
> of your list of
> questions, Ed: what should the moderation policy be?

>> 6. Currently is under work a list of moderators for
which NO job has been defined. Until a proper
definition of what *moderation* could be, I fail to
see why would people accept or not accept that role,
or how could people be given that role.

Nobody has decided anything.  I first proposed a number of possible
moderators (mainly, in fact, to give people the idea that there were a
number of people that we really could trust).  Then, I described some
*possible* rules--which I myself might reject, after reflection--that
would indeed define what moderation would be.

>> 7.Your initial proposition was to avoid the
unpleasantness of flame war. I see quite a number of
points here that have *nothing* to do whatsoever with
flaming wars.

Indeed, that's correct.

* Reject trollish suggestions from newbies that
> Wikipedia should be
>   radically changed in some particular way.  This is
> to be distinguished
>   from reasonable and well-supported suggestions,
> from anyone, that
>   Wikipedia should be radically chagned in some
> particular way.  Bear in
>   mind that people can disagree about what is
> "reasonable."  The point is
>   that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
>   to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example.

>> 8. To come back to the international issue, you should
know that all wikipedias don't necessary have a clear
neutrality point of view policy yet. It might be
necessary that we discuss it one day. So you might
have to listen to newbies, and these suggestions can
be worth listening to

You should know, Anthere, that they *do* have a neutrality policy, though
it might not be enforced (and too bad, if so).  That's one point about
Wikipedia that is non-negotiable.  If you have questions regarding this
point, I suggest you ask Jimmy Wales about it.

Moreover, the item above is not directed to polite suggestions, questions,
or any such thing, but to newbies who are, unwittingly or not, trying to
undermine well-established policy when they're not familiar with it.  It
seems perfectly reasonable to me (though I can certainly understand it if
you want to disagree with me on this point) that we ask the newbie first
to get acquainted with what he or she is attacking.

Asking *questions* is, of course, always perfectly appropriate.

The point is
>   that we should not have to listen, for the
> umpteenth zillionth time,
>   to facile objections to the neutrality policy, for
> example. Moderators
>   should direct offenders to the relevant documents
> and ask the poster to
>   rewrite the post bearing in mind that we've
> probably heard it all
>   before.

>> 9. And of course, I might also add that most
international who start on this list, usually start
with basic questions of copyrights, neutrality....
issues. Coldly sending a "worried" international to a
remote english circonvoluted 10000 words page on a
copyright subject is not gonna make it. Human answer
will. If you don't want to answer...just don't answer
for the zillionth time...but don't prevent others to
do so.

I'm not suggesting any such thing at all!

>> Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.

I will if I want to, thank you very much.  I think several related issues
go to undermine the quality of the list.

Larry


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Rosa Williams

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia, anti-Semitism, and other offensive terms

body:
(That Subject's a joke, ah say, a JOKE, son...)

On the dispute involving the bias (whichever way) on pages relating to the
Israeli-Palestinian situation, and particularly RK's expression thereof:
This particular aspect of this topic has come up before. The old discussion
is available at

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism_vs_Anti-Zionism

and could well be used for further permutations of the discussion, if people
want to see that off the list.

In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel the
term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own writings.
Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly I'm
disagreeing with. :) It may conceivably help to moderate disputes with RK to
use such precise language, though yes, I have known him to be pretty quick
off the mark in accusing others of being anti-Semitic.

Now, as to real anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all seem out of place to spend,
say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a historically important
person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important.  However,
unless the latter strongly relates to the former, a paragraph should be
sufficient, and anyone wanting to discuss the aspect in more detail can then
spin off a separate article.

The key points of a biographical entry, as I think of it, are to hit on a
person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.
Noting that Wagner was a seriously disagreeable person to many, that his
affairs were notorious, and that his prejudices were vehement has a place;
for one, it detracts from the sort of "hero worship" seen in the past by
"great man" school biographers. It presents a more realistic view of a
complete human being.  Feet of clay, and all that.

In sum: if the discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder of
the article, it should be reduced (and/or  the rest of the article seriously
built up.)  If it's discussed briefly, preferably with mention of the
historical context, that seems reasonable.  Here endeth long-winded opinion.

-- April


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>To clarify: Johnathan is working on mod_wiki for his own reasons,
>separate from Wikipedia, but would like for it to be useful for
>wikipedia too.  He has indicated that his feelings won't be hurt if we
>don't switch to it.  Obviously, we would switch to it if it best suits
>our needs at some point, and we wouldn't if it didn't.
>
>
I have been asked that question when writing Phase II, so I'll ask it
now (just to make sure):

mod_wiki will be under GPL, yes?

Magnus


from_name: Matthew Woodcraft

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:14:59AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Julie said some things about Erik's behavior that needed to be said.
> They may not have been pleasant things, but they did not constitute a
> flame either.
>
> Neither did my detailing of RK's behavior constitute a flame; it was a
> factual appeal to the list for help in dealing with something
> destructive to the community.

And to complete the set, what Erik wrote about Julie was not flaming,
either.

What we have is people disagreeing with each other's behaviour, and
describing what they disapprove of. It would doubtless have been
possible to do so with rather more tact on all sides, but there's value
in honesty, too.

Flames are valueless, unconstructive insults. I've seen no flaming on
either this list or -en for some time. I don't think either list needs
moderating yet.

-M-


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
on 12/11/02 10:25 AM, Larry Sanger at lsanger at nupedia.com wrote:

>
> Now, the value of many other unmoderated lists--like this one--is
> undermined by continuous flame wars by battling, enormous egos, to say
> nothing of the worthless newbie posts that come from people who have not
> read the FAQ.

We don't have continuous flame wars. Yes Pot, the Kettle is BLACK. Newbie
posts are not worthless.

>
> In the case of Wikipedia, I'm beginning to think it is a necessary evil.
> I for one would be overjoyed if Wikipedia-l were to become moderated and
> the moderator were empowered to deal appropriately with flaming and with
> trolls.
>
> Larry

I've been happy on moderated lists and have sometimes wished certain
unmoderated lists were moderated, but moderation is so alien to the spirit
of a wiki that it seems grossly inappropriate.  We allow anyone, even
anonymously, to edit any article, but if a serious question arises, would
deny them an opportunity to air it out here; doesn't make sense.

Fred


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
> Julie said some things about Erik's behavior that needed to be said.
> They may not have been pleasant things, but they did not constitute a
> flame either.

Clutch, with friends like you, Julie doesn't really need any enemies. I
rest my case.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
At 18:43 11/12/2002 +0000, Jimbo wrote:
>Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > Jimbo simply doesn't have the time, so I don't think he'd agree to do this.
>
>That's right.  Count me out.  :-)
>
>I'm not really supportive of the idea, either.

I don't like the idea either. It would slow down the pace of the list, and
I fear that a moderated list would only lead to more bad feeling, when
somebody who thinks they are making a legitimate point has their message
rejected because somebody else considers it a flame. And of course, that
bad feeling will spread to the wikipedia itself.

I understand why people want the list moderated - there's been a lot of
tiresome crap on here lately (there usually is). But if you don't want to
read a message, what's wrong with simply deleting it? Everybody can be
their own moderator that way, without having somebody decide what they
should and shouldn't read.

LP (camembert)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
> I think that's not a bad idea.  It leaves the main policy list,
> wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of
> censorship, etc.

> But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame
> wars have belonged.  Specific grievances against each other for
> specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation
> might do wonders.

1) How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators,
will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will
moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?

2) As for specific moderators, I would object especially to making Larry
Sanger a moderator (who has proposed himself). Larry has repeatedly shown
himself to resort to insults and ad hominem arguments whenever people
start to disagree with him. During his tenure as Wikipedia's editor, he
has driven away quite a few contributors because of his inability to
accomodate opposing views. His paranoia about "subversion" of NPOV is
proof that his mindset hasn't changed. I'm sure I've made his personal
"black list" by now, the top position of which is currently occupied by
Cunctator. Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project
like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.

I would, for obvious reasons, also object to Julie, but she isn't likely
to do it anyway.

Other than that, I can live with most nominations. I don't trust Ed quite
enough to have him the only moderator of a list, but if he was part of a
group, that would probably be OK.

Regards,

Erik


list: wikien-l

from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: Avoiding edit wars (was: [WikiEN-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism)

body:
--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Ed Poor wrote in part:
>
> >I challenge you to adopt Uncle Ed's policy:
> >* if someone reverts my change twice in a row, it's time to leave
> >  that article alone for a while.
>
> >I can hardly think of an occasion when this self-imposed policy
> >failed to reach a mutually acceptable balance. (details available
> >on request :-)
>
> I think that the whole Wikipedia would do well
> with expounded details of your success with this.
> We all have a strong inclination *not* to let the @$$holes and trolls
> (as it were) get away with anything for even a few hours;
> to know that it consistently comes out OK in the end could be a big
> help.

