subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:45:21PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I will support any of following as moderators for either of the the above lists:
>* Larry Sanger
>* Daniel (mav)
>* Jimbo

I would support Larry, Jimbo, and Ed as moderators.  I cannot support
Maveric for the position; his tendency to jump on apparent idiocy is too
peremptory and shoot-from-the-hip.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/b64e4b75/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jonathan Walther

subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:47:49PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> Would anybody see the value in having a separate list for mod_wiki
>> development questions/arguments?
>>
>> --
>> "Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>
>
>Sounds good to me. Would you like to be its administrator?

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.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20021211/0d230f5a/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: reply to Ed Poor's questions (Re: [Wikitech-l] Languages & namespaces)

body:
Jonathan,

It sounds like your primary interest is porting Wikipedia software to
your own machine, rather than improving the operation of the Wikipedia
itself. Is this correct?

Ed Poor


body:
I wish someone with good technical writing skills would document the
Wikipedia software. I'd like something more than just a bare listing of
the fields of each table in the database. But something a lot faster to
read than the full source code with embedded comments.

Do you know anyone capable and willing to do this?

Ed Poor


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

in_reply_to: <E079C39257D0D845AC39E2CA261C43E0070439@sm-nyny-xm04.nena.wdpr.disney.com>; from Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com on Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 12:45:21PM -0500

body:
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.  Maybe there should be
a moderated list for announcements or what have you, or someone could
put together and offer an edited digest of this list, but I prefer the
vibrancy and speed we have here, and that's hard to replicate in a
moderated list.

Mostly, I think people should just relax a notch or two.  :-) Before
each post, ask yourself if you are on the path to slack.  If not,
don't post.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
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.

I agree.

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.

Only if specific detailed discussions of it get too common or lengthy here,
and if it looked like we wouldn't be adopting it at all, then I would support
having a new mailing list.

--Jimbo


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia and anti-Semitism

body:
Jonathan, we'd all be happier -- including you! -- if you would restrain
yourself from engaging in edit wars.

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
:-)

Moreover, it's due in large measure to my dedication to peace that on
frequent occasions all parties to a dispute have agreed to let me
referee the dispute.

I've made thousands of edits; you've only made a few hundred. Now I may
not have absolutely *mastered* the art of making an inoffensive edit.
Yet, I daresay I nearly always manage to get information into articles
without anyone wanting to revert.

This is because of 2 things:
* Jimbo's NPOV policy is a G-E-N-I-U-S idea!!!!
* I am willing to conform my writing to the NPOV

Learn from the master, eh?

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 07:36:51PM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
>mod_wiki will be under GPL, yes?

Absolutely!  As a Debian developer, I am committed to developing Free
Software wherever possible.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20021211/fcd9d510/attachment.pgp>


body:
I want more than a description of what each table and field is for.
That's only a database schema. It provides a necessary foundation, but
it's not the whole building.

I want to know about the interaction of the client software with the
database.

Ed Poor


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation of the main list (not the english list)

body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I agree with Larry's proposal for a moderated
> Wikipedia mailing list.
> * which lists should be moderated?
> -- wikipedia-l
> * who should moderate?
> * Larry Sanger
> Larry would be the best, although he also
> participates. But I trust him not to abuse his role.
> I only worry that he'd be too soft-hearted on the
> eedjits and let them rant on too long.

http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2002-November/000120.html

> And of course while I feel compelled to abstain from
> self-nomination, I'm willing to take a crack at it:

> I think I'd make an excellent moderator :-)

En toute honnetet?, permettez moi de ne pas ?tre
*enti?rement* d'accord Edmond...

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


from_name: Larry Sanger

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
In response to Ed's questions, I'd say we should start with Wikipedia-l,
and see how moderating that goes, and then if it's a success or if it's
felt to be needed, we should moderate WikiEN-l.  I think it's entirely
possible that the new sobriety of the "master list" will have a positive
effect on other lists.