I have adopted a similar policy to Ed's and I think it works very well.
When you feel an edit war coming and the blood is starting to boil: go
away,  fix a couple of spelling mistakes, and drag a link to the
article onto your desktop so that you won't forget. Then a week later,
when the blood isn't boiling anymore and the idiot opponent has long
left, read the article again, check the Talk page, and make your fixes.
Sometimes you will even realize that the idiot opponent wasn't that
idiotic after all.

Axel

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Apologies and goodbye

body:
> All -- I have written a personal note to KQ to apologize to him for my
> part in the recent flame war -- I had certainly not intended with my
> first post (which actually offered concrete suggestions for how the
> Wagner issue could be resolved

That's why I didn't - and still don't - understand why you had to
introduce your message with an unfounded personal attack against me.
Perhaps you were afraid that expressing too strong agreement might weaken
any potential future case?

In any case, as long as Julie doesn't spread false claims about me, I
consider this issue settled. I will, however, continue to respond to any
and all false claims (tit for tat).

That being said, we should resolve the Wagner issue. More on that on
wikien-l.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] tit for tat

body:
> An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. --Ghandi

Tit for tat is not equivalent to an eye for an eye. It is not even
equivalent to "Do unto others as they do unto you" (the "Brazen Rule"),
which is "repay evil with evil" + "repay kindness with kindness". Tit for
tat means "be cooperative at first, then do to others what they do to
you". Game theory shows that this principle, when consistently applied,
reaches the most desirable outcome for everyone, e.g. in the iterative
Prisoner's Dilemma.

Tit for tat implies being willing to forgive and forget. I try to apply
this principle whenever possible.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
> If a poster violates etiquette, for example by calling a reader a "poopoo
> face", the moderator ought to chide them (in public or private, it doesn't
> matter).

Are you talking about a single moderators, or a team of moderators?

If you're talking about a team, how will consistency be guaranteed?

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Clutch continues to violate policy

body:
I hate to be the one to report this, but Clutch (Jonathan Walter)
continues to violate policy and unilaterally removes portions of the
Richard Wagner article which he considers offensive. This includes
Wagner's specific statements about Jews in "Das Judentum in der Musik",
detailed information about his relationship with Hermann Levi, detailed
information about Hitler's use of Wagner's music and the relationship to
the *Bayreuther Kreis* etc. As Ortolan pointed out, Clutch is writing an
article about "Wagner, the best friend the Jews have had since Moses".

There is consensus on the Talk: page among all participants except Clutch
that Clutch is violating policy. Ed Poor has already repeatedly warned
Clutch, but Clutch refuses to comply. Others who oppose Clutch's edits are
        - CYD
        - Someone else
        - RK
        - Ortolan88
        - myself.

I have found nobody who supports his edits. I do expect Jonathan Walter,
his alter ego, to quickly argue in support of Clutch, though.

Clutch has also added whimsical statements, such as characterizing
Wagner's anti-Semitic views, which he held from his mid thirties to the
end of his life, as "youthful". I suspect that he is trolling Wikipedia to
prove that he can get away with anything he wants.

Given Clutch's past behavior, which has just recently been pointed out on
the list by mav (Daniel Mayer) and previously by me regarding the User:Lir
episode, I think a warning from the administration is in order. Clutch
should stop reverting the Richard Wagner article immediately, otherwise he
should be banned temporarily.

In order for these measures to be taken as soon as possible, I ask the
other people involved who read this to reply and confirm that they agree
with this.

Regards,

Erik Moeller


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations

body:
> Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a
> terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the
> simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be
> voting.  I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to
> Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself.

Ed has put up an "Election" page on Wikipedia, which should invite votes
from more people.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
> Nearly all posts should go straight to the list. It is only someone who who
> won't listen to reason whose list postings should be filtered by a moderator
> (or moderator team). I guess if there are multiple moderators for a mailing
> list, it should be the same as having multiple sysops on Wikipedia itself.

> Whoever takes action first will probably decide the issue. On the other
> hand, anyone can undo an action.

I could agree with that. But does our software actually support such
moderator teams?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] BBS vs mailing list (was Re: Moderator nominations)

body:
On 12/11/02 6:29 PM, "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> A web board is also inimical to offline reading (as is the 'pedia, at
> present) and doesn't integrate well with people who have an organized
> way to deal with massive amounts of e-mail. Possible solution:
> smtp<->bbs or nntp<->bbs gateway.
>
> There's some potential here though; feel free to set up a page on meta
> with some specific proposals.
>
It's not complicated. This is something I've recommended since the inception
of the mailing list.

We could at least start with an installation of phpBBS.


from_name: Larry Sanger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Advice I'm following: take a break

body:
I'm going to take a break from the lists of at least one week.  If a
moderated list is not to be--which is a damn shame, because we *REALLY*
need one--I at least definitely need a break.

For the health of the list and the project, I think it would be an
excellent idea if several of us would take a break as well, and let the
more peaceful among us to move on to more productive matters.  Then, maybe
when we return, we can be calmer and work together in a spirit of mutual
respect, or at least as much respect as we can muster.

Larry


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Advice I'm following: take a break


from_name: Björn Lindqvist

subject: [Wikipedia-l] More mailing lists

body:
Hello. Im a long time reader first time writer. I think this list is kinda
boring and has way to high volume. Im not interested in moderator
nomiations and meta discussions about flaming and who is a flamer. Im
arrogant sorry. :-) So my suggestion is why not creature more mailing
lists? I for one would love a list about important happenings in the
wikipedia project and separate lists for differenct subjects it would be
really cool.

//Bj?rn


from_name: Giskart

subject: [Wikipedia-l] More mailing lists

body:
Bj?rn Lindqvist heeft geschreven:
> Hello. Im a long time reader first time writer. I think this list is
> kinda boring and has way to high volume. Im not interested in moderator
> nomiations and meta discussions about flaming and who is a flamer. Im
> arrogant sorry. :-) So my suggestion is why not creature more mailing
> lists? I for one would love a list about important happenings in the
> wikipedia project and separate lists for differenct subjects it would be
> really cool.
>
> //Bj?rn

[posted to wikipedia-l and wikiEN-l]

No, there to many lists now. I have done a proposal to use the list
Announce-l as a moderated low traffic list only for announcing important
things. Because of lack of interest it has not become anything.

The English Wikipedia has now its very own list but a lot of people are
still use Wikipedia-l like it where the English list.

Some people call now Wikipedia-l the "international list" but is not.
Read the postings on Intlwiki-l and compare them whit those on
Wikipedia-l and i must be clear that Intlwiki-l is the international list.

It should be clear;
Intlwiki-l the international list
Wikitech-l the the technical list
Announce-l still born

WikiXX-l the language wikipedia lists

Wikipedia-l not clear -- mostly used as a copy of wikiEN-l

I propose to close Wikipedia-l (no posting allowed)
The flame wars can be done at WikiEN-l

Greetings,
Giskart


body:
> Those who support my edits:
>          - CYD

 I moved the Richard Wagner and Anti-semitism article here; in my opinion,
there is no point having a separate page on Wagner's anti-Semitism. Some
of the material in that page was copied verbatim from a newsgroup post
[1], and has been reworded. -- CYD

 I will be working on the Wagner page over the next few days. The anti-
semitism part may seem disproportionate now, but it won't be soon. Please
don't delete relavant content, Clutch. -- CYD

I really would like to have a few days to work on this article without
this silly reverting business. -- CYD

 Yes. It seems that Clutch has removed the link to the anti-Semitism
article. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I assume it's because he
agrees with this (instead of, say, attempting to bypassing NPOV by making
innocuous uncommented edits), so I will merge that article back into this
one. -- CYD

How on Earth do you construct agreement from these comments? He appears to
be a Wagner-fan, like you claim to be, but that's where the agreement
ends.

> 	 - Eclecticology

Eclecticology has not made a single edit to the article or its Talk page.

> There was nothing whimsical or unfactual about that statement; Wagners
> anti-Semitic pamphlet "Judaism in Music" was indeed a youthful writing.

What is your definition of "youth"?

Regards,
Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed Poor's sysop status

body:
Hi Ram-Man,

thanks for your comments (and for your continuing work on the city
pages!); the disagreement was mainly about whether a sysop should protect
pages when he himself makes changes to the article. Ed has agreed to only
freeze pages in conflicts in which he his not involved in any way, so this
is fine with me and, IIRC, others who complained.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] More mailing lists

body:
Bj?rn Lindqvist heeft geschreven:
 > Hello. Im a long time reader first time writer. I think this list is
 > kinda boring and has way to high volume. Im not interested in moderator
 > nomiations and meta discussions about flaming and who is a flamer. Im
 > arrogant sorry. :-) So my suggestion is why not creature more mailing
 > lists? I for one would love a list about important happenings in the
 > wikipedia project and separate lists for differenct subjects it would be
 > really cool.
 >
 > //Bj?rn

[posted to wikipedia-l and wikiEN-l]

No, there to many lists now. I have done a proposal to use the list
Announce-l as a moderated low traffic list only for announcing important
things. Because of lack of interest it has not become anything.