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.
That's how much I would appreciate a polite, non-trollish, non-flamebait,
non-flaming list.  As a co-moderator, I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate the
workload, and maybe we shouldn't try her patience, but I'd love to have
Ruth Ifcher, who has a low tolerance for BS and a high appreciation for
what we're doing.  My next choice would be KQ, who would make an
incredible moderator, I think.  Ed would be great too.  Other people who I
think would do a brilliant job include (since I think they could be
extremely fair, because they're smart, and because they have a deep
respect and understanding of what we on Wikipedia are doing):

Julie Kemp
Mav
April
Axel
Brion (he has better things to do, though, with the software)
Magnus (ditto)
Lee Crocker (ditto)

There should also be a French language moderator.  :-)  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."

This is just the short list--I'm sure I'm leaving off many people who I
think could do at least as good a job.

If we go with moderation, maybe KQ will come back and help moderate the
list so that it becomes something he feels he won't have to quit in
disgust.  ;-)

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

I've written two or three moderation policies before and I've given them a
lot of thought.  Roughly speaking (this would need fine-tuning), I suggest
the following:

* When in doubt, approve the post.  Don't block posts that are on the
  borderline.
* Reject posts that express any sort of disrespect for others.  There can
  be exceptions; for example, if we have to discuss a problem troll on
  Wikipedia, then expressions of disrespect (among other things) are
  totally on-topic.  This implies reject of the following:
	* Plain old insults.
	* Slightly subtle implications of something highly insulting.
	  (Certain Wikipedians have perfected this to an art form.)
	* Really obvious condescension and other disrespectful attitudes.
* To human beings and listmembers (as opposed to spammers, for instance),
  always give some explanation of why the post is rejected.  If the
  software doesn't do it (I think it does, though), include the full post
  with the rejection so that the author can revise it.
* Reject all spam without comment.
* On Wikipedia-l, reject posts that should go to WikiEN-l (I happen to
  agree with this rule that was foisted upon us without much discussion
  ;-) ).
* 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.  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.

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Role of a sysop: (was: Wikipedia and anti-Semitism)

body:
> > * A sysop should only use his administrative privileges as a "time
> > out" to direct discussions in case of conflicts to the talk page,
> > but he should not do that if he states a position in the
> > matter. Otherwise he is no longer a sysop or a moderator but an
> > editor, which is not the function assigned to him.
>
> I'm not even really comfortable with that, unless things have gotten
> way out of hand or something.  Most importantly, we should ALL exert
> social pressure for co-operation rather than Usenet-style argument.  It's
> hard, but it has worked wonders for us so far.

For an example of "exerting social pressure for co-operation",
see [[Talk:Book_of_Mormon]]. In apparent response to a comment
I made, parties to a dispute began editing their previous
comments <<patting self on back>>. You'll have to dig through
the "older versions" now, to find any of the mean-spirited
comments I was objecting to.

Uncle Ed


body:
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > > And of course while I feel compelled to abstain
> from
> > > self-nomination, I'm willing to take a crack at
> it:
> >
> > > I think I'd make an excellent moderator :-)
> >
> > En toute honnetet?, permettez moi de ne pas ?tre
> > *enti?rement* d'accord Edmond...
>
> Je ne me nomine que la liste anglaise.
>
> Edmond Le Pauvre

Ne vous inqui?tez pas pour ?a Edmond. Ce n'est que mon
impression, et elle apparait ultra-minoritaire, au vu
du bon travail que vous faites sur la wiki anglaise.
Apr?s avoir lu le mail de notre futur (?) mod?rateur
et des r?gles de mod?ration propos?es, j'?tais
moi-m?me en train d'envisager de quitter la main
liste. Apr?s tout, elle va un peu redevenir la liste
anglaise ? ce qu'il semble.

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


body:
> Wasn't it Fred Brooks that wrote in the Mythical Man month: give me
your
> data structures, and I won't need your algorithms; give me your
> algorithms, and they will mean nothing without your data structures?

Brooks was good for his time, but Steve McConnell's "Rapid Development"
is my software bible. You can find excerpts at www.construx.com

> The interaction as I see it is a PHP module in the Apache web server
> runs some custom PHP code that connects to a MySQL database, runs
> queries, and uses the results to construct the appropriate pages.

This is the part I know. I need more detail.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:12:50PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>We need a flame-free, no-nonsense haven for discussion of Wikipedia.

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.

Since you have said you wouldn't have forwarded those messages, I see
that we disagree on the definition of a "flame".  I am against flaming.
But we need a place to put forward the facts when coming to a group
concensus about a persons behavior.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/68e17c4b/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>On Monday 09 December 2002 04:00 am, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>I don't dispute the factual correctness of Mav's statement (or his hard
>>work and dedication), but I disagree with the conclusions that he draws
>>from that statement.  I find him to prone to decide issues based on his
>>genuflections to the Google God.
>>
>I've stated on many occasions that Google is
>simply a tool to be used that can give an impression of usage when the most
>proper usage is in question. That data can then be used as one important
>external factor to help decide what we should be naming things. If and when a
>naming conflict arises or there is otherwise an ambiguity issue presented,
>then alternates need to be sought.
>
I can go along with that.  I just don't worry as much as Mav does about
the Google ranking of any particular article.  If the article is any
good, then Google will recognize it in due time.  I also don't spend
much time worrying about other people's broken links when they have
linked to some specific article.  Is there not a way whereby when a
person tries to connect to a non-existing article he can be defaulted
back to the main page?

> With deepest respect I see Mav as a
>dedicated simplifier who would very much like to see knowledge in neatly
>wrapped little packages; sometimes that means cutting off the sharp and
>thorny bits just to get the gift to fit into the package.  Once we get
>into that box it is more difficult to look out and see the other
>possibilities.
>
>Also with the deepest respect, I think your oversimplication of me as a
>"dedicated simplifier" is a bit off the mark (yet does have a thin veneer of
>truth to it). For me, its not the knowledge itself but how that knowledge
>interelates with other knowledge and how everything fits together in a
>cohesive whole in order to make something superior to the sum of its parts
>(similar to the role of chemistry and physiology in creating the emergent
>property we call life). Granted, the use of the short forms of country names
>was a bit simplistic, but it fit into our established naming conventions and
>is also the form that most people would expect - thus its perceived overall
>usefulness for both readers and contributors won the day.
>
This is interesting, because it seems to encompass the differences
between the concepts of knowledge which Mav and I have.  In a chicken or
egg controversy, I would be arguing for the chicken and he would be
arguing for the egg..  My chicken is a free-range one that is at times a
little wild and unruly; he is attracted to bright shiny objects which he
likes to bring home, but those bright shiny objects can include
undischarged bullets that explode in the chicken coop at inopportune
times.  Mav's egg is orderly and nicely shaped, and that shape contains
everything that the inhabitant will need to know for life; it has
difficulty comprehending a swan among ducklings. The wonder is not that
chemistry and physiology came together to form life, but that they did
so without human intervention.

How various bits of knowledge interrelate is indeed a focus of what we
are all doing here.  A comprehensive encyclopedia is one of the most
interdisciplinary works that can be imagined.  Most of our naming
conventions make sense, even the ones that I disagree with, but I look
at them as guidelines rather than rules.  Where the naming conventions
conflict with the knowledge, the naming convention must adapt or give
way, not the other way around.  Ideally the one thing that a naming
convention will accomplish is an assurance that somehow the article and
the links to it will be connected, each having been created without the
need to know that the other in fact exists.  I am not as commtted as Mav
to "the form that most people would expect".  I happen to believe that
the main entry for something should be at it's "most correct" form.
 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.