The English Wikipedia has now its very own list but a lot of people are
still use Wikipedia-l like it where the English list.

Some people call now Wikipedia-l the "international list" but is not.
Read the postings on Intlwiki-l and compare them whit those on
Wikipedia-l and i must be clear that Intlwiki-l is the international list.

It should be clear;
Intlwiki-l the international list
Wikitech-l the the technical list
Announce-l still born

WikiXX-l the language wikipedia lists

Wikipedia-l not clear -- mostly used as a copy of wikiEN-l

I propose to close Wikipedia-l (no posting allowed)
The flame wars can be done at WikiEN-l

Greetings,
Giskart


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

in_reply_to: <8bdEF3ZSpVB@erik_moeller>; from erik_moeller@gmx.de on Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 08:56:00PM +0100

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 1) How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators,
> will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will
> moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?

By the nature of the software, the only practical way to do it would
be to have the moderators log into the website and process things.  If
a moderator felt that a post was borderline, he or she could just
leave it in the queue, rather than accepting or rejecting, but if the
moderator does reject or accept, then that's that -- as far as the
software is concerned, anyway.

It's fun and cute to imagine a process whereby 2 moderators have to
blackball a post before it's really rejected, or similar, but
realistically, it'd be too much work to program that, when simple trust
and kindness are so much more powerful.

Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a
message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an
alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me.  Also good would be
for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus
me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right
thing.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Larry Sanger wrote:
> The idea of having a list of people who need approval first would be
> *highly* controversial, and that's controversy we don't need.

I think that's right.  We're hoping here to be more inclusive by
providing a friendlier forum, and setting everyone, even the
moderators, on equal footing, is a good thing.  (So, generally,
moderators should not approve their own posts.)

> There is, by the way, one implication of making WikiEN-l moderated but not
> Wikipedia-l.  I think it's safe to predict the following sort of
> situation.  Some people will no doubt try to post something on Wikien-l
> and when it is rejected, they will post it on Wikipedia-l and scream
> bloody murder about abuse of power.

This is a virtual certainty, yes.  :-)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

in_reply_to: <E079C39257D0D845AC39E2CA261C43E0A5D1E0@sm-nyny-xm04.nena.wdpr.disney.com>; from Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com on Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:38:56PM -0500

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> My suggestion is actually that neither people nor posts be
>moderated. If everyone will be "good" and seek slack (whatever the
>heck that is), then no posts need be filtered at all.

Slack is the perfect cheeseburger at sunset.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] [bethany2o@hotmail.com: Help with log in - BF]

body:
Bethany, I'm so sorry that I've been lax about helping you.  There's no
excuse.  I'm forwarding this message to wikitech-l, and I'm sure someone
there will help.

----- Forwarded message from Bethany <bethany2o at hotmail.com> -----

From: "Bethany" <bethany2o at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:09:05 -0600
To: <jwales at bomis.com>
Subject: Help with log in - BF

Jimmy,

This is the fourth email for help.  I wish you would reply.

lost my password, if I ever had one to begin with. When I click "mail my password" it shows no email address listed for my handle. This shows there were no email addies associated with users before the Wiki changes. Please email a temporary password. I am a registered wikipedian and have a user page and several articles. I want the same handle, otherwise I would just make a new account.

One other thing, in case you are wondering. We have exchanged emails before and also Larry Sanger. I really don't want to create a new account since I already have one.

Thanks,

Bethany  or BF
----- End forwarded message -----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed Poor's sysop status

in_reply_to: <20021212001028.15633.qmail@web21304.mail.yahoo.com>; from digitaladdictions@yahoo.com on Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 04:10:28PM -0800

body:
Digital Addictions Software wrote:
> I have been reading the discussion on freezing Ed Poor's Sysop status with much
> interest and I thought I'd weigh in a few thoughts.  First of all I think it
> would be a mistake to freeze them as I believe Ed does an exceptional job at
> sysop stuff.

Yes, he does.  And what's really important, and something that we
could all learn from, is Ed's "willingness to serve".  That is, he's
very often ready to put aside his own opinion and follow what has been
decided, while at the same time remaining an independent voice for his
own opinion.

> But in the event of an edit war that gets out of hand, what are you
> to do?  Assuming that it has moved past the ability for discussion
> to fix anything, one option is to ban the person making the
> problems.  Another solution is to protect a page.  It seems to me
> that the latter solution is more reasonable as it is quite temporary
> and the person in the edit war may only be causing problems in that
> single area.  I know people say it is an abuse to protect pages like
> that, but I've seen it used in other situations quite effectively to
> get people to talk about it in the talk page rather than an edit
> war.

I think that's right.  The complaints came because Ed was perceived to
be engaged in the page, and because his protection was perceived to be
too-hasty.  We can accept that there will often be little
disagreements like this, but so long as we all approach this with
rationality and good will, it's better to leave some policies
open-ended and trusting, than to work out detailed rules and
regulations.

> But what do I know, I'm just a lowly wikipedian.

:-)

--Jimbo


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
I've set the e-mail address for the user account to the one given; the
'mail password' on the login screen should work now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

in_reply_to: <BA1D5148.DC%fredbaud@ctelco.net>; from fredbaud@ctelco.net on Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 08:32:10PM -0700

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> We allow anyone, even anonymously, to edit any article, but if a
> serious question arises, would deny them an opportunity to air it
> out here; doesn't make sense.

No one has suggested that the purpose of moderation would be to
prevent airing out "serious questions"?  To the contrary, it seems
that the purpose is precisely to permit more discussion of serious
questions, by striving (with a light touch) to gently improve the
civility of debate.

The wiki way is partly the idea that we approach each other with good
will and the default assumption that even people who are in deep
opposition on a particular point share a common goal, which is
improvement of the wikipedia.

I can see how light moderation can help to defuse some of the flames
that lead us to fight rather than work together.  We've all been
guilty of injudicious remarks sent in the heat of the moment.  But
these flames detract from "serious questions".

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Given the dissent on the question, are we or aren't we going to moderate?

It seems likely that we'll soon some to a consensus that doesn't
perfectly address everyone's concerns, but that attempts to address
almost all of them.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] What kind of moderation?

body:
on 12/12/02 7:28 AM, Poor, Edmund W at Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com wrote:

> For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us
> consider our moderation options:
>
> 1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
> 2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
> 3. No moderation (status quo)
>
> I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would
> overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from
> being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my
> support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)

I'm coming around to the idea, but it has to include folks like Larry who
whatever their other merits, lapse habitually into insult. Option #2
presumably would focus on those who come here enraged by what they see as
nasty behavior. They may or may not be right, but there is no reason to
single them out for attention. Although it would also catch folks who are
just not in the game.  I think some other system could be set up for alerts.
>
> Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now.
> The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's
> posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the
> mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose
> posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would
> then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the
> appropriate comments:
> * reason for rejection
> * notice of right-of-appeal
>

> the simple, easy-to-follow
> rules of civil discourse.

Well, not so simple. It's not going to work if someone who is slick can get
away with stuff and someone who is mad (perhaps justifiably) is excluded.
If I were moderating I would allow one or two statements of rage from
someone. (At least someone who new to the list). It's the constant
repetition, and bulldog determinedness, and over and over that spoil the
list.

>
> Ed Poor

Anyway I think moderation could work. As Jimbo points out anyone who has
something important to say can get it together and say it in a civil way.
They may say they're mad and "Ain't gonna take it anymore" but that
addresses their own feelings, not the essential evil which they might feel
resides in the character of those who have offended them.

Fred


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
on 12/12/02 7:44 AM, Mark Christensen at mchristensen at humantech.com wrote:

> What I'd like to see is a moderated and unmoderated version of the same
> list, or at least a publicly accessible archive of all posts to the list
> moderated or unmoderated.  That way those who want the "raw" stream
> could get it, and anybody who cared could track exactly what the
> moderators are doing.
>
> I think this shouldn't be very hard if you can send all rejected posts
> to another list.  Anybody who want's to could sign up for that list too.
>
>
> Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
> forwarded to a moderated list for approval.  Then those who want the raw
> list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
>
>> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts
>> receive a message saying that if they want to appeal, to
>> forward the post to an alias, which goes to all the
>> moderators plus me.  Also good would be for all rejected
>> posts to go separately to all the moderators plus me, thus
>> inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right thing.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

This is good.