> This makes perfect sense until the fact that a modern nation like the PRC is
>not the same as the historical China. So, upon reflection, a more complicated
>system is needed for naming countries in order to bypass the ambiguity
>between the two different (yet related) entities and write on-topic articles.
>I in fact enjoy complex solutions so long as the result is logical, useful
>and is reasonably self-consistant with the minimum of exceptions. In short, I
>adhere to Einstein's call to make things as simple as possible, but no
>simpler. Note the "no simpler" part.
>
Einstein's comment is in some respects a modern retelling of Occam, but
the simplicity line is not always clear.  Mav's criteria for an
enjoyable complex solution are all valid.  However, even a minimum
number of exceptions is a number of exceptions, and that makes this the
most difficult of the four criteria.  The PRC/China question is a clear
example of such a problem.  Having recognized the problem, we must ask
whethger this exception is serious enough to warrant a change of policy
affecting the naming of all countries.  Probably not, but we do have an
obligation to explain the problem and the exception at the most
appropriate place, which in this instance seems to be at [[China]]..
 Similar, but still different, explanations may be needed at [[Korea]],
[[Samoa]], [[Congo]] and a few others.  But no, we do not need a more
complicated naming system just to deal with these exceptions.

>So I focus on many details at once and track how those many details might
>combine to form the big picture. Sometimes the detailed work leads to blind
>corners (or failed metabolic pathways) because I fail to take related details
>into account or fail to see their importance (or even their existence). This
>is what occurred with the China issue; I failed to compute the detail on what
>in fact was the best and most useful way for the article itself to present
>and organize its data since I overlooked the fact that the PRC and China are
>really separate entities.
>
If I had read that last paragraph in a context of dealing with gifted
children, I would say that Mav is striving for perfection.  Gifted kids
are often seriously disappointed when they cannot achieve perfection.
 The word "fail" appeared four times in that last paragraph, but it's
only meaningful in the most superficial sense.  Nobody's knowledge is so
all-encompassing that he can account for all the possible exceptions.
 What happened was not a failure.  There will always be exceptions;
there will always be ambiguous usages coming from areas of study which
have never been of interest to you at all.

Eclecticology

>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
To clarify, I'm not going to fight this thing tooth and nail, but I
have reservations.

> I'm guessing your concern is that moderation would make the project less
> open.  And who can deny that moderating the list makes the project
> slightly less open, and that indeed that is a bad thing.  I totally agree
> with that.  But alas it also appears to be a necessary thing, or so I
> think, which is why I call it a "necessary evil."  If we keep our
> moderators properly reined in (by making sure they have a set of rules
> that they are to follow), I think we can minimize the damage in this
> regard.

Well, it isn't _necessarily_ less open in any relevant sense.  It can
actually lead to greater diversity of views if we get more people
subscribed because of the lower volume.  Now, a few loud voices (like
me) dominate through sheer volume if nothing else.

I thought your view of the role of moderators was a little bit
expansive and risky.  But moderation with a very light touch can of
course do wonders without imposing any serious burden on the
legitimate expression of ideas.

I really am more concerned with speed and vibrancy.  If we have
multiple moderators (the more the merrier, I guess), then this is less
of a concern, as the lag between posting and sending out will be
reasonably short.

> Remember, you were a great moderator of a list in the distant past, Jimbo,
> and it's safe to say that it was your moderatorship that made it the great
> list it was.

Ah, an appeal to my vanity!  This is always a good tactic, if for no
other reason that I'm too lazy to engage in the endless self-promotion
that I desire.  :-)

------------------

I just quit a mailing list (related to parenting, nothing to do with
wikipedia) in disgust because the actions of the moderators were
entirely arbitrary.  That list had a strict rule against "meta", by
which they meant "commenting on the discussion itself".  For various
reasons which I can explain in a tedious diatribe if anyone asks, this
is an incoherent rule, which cannot be enforced fairly.

I wasn't considered a "bad guy" on the list when I left, quite the
contrary, I hope.  The list will not be as good, by a little bit at
least, without me there.  And I can't say that the moderators were
really "bad", either.  They were tasked with something impossible.

I'm thinking that if we moderate, I am going to get complaints about
the moderation.  But I get complaints about everything anyway, so
that's not such a big deal I guess.  :-)

--Jimbo


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.

Larry Sanger wrote:

> Ed Poor wrote:
>
> > P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a
> flame-free haven!
>
> One or the other, it doesn't matter to me.
>
> Larry
> --
> "We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
> the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
> This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Jimbo wrote:

>> I'm not really supportive of the idea, either.  Maybe there should be a
moderated list for announcements or what have you, or someone could put
together and offer an edited digest of this list, but I prefer the
vibrancy and speed we have here, and that's hard to replicate in a
moderated list. <<

I thought you'd have this reaction, and I agreed with you when we first
set up Wikipedia-l that it should be unmoderated.

We have a lot of things we *need* to talk about and moreover to *do* on
Wikipedia.  There are people who are constantly disrupting this work in
various ways that have made me and a lot of other people want to stay off.
But, like moths to the flame, we come back--because we rightly don't want
to abandon the project to the disruptors.  Of course, some amount of
disruption (depending on exactly what we mean by this) is healthy.  You
could say that I think we are way too robust in this regard.

I'm guessing your concern is that moderation would make the project less
open.  And who can deny that moderating the list makes the project
slightly less open, and that indeed that is a bad thing.  I totally agree
with that.  But alas it also appears to be a necessary thing, or so I
think, which is why I call it a "necessary evil."  If we keep our
moderators properly reined in (by making sure they have a set of rules
that they are to follow), I think we can minimize the damage in this
regard.

Remember, you were a great moderator of a list in the distant past, Jimbo,
and it's safe to say that it was your moderatorship that made it the great
list it was.

>> Mostly, I think people should just relax a notch or two.  :-) Before
each post, ask yourself if you are on the path to slack.  If not, don't
post. <<

Wise advice but giving such advice is a solution only as long as people
are inclined take it.  Surely the last many months have made it clear that
they're not.  Would that we were all as relaxed as you, KQ, Magnus, and
many others sitting in embarrassed silence while the more tightly-wound
among us make fools of ourselves.

You are a very relaxed person (he really is, folks!), and you to your
credit can often not see what all the fuss is in our flame wars or
debates.  But this doesn't really help those of us who are in the middle
of flame wars that you would, again to your credit, never get involved in.
I think we need a better solution.

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Proposed moderators:

>Ed Poor

I suspect that Ed would block too often (for my tastes at least),
but he would be scrupulously fair.

>Larry Sanger

If trolling is blockable, then I wouldn't want Larry to moderate.

>Ruth Ifcher
>Julie Kemp

I think that any moderators should be current Wikipedia participants.

>Koyaanis Qatsi

I agree with Larry that KQ would do an excellent job.

>maveric149
>-- April
>Axel Boldt
>Brion Vibber
>Magnus Manske
>Lee Crocker

Any of these would probably do all right.

>Jimbo

Jimbo would be perfect, but he won't do it --
and I think that there's probably a lesson in that for all of us.
I don't see the need yet.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Ed Poor wrote:

> P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a
flame-free haven!

One or the other, it doesn't matter to me.

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Religious and non-religious sayings (was: Moderation)

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:39:39PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>What makes you think I said I wouldn't have forwarded any of your recent
>messages?

I quote this from a previous email of yours, Ed:

==QUOTE==
Any decent moderator would have cut out:
(A) Julie's attack on Erik
(B) Erik's attack on Julie
(C) Jonathan's attack on RK
==END QUOTE==

Hope that clears things up.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/b784eaa9/attachment.pgp


from_name: martin.harper at speechmachines.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Historical NPOV and wikipedian NPOV

body:
Hi folks.