Fred


from_name: Pierre Abbat

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wiktionary project launched

body:
On Thursday 12 December 2002 05:39, Erik Moeller wrote:
> With Jimbo's blessings, Brion Vibber has now officially launched the
> Wiktionary project:
>
> http://wiktionary.wikipedia.org

I just looked at the [[Wiktionary]] entry and it has pronunciation symbols
(IPA?) in the article. I hit edit and there are the same symbols in the edit
box. Obviously the page is in Unicode (it shows in Clearlyu). Where can I get
a keyboard layout that can type IPA symbols?

phma


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a
> message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an
> alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me.  Also good would be
> for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus
> me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right
> thing.
>
> --Jimbo

I have found the spot on the mail administration page, where this "rejected posts...appeal" message should go.

Once again, Jimbo reminds us of the value of peer pressure.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Which Moderation proposal?

body:
Larry lamented,

> As I originally expected, we're seeing more and more "no" answers to
> moderation.  That's too bad.
>
> Good luck, everyone, trying to implement other solutions, or with the
> status quo: I think the list will continue to be mired in constantly
> flowing excrement.  Those with a low toleration for it will continue to be
> driven off.

I beg to differ, esteemed colleague. The prospect of elevating the tone of our discourse remains ever bright. Your original proposal was made less than 24 hours ago, was it not? Do not despair.

----
Let us consider rather WHICH proposal to adopt or reject:

1. Moderate wikipedia-l

Opinion seems to be turning away from this option. Indeed, a couple of non-English speakers want wikipedia-l abolished (!).

2. Moderate wikiEN-l

Some posters whose reputations carry some weight (like you, Larry, you fat slob! ;- [oops, I wouldn't be able to say that on a Moderated List <mischievous grin>, even with emoticons]) have turned toward this option.

3. Just continue to use social pressure

This remains a viable fall-back position.

----
Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Which Moderation proposal?


subject: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?

body:
For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us consider our moderation options:

1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
3. No moderation (status quo)

I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)

Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now. The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the appropriate comments:
* reason for rejection
* notice of right-of-appeal

I would expect that anyone whose post was rejected, would then either:
(A) Clean up their language and participate like an adult, or
(B) Go sulk, like a naughty child (thus proving that they did indeed merit the "time out")

In either case, I predict that only someone who was deliberately working against the project would refuse to comply with the simple, easy-to-follow rules of civil discourse: exactly the kind of *ahem* troll no one wants on a mailing list anyway.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] What kind of moderation?


from_name: Mark Christensen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
What I'd like to see is a moderated and unmoderated version of the same
list, or at least a publicly accessible archive of all posts to the list
moderated or unmoderated.  That way those who want the "raw" stream
could get it, and anybody who cared could track exactly what the
moderators are doing.

I think this shouldn't be very hard if you can send all rejected posts
to another list.  Anybody who want's to could sign up for that list too.

Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
forwarded to a moderated list for approval.  Then those who want the raw
list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.

> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts
> receive a message saying that if they want to appeal, to
> forward the post to an alias, which goes to all the
> moderators plus me.  Also good would be for all rejected
> posts to go separately to all the moderators plus me, thus
> inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right thing.


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please ban Clutch (Jonathan Walter); his harassment has gotten totally out of control.

body:
RK wrote:

>(First off, being a Zionist is not a bad thing. It merely
>means that one agrees that one supports the right of the
>State of Israel to continue to exist. Secondly, using the
>word "Zionist" or "Jew" as an insult, as Clutch often does,
>is an anti-semitic act, unbecoming of adults working
>together on an Encyclopaedia project.)

Using "Zionist" as an insult is an anti-Zionist act;
using "Jew" as an insult in an anti-semitic act
("anti-semitic" being a euphemism for "anti-Jewish").
Although calling people names to insult them is childish in any case,
there's nothing wrong with being anti-Zionist either --
it means that one opposes the existence of the State of Israel.
(One might quibble over the definition of "Zionist" too,
but we don't need to get into that for my point.)
You may not agree with that opinion, but it's very different in character
from being anti-Jewish = anti-semitic (although Clutch is both,
according to your testimony, and they certainly do often go together).

More generally, I agree with you that Clutch doesn't play well with others.
I am of the slow to ban faction, but Jimbo should still look at the situation.

-- Toby


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Moderator nominations

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>Jimbo already refused, leaving no one.

>Who vetoed Axel, Lee or Magnus? (And I forgot to mention April).

Cunc vetoed everybody except Jimbo.

Since the vetoing was in response to my suggestion
to allow only uncontroversial people as moderators,
so that one veto is enough -- but not counting a veto of everybody --
I'll say that vetoing everybody except Jimbo
(as a matter of personal policy) can also be an exception.
So I'd keep Axel, Lee, Magnus, and April on the table
(as far as avoiding controversial figures like Larry is concerned),
unless Cunc (or somebody else) says that any of these people
is *particularly* objectionable to them.

That said, however, Cunc is still a valid voice on the side
that says (in essence) that we shouldn't have any moderation --
a side that also includes me, Matthew Woodcraft, and Jimbo himself
(to varying degrees of strength -- Jimbo won't fight it if the rest want it,
Cunc would accept moderation by Jimbo, and I think so would I).
Whether we should moderate, and who should moderate, are separate issues,
but the latter does become moot if the former is decided negatively.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

>Jonathan Walther wrote:

>>mod_wiki is intended to be a possible next generation of the Wikipedia
>>software.  Therefor, the most appropriate place to discuss it is here,
>>not on some ghettoized mailing list somewhere else.

>Good. You, Erik and Jason should start Wikimod-l this week. Do you need
>help setting it up?

Erm, I think that you misread Jonathan's post if you responded this way, Ed.
He's *against* a separate <wikimod-l> list.

-- Toby


body:
With Jimbo's blessings, Brion Vibber has now officially launched the
Wiktionary project:

http://wiktionary.wikipedia.org

Many thanks to him for setting this up!

Where "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", "Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia"
-- it focuses on brief definitions, etymology, usage notes etc.

Everyone who has, in the past, called for a wiki dictionary now has the
opportunity to become a pioneer for this new project! Help create the rules and
policies for the first (well, probably not) collaborative, multi-language
dictionary in the world. Start the first flamewar or be the first banned user!
;-) Most importantly, by creating a user account *now*, you will get one of the
low user ID numbers you will be able to impress your friends with or sell on
eBay years from now. It's like Slashdot, only spelled correctly!

Please spam^H^H^H^Hinform your friends and family where appropriate.

Regards,

Erik

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!


from_name: Tom Parmenter

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed Poor's sysop status

in_reply_to:
<20021212001028.15633.qmail@web21304.mail.yahoo.com> (message
	from Digital Addictions Software on Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:10:28 -0800
	(PST))

body:
Like the Ram-Man, I much prefer locking pages to banning users,
although the latter is reasonable once they start affecting several
pages.

If [[Richard Wagner]] were locked, we wouldn't have to go through a
so many ambiguous edits and tricky trolls to get it back together.

If Clutch keeps it up, then go to work on him, but in the meantime
save the page.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88
Lowly Wikipedian


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a
> message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an
> alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me.  Also good would be
> for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus
> me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right
> thing.

That sounds like a reasonable alternative.

Given the dissent on the question, are we or aren't we going to moderate?

Regards,

Erik

--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f?r 1 ct/ Min. surfen!


from_name: Zoe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is DOWN

body:
I can't get to wikipedia.org -- my browser is even claiming it doesn't exist.  Any idea what's wrong and when it will be back up?

Zoe

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021212/a25bfcd7/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Which Moderation proposal?

in_reply_to: <3DF8EB71.3080702@wikipedia.be>; from giskart@wikipedia.be on Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:02:57PM +0100

body:
Giskart wrote:
> Can you explain why it is not a good idea to abolish wikipedia-l?

Wikipedia-l is for general policy.  WikiEN-l is for English-only
issues.  It looks like WikiEN-l will end up with some kind of
moderation, which should help it to be distinct.

> I find that like it is now wikipedia-l is not usefull. It is used like
> it is the English list. Some messages are only posted on wikipedia-l,
> some on wikiEN-l and most on the two. Most of the treads are broken
> because of this. I think a lot of people are to lazy to subscribe to
> wikiEN-l.

I agree that the current situation is strange and undesirable.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is DOWN

body:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Zoe wrote:
> I can't get to wikipedia.org -- my browser is even claiming it doesn't
> exist.  Any idea what's wrong and when it will be back up?

Not sure yet what was wrong, but the server was completely dead, not even
responding to ping. Jason gave it a hard reboot; we're back up now.

Thanks, Jason!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

in_reply_to: <20021212190956.GB2336@math-lw-n08.ucr.edu>; from toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu on Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:09:56AM -0800

body:
Toby Bartels wrote:
> That said, however, Cunc is still a valid voice on the side
> that says (in essence) that we shouldn't have any moderation --
> a side that also includes me, Matthew Woodcraft, and Jimbo himself
> (to varying degrees of strength -- Jimbo won't fight it if the rest want it,
> Cunc would accept moderation by Jimbo, and I think so would I).
> Whether we should moderate, and who should moderate, are separate issues,
> but the latter does become moot if the former is decided negatively.

What do you think of my idea of my selecting a board of "approvers"
who don't reject posts, and then me logging in once a day (at least)
to handle the rest?  This shouldn't burden my time unnecessarily, nor
should it slow the list down much, if we have enough approvers to keep
things moving along reasonably well.

The approvers would accept anything they think is good, but would not
reject anything.  If they don't like something, they just leave it in
the queue.  From there, I deal with it, either by posting it (likely,
I think, in many cases) or by rejecting it (with encouragement to tone
down the hostility or similar).

This is actually better for the "no moderation" crowd because even I
don't really have straight rejection power (usually) because any other
moderator could well approve things before I even see them.

It seems like this would satisfy you and Cunc, even better than if I
were a pure moderator, and possibly Matthew Woodcraft, too.

Additionally, those who accept the idea of moderation but have concern
about the particular moderators will likely be more accepting if the
moderators are only approving without rejecting.  No single moderator
would have the ability to prevent a post from being posted.  Any
moderator who bothers to log in can approve anything.

Two other thoughts: we're only talking about wikiEN-l, not the general
policy list.  And we can consider this an experiment.  If it doesn't
work, it doesn't work.  We can see how it goes and talk about it on
March 1.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?

in_reply_to: <BA1E6306.5969%cunctator@kband.com>; from cunctator@kband.com on Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:00:06PM -0500

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> 4. Use a BBS instead of mailing lists

Just to be clear, I think we should research this, but it's a big
step.  I have no opposition to it at all, if it means that I can still
work the same way I do now, i.e. I can just read this like a mailing
list, using Mutt/Emacs.  If I have to go on the web and contend with a
browser interface, oh the horror.

But, if most people keep using mail software, it's hard to see a big
advantage relative to a regular mailing list and archive.

--Jimbo


body:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> I just looked at the [[Wiktionary]] entry and it has pronunciation symbols
> (IPA?) in the article. I hit edit and there are the same symbols in the edit
> box. Obviously the page is in Unicode (it shows in Clearlyu). Where can I get
> a keyboard layout that can type IPA symbols?

I'm ashamed to admin I just cut-n-pasted from the Windows character map
applet.

I don't know of an X keyboard map for IPA, but I believe yudit
(http://yudit.org) has an IPA input mode; you should be able to
cut-n-paste into a browser.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Claude Chaunier

subject: [Wikipedia-l] search and dangling links just the same

body:
When I follow some link to 'thingumajib' in a text
mentioning it and I'm offered to write an article about
it because it doesn't exist yet, I am not first offered
a list of articles that match it and that might indeed
be the wanted article under another title.

Why wouldn't I? I could even be told something like:
"The page you come from pointed to an article that
doesn't exist yet in Wikipedia, at least under the
suggested title. You might consider writing it! Or if
you find out it does indeed exist in the following
list of close matches, please click here so that we
create an automatic redirection link."

When I search for 'thingumajib' and am told no
article matches that word, I am not naturally
offered to write down an article about it. Why
wouldn't I?

Hence I suggest to make searches and links to absent
articles just the same and join the nice features of
the two.

What do you think about it?

It might also help to solve an argument I'm developing
on wikipedia talk: Naming conventions (pluralization).

Cheers
Claude


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mark's moderation compromise

body:
--- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at humantech.com> wrote:

> Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
> forwarded to a moderated list for approval.  Then those who want the
> raw list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.

This is a beautiful compromise. Those of us who like our daily smut
don't have to go cold turkey, and the filtered version of the list is
also available for those who feel so inclined.

Axel

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?

body:
On 12/12/02 9:28 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us
> consider our moderation options:
>
> 1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
> 2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
> 3. No moderation (status quo)

You have failed to mention:

4. Use a BBS instead of mailing lists

Option 2 is astoundingly pernicious.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Ireland]] and [[China]]

body:
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 02:00 pm, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  Obviously, we can't completely ignore the most expected forms, but
> redirects are wonderful bidirectionsl tools, and I am not bothered when
> a link from [[Bill Clinton]] redirects to [[William Jefferson Clinton]].
>  The person who did not know the connection between those two names has
> an opportunity to learn something.  When I get a surprising result I
> begin by asking "why?"; once that question is asked I can learn something.

The reason we title the article [[Bill Clinton]] is for more or less technical
reasons that revolve around making it as easy as is reasonable for people to
find what they are looking for and link to it directly. Yes, redirects can be
used to facilitate this, but we should continue to prefer titles that will
naturally catch most queries and most links. Redirects are great to catch
secondary uses.

There is also the big picture to consider: If we do not favor the titles most
likely to be searched for and linked to then this sets an example for new
contributors who will invariably make hideously long and complicated titles
for things (and the amount of information that can be added to a title often
varies a great deal - thus we get multiple articles on the same subject). And
it has been my experience that newbies in general either don't know about or
bother with redirects. So we should encourage titles from the start that will
catch most spontaneous links and queries. The beauty of this is that newbies
who are not aware of our conventions at all tend to title things using the
most common form already (although they do tend to capitalize and pluralize
too much for my taste).

So we should keep the amount of information in the title to a reasonable
minimum and explain in the article just what the full names of people and
things are. In short, KISS

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

WikiKarma Payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palladium&diff=484590&oldid=484446


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:

>--- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at humantech.com> wrote:
>
>>Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
>>forwarded to a moderated list for approval.  Then those who want the
>>raw list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
>>
>
>This is a beautiful compromise. Those of us who like our daily smut
>don't have to go cold turkey, and the filtered version of the list is
>also available for those who feel so inclined.
>
I think so too.  I would continue to subscribe to the fiull XXX-list,
and not be bothered with the Wiki-Nannied one.

Eclecticology


subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Ireland]] and [[China]]

body:
On Wednesday 11 December 2002 04:00 am, wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> Hold on!  Let's not get carried away!  This most recent debate affected
> only a handful of countries with very special problems.  For most
> countries the short form is not problematical, and these articles can
> carry on just as they are.  [[History of the French Republic]] may be a
> perfectly valid article when [[History of France]] needs to broken into
> smaller chunks, but it's not an immediate necessity.  It would help
> nobody if we started to develop solutions for problems that don't exist.
>  The problem countries will make themselves obvious when then time comes.
>
> Eclecticology

Just following the new logic. Why should our article on the modern state of
Mexico have history in it that doesn't belong to it? The history of the
modern state called Mexico really doesn't start until until 1917 when its
current constitution was drafted (arguably it may have started when it got
its independence from Spain in 1810). So it is only logical that the article
on the modern state should be at [[United States of Mexico]] and the main
article on Mexican art, culture and history would be at [[Mexico]] (the
history would probably start with Cortez since Mexican art and culture is a
blending of Mesoamerican and Spanish art and culture).

I really fail to see much of a difference between China, Mexico, France and
many other nations in this regard.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

WikiKarma Payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hyde_Wollaston (new)


subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

body:
On 12/12/02 4:52 PM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

> Toby Bartels wrote:
>> That said, however, Cunc is still a valid voice on the side
>> that says (in essence) that we shouldn't have any moderation --
>> a side that also includes me, Matthew Woodcraft, and Jimbo himself
>> (to varying degrees of strength -- Jimbo won't fight it if the rest want it,
>> Cunc would accept moderation by Jimbo, and I think so would I).
>> Whether we should moderate, and who should moderate, are separate issues,
>> but the latter does become moot if the former is decided negatively.
>
> What do you think of my idea of my selecting a board of "approvers"
> who don't reject posts, and then me logging in once a day (at least)
> to handle the rest?  This shouldn't burden my time unnecessarily, nor
> should it slow the list down much, if we have enough approvers to keep
> things moving along reasonably well.
>
> The approvers would accept anything they think is good, but would not
> reject anything.  If they don't like something, they just leave it in
> the queue.  From there, I deal with it, either by posting it (likely,
> I think, in many cases) or by rejecting it (with encouragement to tone
> down the hostility or similar).

It's still a terrible idea. Qui custodiet custodies?

Moderation is fine for lists with a clearly defined scope, such as
job-announcement lists or dog-breeding tips. These wiki lists do not have
such a clearly defined scope. The only one that does is wikitech, and that
could be reasonably moderated.

Moderation for things like intent and irascibility and scorn is much more
difficult, and can only be done without ugly results by someone who is not
involved at all in the content.

It's not an entirely separate issue of whether we should moderate and who
would moderate, as none of the potential moderators or approvers would be
disinterested parties--rather, they're active participants, all with
individual biases and philosophies of how the world, or at least Wikipedia,
should work. And they can't all be correct or be all correct.