I'm curious about the relationship between historical NPOV and wikipedian
NPOV.

If I understand Julie correctly, historians tend to refrain from making
moral judgements about history, particularly when the people of that
period had a significantly different world view. So it's not OK to say
that "women were treated unfairly", but it is OK to say that "women were
not able to vote or own property" - the former being a statement of
morality and the latter being one of historical fact. Similarly,
historians explain things in terms of the temporal context, so the Rape of
the Sabines in Rome would be explained in terms of how the romans viewed
women, sex, marriage, and the necessity of making lots of little Romans
who would grow up to throw weird-shaped spears and feature in historical
novels.

However, certain periods in history have been reinterpreted by later
generations. The inquisition is a classic example, in that some neopagan
religions have used as a quasi-historical basis. Also, (IIRC) later
christian leaders have retrospectively apologised for the inquisition, so
clearly they were judging the morality of the period against modern
morality. The inquisition has been used as evidence for the claim that
christianity and/or organised religion is amoral. Finally, the term "witch
hunt" is an idiom for an irrational search for evil-doers that works
similarly to the way the Salem trials and the Inquisition are supposed (in
popular imagination) to have been conducted.

The historical NPOV would seem (if I read Julie right) to be to ignore
these later moral judgements as fundamentally ahistorical, anachronistic,
and irrelevant. My question is, is the wikipedian NPOV "wider" than the
historical NPOV: should we include content that historians would judge
inappropriate? If so, how can we include it so that the historical view is
not damaged or confused by non-historical approaches?

Martin Harper


from_name: Julie Hofmann Kemp

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Apologies and goodbye

body:
First to Anthere -- I'd have put this on  the En list, but really can't
be bothered to subscribe for one post.  Sorry about that.

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 and was an attempt to tone down a flame
war on that front.   With luck,  my removing myself from this arena will
help to draw him back to the list.

As for Larry's moderation suggestion, I think it's a good one.  As for
me being a moderator, I appreciate the support, but do not at present
have the time.   Also, considering the accusations that Erik has hurled
at me on Ed's talk page (he has repeatedly called me a liar), I cannot
see that my being included as a moderator at this juncture would be for
the good of the project.  I realize (and very much appreciate) that many
of you on the list actually do think I contribute fair-minded NPOV
articles and that I am not pushing some kind of pro-Catholic agenda --
and also that you've seen me on many occasions work with others to
fine-tune debated articles into NPOV .  I also appreciate your accepting
that I may have some idea about what's going on in my field -- but that
isn't enough, unfortunately.   I don't have time to reinvent the wheel,
which includes trying to prove that certain schools of though do not
exist to the extent that others would have wikipedia readers believe.
Proving a negative is nearly impossible, and most of the people labeled
as trolls have based the validity of their arguments on forcing others
to prove them wrong.   Best to remain uninvolved with moderation and
preserve the perceived integrity of the project.  For the same reason, I
think Ed and Mav might be compromised.  Appearances really *are*
important.

This can be a good project.  I've enjoyed most of my time here, and am
glad to have worked with many of you.  However, were any of my
colleagues to ask me if they should participate, I would at this time
say "absolutely not."  I truly believe that the wikipedia is walking a
very fine line between being at best very ordinary (information that
pretty much reiterates what's already out there, and perhaps as
out-dated as the 1911 encyclopedia) and at worst being subverted by a
few  people who have more interest in revisionism (IMO more dangerous
than some forms of relativism), misplaced political correctness, and the
subtle propagation of misleading information.  I wish you all the best
in your tightrope act -- as for me,  I'm off to continue to teach things
that Erik says medievalists don't teach.  Sue me.

Pax, Salaam, and Shalom

Jules


body:
Translation for Ed (correction encouraged):

"Don't worry about that, Ed.  It's only my impression, and it appears to
be an ultra-minority one, in view of the good work that you do on the
English Wiki.  After having read the mail about our future (?) moderator
and the proposed moderation rules, I was planning on leaving the main list
myself.  After all, in a little it will become the English list again, or
so it appears."