Attaching a time lag to posts--the "approver" strategy would derail
conversations and arouse resentments quite possibly even worse than mere
rejections would.

The only semi-reasonable moderation strategy is one like at Slashdot or
kuro5hin, where its a matter of people promoting or demoting posts, and even
that's flawed and better avoided. And note that isn't possible with a
mailing list.


subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

body:
The software is already set up for Jimbo's proposal (all we have to do is turn on one setting).

Oh, and give the admin password to everyone on the moderator team.

When you log in as a mailing list admin, you'll find a list of "posts awaiting administrator approval". You may browse through the posts in any order you choose.

When viewing a particular post, you have the following choices:
* approve it (software sends it out and takes it off the queue)
* leave it in the queue (someone else will deal with it)
* reject it -- for Jimbo's use only (software provides
  a nice big text box for comments!)

Ed Poor
wikiEN-l Administrator


subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

body:
On 12/12/02 5:26 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> The software is already set up for Jimbo's proposal (all we have to do is turn
> on one setting).
>
This has nothing to do with the merits of the idea.


from_name: Robert Kaiser

subject: [Wikipedia-l] On Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and Richard Wagner

body:
"Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> writes:
> In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel
the
> term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
> Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
writings.
> Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly
I'm
> disagreeing with. :)

It seems to me that many people just don't understand what the words mean.
"Anti-Zionism" is the position that Jews should be forbidden from being
allowed to have a safe and secure state of their own, but that other groups,
such as Arabs and Japanese, are allowed to have such a nation. Anti-Zionism
is most common among Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the Islamist movement, and various
anti-Semitic groups, as well as the official position of every armed Islamic
group that has publicly stated that it wishes to destory the state of Israel
by force, such as Hamas and Hizbollah. It is little wonder that nearly every
Jew in the world defines this position as anti-Semitic. I count on one hand
the number of anti-Zionists I have met who are not anti-Semitic.

And again, despite the odd persistence of this myth, isagreement with the
policy of a particular Israeli government has *nothing to do* with
Anti-Zionism in the slighest. Israelis themselves disagree with each other -
often and loudly. This is not an anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israeli
position, in of itself. Using one phrase (disagreement with Israeli policy)
as a more polite euphamism for the other (Anti-Zionism) has misses the boat
entirely. These issues aren't even related.

Consider America, for example. Just because someone might disagree with the
policy of the current American government on a number of issues does not
mean that they want to destroy America, and that they preach that America
has no right to exist! There is a vast difference between disagreement, and
incitement to destroy a nation.

There is also a linguistic reality that we need to be cognizant of:
Anti-Zionism has also become a catchword for antisemitism and has provided
antisemites with a convenient cloak behind which to conceal their hatred of
Jews. It is well worth remembering the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:
  "... You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely
'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain
tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people
criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is G-d's own truth...Antisemitism,
the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of
mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionism
is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so."   (From M.L. King Jr.,
"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review XLVII (Aug. 1967), p.
76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., This I Believe: Selections from the Writings
of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (New York, 1971), pp. 234-235.)

> Now, as to real anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all seem out of place to
spend,
> say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a historically important
> person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
> lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important.

I agree. But what if the reason for their historical imporance has to do
with their anti-Semitism? Richard Wagner, for example, is not only famous
for writing music. He is just as (in)famous for his life-long preaching of
anti-Semitism, and his desire to exterminate the Jewish faith. It is a major
part of his faith, and historians of all stripes admit this. Many books have
been written about this. For this man, this particular topic is a major
issue.

> The key points of a biographical entry, as I think of it, are to hit on a
> person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
> contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.

I agree. And for Wagner, his anti-Semitism was an extremely important part
of his contribution to German culture.  :(

> In sum: if the discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder
of
> the article, it should be reduced (and/or  the rest of the article
seriously
> built up.)  If it's discussed briefly, preferably with mention of the
> historical context, that seems reasonable.  Here endeth long-winded
opinion.

I hope that we all agree that we don't improve encyclopedias by deleting
information until all sections are of equal length. We improve them by
recruiting more writers to add more information on topics that require more
study and more detailed treatments.

RK (Robert)


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

body:
Jimbo writes:
>What do you think of my idea of my selecting a board of "approvers"
>who don't reject posts, and then me logging in once a day (at least)
>to handle the rest?  This shouldn't burden my time unnecessarily, nor
>should it slow the list down much, if we have enough approvers to keep
>things moving along reasonably well.

I like this idea, at first, but then I remember Cunctator's objections
and am put in mind of Kitty Genovese.  In short, while I doubt
anyone's life will be on the line based on a posting to wikiEN (or
lack thereof), the underlying principle is the same, isn't it?
Sometimes groupthink in public keeps people from acting when they
should, and no one is left accountable.

What would keep the "approvers" from ignoring a valuable message
without consequence?  Suppose all approvers came to dislike a poster
and all independently decided to ignore the poster, but the poster had
something valuable to say?

kq


body:
Robert Kaiser wrote:

>"Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> writes:
>
>>In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel the
>>
>>term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
>>Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own writings.
>>
>>Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly I'm
>>
>>disagreeing with. :)
>>
>
>It seems to me that many people just don't understand what the words mean.
>"Anti-Zionism" is the position that Jews should be forbidden from being
>allowed to have a safe and secure state of their own, but that other groups,
>such as Arabs and Japanese, are allowed to have such a nation.
>
If my anti-Zionism is founded on the principle that it is wrong to base
the establishment of any state on religious beliefs, it is not
anti-semitism.  I also believe that the separation of India and Pakistan
on religious lines was wrong.  That being said, the bad post-war
geographysing by the British is an irreversibly done-deal.  Israel and
Pakistan are now facts of life, whether I like it or not.  I continue to
believe that both deals were wrong, and to that extent continue to
consider myself anti-Zionist.

>Anti-Zionism
>is most common among Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the Islamist movement, and various
>anti-Semitic groups, as well as the official position of every armed Islamic
>group that has publicly stated that it wishes to destory the state of Israel
>by force, such as Hamas and Hizbollah.
>
This is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" kind of argument.  Anti-Zionism
was around before any of these groups were thought of

>It is little wonder that nearly every
>Jew in the world defines this position as anti-Semitic.
>
Who gave the Jews a monopoly on the definition of "anti-Semitic"

>I count on one hand
>the number of anti-Zionists I have met who are not anti-Semitic.
>
If I understand the situation correctly there are ultra-orthodox Jewish
anti-Zionists in Israel who believe that Judaism should have nothing to
do with the apparatus of the state.  This allows them to be exempted
from Israel's compulsory military service.

>And again, despite the odd persistence of this myth, disagreement with the
>policy of a particular Israeli government has *nothing to do* with
>Anti-Zionism in the slighest. Israelis themselves disagree with each other -
>often and loudly. This is not an anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israeli
>position, in of itself. Using one phrase (disagreement with Israeli policy)
>as a more polite euphamism for the other (Anti-Zionism) has misses the boat
>entirely. These issues aren't even related.
>
On this I agree without any problem.

>There is also a linguistic reality that we need to be cognizant of:
>Anti-Zionism has also become a catchword for antisemitism and has provided
>antisemites with a convenient cloak behind which to conceal their hatred of
>Jews.
>
So who made it a catchword?  Jewish groups themselves are responsible
for the linguistic confusion.  Anti-Zionists have always been careful to
distinguish the terms "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Semitic"  This is a
fallacy of definition.  It redefines "anti-Zionism" in such a way as to
make it more insidious than it really is.

>It is well worth remembering the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:
>  "... You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely
>'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain
>tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people
>criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is G-d's own truth...Antisemitism,
>the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of
>mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionism
>is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so."   (From M.L. King Jr.,
>"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review XLVII (Aug. 1967), p.
>76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., This I Believe: Selections from the Writings
>of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (New York, 1971), pp. 234-235.)
>
Without seeing the full context of the MLK quote, I would do better to
avoid commenting on it.

>>Now, as to real anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all seem out of place to spend,
>>
>>say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a historically important
>>person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
>>lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important.
>>
>I agree. But what if the reason for their historical imporance has to do
>with their anti-Semitism? Richard Wagner, for example, is not only famous
>for writing music. He is just as (in)famous for his life-long preaching of
>anti-Semitism, and his desire to exterminate the Jewish faith. It is a major
>part of his faith, and historians of all stripes admit this. Many books have
>been written about this. For this man, this particular topic is a major
>issue.
>
Although I don't have the knowledge to comment on what Wagner's
anti-Semitic views really were, I can accept for the sake of this
discussion that they were indeed severe.  So what?  Most people who have
heard his music appreciate his music, and don't give a damn about his
anti-semitism.  His anti-Semetism does not alter the value of his music.
 The only people who perpetuate this memory of Wagner and his beliefs
are the anti-anti-semitic zealots.  Without their help Wagner's
anti-semitism would long ago have fallen under it's own weight into a
well-deserved oblivion.

>>The key points of a biographical entry, as I think of it, are to hit on a
>>person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
>>contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.
>>
>I agree. And for Wagner, his anti-Semitism was an extremely important part
>of his contribution to German culture.  :(
>
Again, I can't see why so much importance is attributed to it.

>>In sum: if the discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder of
>>
>>the article, it should be reduced (and/or  the rest of the article seriously
>>
>>built up.)  If it's discussed briefly, preferably with mention of the
>>historical context, that seems reasonable.
>>
>I hope that we all agree that we don't improve encyclopedias by deleting
>information until all sections are of equal length. We improve them by
>recruiting more writers to add more information on topics that require more
>study and more detailed treatments.
>
Snow jobs that give disproportionat importance to a secondary aspect of
the subject do not improve an article.

Eclecticology


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 12/12/02 6:07 PM, "Giskart" <giskart at wikipedia.be> wrote:

> Do not know what to do with wikipedia-l
> *.wikipedia.wikipedia
> *.wikipedia.policy
> *.wikipedia.general.policy
> *.wikipedia.main
> *.wikipedia.misc
>
.misc would be standard.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] On Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and Richard
	Wagner

body:
On 12/12/02 5:36 PM, "Robert Kaiser" <rkaiser1 at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> writes:
>> In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel
> the
>> term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
>> Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
> writings.
>> Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly
> I'm
>> disagreeing with. :)
>
<snip discussion of zionism, semitism, etc.>

This does not belong on the list.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[Ireland]] and [[China]]

body:
on 12/12/02 5:35 PM, Daniel Mayer at maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:

> On Wednesday 11 December 2002 04:00 am, wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
>> Hold on!  Let's not get carried away!  This most recent debate affected
>> only a handful of countries with very special problems.  For most
>> countries the short form is not problematical, and these articles can
>> carry on just as they are.  [[History of the French Republic]] may be a
>> perfectly valid article when [[History of France]] needs to broken into
>> smaller chunks, but it's not an immediate necessity.  It would help
>> nobody if we started to develop solutions for problems that don't exist.
>> The problem countries will make themselves obvious when then time comes.
>>
>> Eclecticology
>
> Just following the new logic. Why should our article on the modern state of
> Mexico have history in it that doesn't belong to it? The history of the
> modern state called Mexico really doesn't start until until 1917 when its
> current constitution was drafted (arguably it may have started when it got
> its independence from Spain in 1810). So it is only logical that the article
> on the modern state should be at [[United States of Mexico]] and the main
> article on Mexican art, culture and history would be at [[Mexico]] (the
> history would probably start with Cortez since Mexican art and culture is a
> blending of Mesoamerican and Spanish art and culture).
>
> I really fail to see much of a difference between China, Mexico, France and
> many other nations in this regard.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

I don't want any part of doing China over again. We had it one one then we
changed it; going back to the first way... No. Enough!

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Mark's moderation compromise

body:
What is the fear of Jimbo's proposed moderation experiment?

All he's saying is that wikiEN-l will be moderated for a little over 2 months, i.e., until March 1, 2003. At that point we will decide whether to unmoderate it, or to continue.

Anyone who wants to participate on a moderated English-language list, to discuss the English Wikipedia, is welcome. All others are still free to post to wikipedia-l which will remain unmoderated. Those who like their scum or slush or whatever unfiltered will still get plenty this way.

What could possibly be wrong with such an experiment?

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] On Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and RichardWagner

body:
On 12/12/02 5:36 PM, "Robert Kaiser" <rkaiser1 at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> writes:
>> In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel
> the
>> term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
>> Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
> writings.
>> Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly
> I'm
>> disagreeing with. :)
>
<snip discussion of zionism, semitism, etc.>

Then Cunctator snorted:

> This does not belong on the list.

----

Well, technically it should go on wikiEN-l but it would have been less abrasive just to ignore it. People haven't really gotten used to the idea of discussing English Wikipedia on wikiEN-l and global issues on this list.

Ed Poor
Mailing List Administrator
English Wikipedia


body:
Can we do the following?

(A) Automatically send EVERY wikiEN-l post to the newsgroup
(B) Still filter the mailing list according to Jimbo's moderation plan?

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikitech-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] What kind of moderation?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is DOWN (again)

body:
> > > I can't get to wikipedia.org -- my browser is even claiming it doesn't
> > > exist.  Any idea what's wrong and when it will be back up?
> >
> > Not sure yet what was wrong, but the server was completely dead, not even
> > responding to ping. Jason gave it a hard reboot; we're back up now.
>
> It seems to have died again...
>
> Imran

There was a log from 18:30 to 18:48 (US East Coast time). No idea what caused this.

Ed Poor


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] On Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and
	RichardWagner

body:
On 12/12/02 6:55 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/02 5:36 PM, "Robert Kaiser" <rkaiser1 at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> writes:
>>> In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel
>> the
>>> term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
>>> Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
>> writings.
>>> Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly
>> I'm
>>> disagreeing with. :)
>>
> <snip discussion of zionism, semitism, etc.>
>
> Then Cunctator snorted:
>
>> This does not belong on the list.
>
> ----
>
> Well, technically it should go on wikiEN-l but it would have been less
> abrasive just to ignore it. People haven't really gotten used to the idea of
> discussing English Wikipedia on wikiEN-l and global issues on this list.

It doesn't belong on wikien-l either. It's discussion that belongs on either
talk pages or meta.


body:
On 12/12/02 6:52 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> What is the fear of Jimbo's proposed moderation experiment?
>
> All he's saying is that wikiEN-l will be moderated for a little over 2 months,
> i.e., until March 1, 2003. At that point we will decide whether to unmoderate
> it, or to continue.
>
> Anyone who wants to participate on a moderated English-language list, to
> discuss the English Wikipedia, is welcome. All others are still free to post
> to wikipedia-l which will remain unmoderated. Those who like their scum or
> slush or whatever unfiltered will still get plenty this way.
>
> What could possibly be wrong with such an experiment?
>
Some brief answers: It would establish a corrosive policy as status quo. It
would imply--and then establish as the baseline reality--that wikipedia-l is
useless, a haven of scum and slush. It would create even more divisions in
the wikipedia community.

It evokes some of the similar problems with charter schools, tracking, etc.


subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

body:
on 12/12/02 6:49 PM, koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com at koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com
wrote:

> Jimbo writes:
>> What do you think of my idea of my selecting a board of "approvers"
>> who don't reject posts, and then me logging in once a day (at least)
>> to handle the rest?  This shouldn't burden my time unnecessarily, nor
>> should it slow the list down much, if we have enough approvers to keep
>> things moving along reasonably well.
>
> I like this idea, at first, but then I remember Cunctator's objections
> and am put in mind of Kitty Genovese.  In short, while I doubt
> anyone's life will be on the line based on a posting to wikiEN (or
> lack thereof), the underlying principle is the same, isn't it?
> Sometimes groupthink in public keeps people from acting when they
> should, and no one is left accountable.
>
> What would keep the "approvers" from ignoring a valuable message
> without consequence?  Suppose all approvers came to dislike a poster
> and all independently decided to ignore the poster, but the poster had
> something valuable to say?
>
> kq

Yes, the stuff of nightmare... However just as common sense sometimes
prevails in editing it will prevail in this situation too. Potential
moderators are also modivated to find value, if possible.

Fred


in_reply_to:
<BA1E8F09.599F%cunctator@kband.com> (message from The Cunctator
	on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:07:53 -0500)

body:
|From: The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com>
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 19:07:53 -0500
|
|On 12/12/02 6:55 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
|
|> On 12/12/02 5:36 PM, "Robert Kaiser" <rkaiser1 at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|>
|>> "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina at charter.net> writes:
|>>> In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel
|>> the
|>>> term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
|>>> Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
|>> writings.
|>>> Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly
|>> I'm
|>>> disagreeing with. :)
|>>
|> <snip discussion of zionism, semitism, etc.>
|>
|> Then Cunctator snorted:
|>
|>> This does not belong on the list.
|>
|> ----
|>
|> Well, technically it should go on wikiEN-l but it would have been less
|> abrasive just to ignore it. People haven't really gotten used to the idea of
|> discussing English Wikipedia on wikiEN-l and global issues on this list.
|
|It doesn't belong on wikien-l either. It's discussion that belongs on either
|talk pages or meta.
|

The Cunctator, who does not like the idea of list moderation, has just
demonstrated what a good moderator would do.  If every discussion like
this (true meaning of anti-semitism) was tagged with a dry comment,
"This discussion belongs on a talk page or meta", pretty soon we would
see less and less of this sort of thing and the moderator would have
improved the content of the list and the content of Wikipedia by her
action, all without stepping on anyone's rights or stifling any
discussion.

Maybe we should transform The Cunctator into The Moderator.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88


body:
On 12/12/02 7:48 PM, "Tom Parmenter" <tompar at world.std.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator, who does not like the idea of list moderation, has just
> demonstrated what a good moderator would do.  If every discussion like
> this (true meaning of anti-semitism) was tagged with a dry comment,
> "This discussion belongs on a talk page or meta", pretty soon we would
> see less and less of this sort of thing and the moderator would have
> improved the content of the list and the content of Wikipedia by her
> action, all without stepping on anyone's rights or stifling any
> discussion.
>
> Maybe we should transform The Cunctator into The Moderator.
>
That's my point. It's possible to moderate without preventing people from
posting, or by making people moderators by special appointment. It's
everyone's responsibility.

But we're really just stuck with a scaling problem, and I don't think
censoring posts is the right way to deal with the problem for Wikipedia.


body:
Poor, Edmund W heeft geschreven:
[cut]
> 1. Moderate wikipedia-l
>
> Opinion seems to be turning away from this option. Indeed, a couple of non-English speakers want wikipedia-l abolished (!).

Can you explain why it is not a good idea to abolish wikipedia-l?

I find that like it is now wikipedia-l is not usefull. It is used like
it is the English list. Some messages are only posted on wikipedia-l,
some on wikiEN-l and most on the two. Most of the treads are broken
because of this. I think a lot of people are to lazy to subscribe to
wikiEN-l.

Giskart


body:
On 12/12/02 8:55 PM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
<continuing discussion of zionism, anti-semitism, etc.>

Please do not continue this discussion on the mailing lists. There are
appropriate places for the discussion, and this is not it.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Sending email directly to /dev/null

body:
I receive a lot of spam from the same email adress to the lists i am
administrator of. Always from the same adresses to the same lists;
Intlwiki-l and wikitech-l, never to wikiNL-l.  I always report it to
spamcop but i keeps coming. It gives a lot of work. And i have recieved
a complaint about the "spam" I (the list) send. Every spam gives a
autoreply.

And the auto replay to the sender to inform the spammer that his message
is hold for approval gives a lot a bounce and then i receive a message
to inform my that the email adress of the spammer is invalid.
(=again;"As list administrator, your authorization is requested")

Is there a way to delete directly those adresses?
libinfo at unm.edu
daynab at ncat.org
biofeedback at biomimicry.net

and send no autoreply or whatever?

Giskart


from_name: Imran Ghory

body:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Giskart wrote:

> Or using a newsreader.
> Wikitech-l is ready for use now
> For instructions see http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
> The others are comming very soon.

Wouldn't it make more sense to create a generally distributed wikipedia.*
hierarchy, rather than have thee newsgroups on just one server ?

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is DOWN (again)

body:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Zoe wrote:
> > I can't get to wikipedia.org -- my browser is even claiming it doesn't
> > exist.  Any idea what's wrong and when it will be back up?
>
> Not sure yet what was wrong, but the server was completely dead, not even
> responding to ping. Jason gave it a hard reboot; we're back up now.

It seems to have died again...

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is DOWN (again)

body:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Imran Ghory wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Zoe wrote:
> > > I can't get to wikipedia.org -- my browser is even claiming it doesn't
> > > exist.  Any idea what's wrong and when it will be back up?
> >
> > Not sure yet what was wrong, but the server was completely dead, not even
> > responding to ping. Jason gave it a hard reboot; we're back up now.
>
> It seems to have died again...

Ignore that it seems to have come back-up after about 20 minutes of
downtime.

Imran
--
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran


from_name: Giskart

body:
Jimmy Wales heeft geschreven:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>>4. Use a BBS instead of mailing lists
>
>
> Just to be clear, I think we should research this, but it's a big
> step.  I have no opposition to it at all, if it means that I can still
> work the same way I do now, i.e. I can just read this like a mailing
> list, using Mutt/Emacs.  If I have to go on the web and contend with a
> browser interface, oh the horror.
>
> But, if most people keep using mail software, it's hard to see a big
> advantage relative to a regular mailing list and archive.
>
> --Jimbo

Or using a newsreader.
Wikitech-l is ready for use now
For instructions see http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

The others are comming very soon.
I am waiting for responds from the admins of the English, Polish and
German list.
Do not know what to do whit wikipedia-l
*.wikipedia.wikipedia
*.wikipedia.policy
*.wikipedia.general.policy
*.wikipedia.main
*.wikipedia.misc

Giskart


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
> -+- Mark Christensen <mchristensen at humantech.com> wrote:

>> Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
>> forwarded to a moderated list for approval.  Then those who want the
>> raw list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.

> This is a beautiful compromise. Those of us who like our daily smut
> don't have to go cold turkey, and the filtered version of the list is
> also available for those who feel so inclined.

I have to express my opposition to this compromise. I'm afraid it would
result in lax moderation standards with the standard explanation "well, if
you wanted to read this, you could have gone to the other list". Also,
what about replies to posts that are filtered on one list etc.?

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

body:
At 23:55 12/12/2002 +0000, Cunc wrote:
>Moderation is fine for lists with a clearly defined scope, such as
>job-announcement lists or dog-breeding tips. These wiki lists do not have
>such a clearly defined scope.

I think this is a good point. I just looked at [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists]]
and it says:

"Wikipedia has a number of project mailing lists; the general project-wide
list is Wikipedia-L. It's an essential resource for Wikipedia authors.
Maybe you don't want to clutter up Wikipedia with questions or discussion.
Or maybe, for whatever reason, you'd just like to chat with other
Wikipedians without doing so via the wiki format. Great, then sign up for
Wikipedia-L! "

The writeup for WikiEN-L isn't much more precise, just adding that it is
for "discussion of issues concerning the english wikipedia only".  Note
that it doesn't say "The list isn't for flaming, so don't do it", or
whatever. It even encourages "chat", which I think most subscribers would
think of as unwanted noise.

Before we go ahead with moderation (which I remain opposed to) we ought to
have some idea of what is (or should be) and isn't (or shouldn't be)
allowed on the list, make this clear to all list members, and edit
[[Wikipedia:Mailing lists]] to reflect this. I am very unclear still as to
what is being proposed about what should and shouldn't be allowed.

Perhaps we need [[Wikipedia:What the mailing list is not]] or something.

LP (camembert)


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

in_reply_to: <BA1E78E3.5986%cunctator@kband.com>; from cunctator@kband.com on Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:33:23PM -0500

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/12/02 5:26 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
> > The software is already set up for Jimbo's proposal (all we have to do is turn
> > on one setting).
> >
> This has nothing to do with the merits of the idea.

Not directly, but it is relevant in that we can implement it in 5
minutes time and it requires virtually no commitment of resources to
either make it happen or undo it if we don't like it.  Other proposals
for team moderation would require us to commit resources to programming.

(And, as an open source project, we the people who desire change can't
really "commit resources" because the programmers will only do what
they feel like doing anyway.  :-))

Cunc, it seems like you're the strongest holdout.

I've got people in private email telling me that it's imperative that
we institute a formal voting procedure, because consensus can't work
in a group of this size.  It is claimed that any one person can block
change, even if that one person agrees that the current situation is
not very desirable.  I want to prove them wrong, and you can help me in
a pretty obvious way.
:-)

Suppose we commit to a very light moderation, by me, which you said
you could accept, with others helping out by doing approvals of posts.
AND we commit to setting up and testing a bbs system as you've
proposed several times in the past.

We experiment -- wikien-l becomes moderated.  wikipedia-l stays
unmoderated and migrates to a bbs/email system.  We later revisit the
issue (March 1st, I propose) and see how it's working out in practice.

Some of your objections are concerns I share... for example, under
moderation, the pace of a list is slowed down.  But, by how much, and
does it help or hinder productive discussions?  That's an empirical
question, and it depends on how many approvers we have and how often
they are logged in, etc.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] My proposal

in_reply_to: <200212130149.gBD1n6c08382@ross.bomis.com>; from koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com on Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:49:06PM -0800

body:
koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com wrote:
> What would keep the "approvers" from ignoring a valuable message
> without consequence?  Suppose all approvers came to dislike a poster
> and all independently decided to ignore the poster, but the poster had
> something valuable to say?

Well, I think I can answer these concerns.

First, any one approver can send message onward to the list.  So the
conspiracy of silence would have to be unanimous.

Second, I pledge to log in at least once per day, weekdays, to process
all the remainders.  (Possibly the list will be made unmoderated on
the weekends?  Or the approvers can be more generous on the weekends.)

Third, any post that I reject will give the poster the option of
INSISTING that it be published as-is, subject only to whatever legal
liability I might face if it's really awful (like a death threat).

Fourth, wikipedia-l will remain unmoderated, so anyone who feels that
I've been cruel can squawk about it over there, unhindered.

Do those safeguards address your concerns sufficiently?