If Anthere would leave Wikipedia-l over this, maybe we should begin with
WikiEN-l.  I'd like to hear what arguments he has to make about the
proposal (which is just that, of course).  "I'll leave if you do" isn't
very much of an argument, though it might have an effect.  I don't see
why he says that it will become the English list again soon.

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Cc'ing wikien-l in case there are members of that list that aren't on
Wikipedia-l and haven't seen the recent discussion about making
Wikipedia-l or WikiEN-l moderated.

Jimbo wrote:

>> 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. <<

I suggest we keep discussing this for a while and then, if the discussion
is *generally* in favor of some sort of moderation scheme, Jimbo picks the
first moderators.

(I just thought that appeal to vanity would do the trick.  ;-) )

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Not a flame, but a statement for you all on NPOV and expertise

body:
> 1)  Historians are trained to try to put aside their own personal
> prejudices before writing.  We assume this when we talk about NPOV
> --that writers will try to write objectively.

That's OK, and I agree that it is necessary.

> Historians also try to
> explain things in term of the temporal context.  It's something else we
> are trained to do.

This is often an euphemism for relativism, which is particular to the field
of modern medievalism. I find it ironic that you are willing to talk about
the Greek Dark Ages (yes, I am familiar with the theory) but reject the term
for the Middle Ages. You seem to be entirely unaware of the extent of the
cultural, technological and social decay that followed the Roman Empire.

To quote Norman Cantor:

"The once-great Roman Empire, its beautiful cities, its capable gov-
ernment and lawcourts, its deeply learned schools and libraries, de-
scended into the twilight of the Dark Ages of the sixth and seventh
centuries, in which literate civilization survived only in a handful of
ecclesiastical centers, mostly walled Benedictine monasteries."

...

"Therefore, Leo XIII's successor, Pope Pius X, put on the brakes heavily to
stop the incipient intellectual and spiritual revolution that was loosely
called
Catholic modernism. He condemned it as heresy in 1907. The work of
the most distinguished Catholic historian of the early church, Louis
Duchesne, was unembarrassedly put on the Index of Prohibited Books
in 1912, even though Father Duchesne continued to hold a senior
position in a clerical institution in Rome until his death in 1922. A
chill descended on Catholic historical scholarship, and repressive in-
tellectual guidelines were promulgated that were not extensively
withdrawn until the 1960s. They have been partly reimposed, with
respect to the teaching of theology and sexual ethics, under John Paul
II in the 1980s.

"As a result of these starts and stops in the modernization of Catholic
culture, rigid codes readily emerged for the way Catholic scholars were
supposed to interpret the Middle Ages. It had to be a very
defensive approach to the church's role. An extremely positive view
of the continuity of a benignly arrayed papal power was prescribed.
Catholics could write about the Middle Ages, but only in ways that
made the modern church and papacy, held to be the direct continuator
of the medieval institution, look very good. Catholic scholars in
their invention of the Middle Ages were not to say things that would
bring the church and papacy at any time into disrepute or to raise
questions about the absolute authority of the papacy or universal ap-
plicability of canon law, the merit of religious orders, or the wisdom
and learning of medieval Schoolmen. In short, nothing bad about the
Middle Ages was to be articulated so as to give comfort to critics of
the Catholic Church."

Cantor describes in detail how this new historical tradition was created and
how it permeates, to this day, much of historical scholarship about the
medieval period. He's professor emeritus of history, sociology and comparative
literature at New York University.

> 2) all of the stuff initially written on NPOV and similar policies
> points out that not all theories are equally valid, and that those that
> aren't should receive proportionately less space than the predominant
> theories.  When theories are crank theories, or when they have fallen
> into disrepute, we don't need to put them in -- or should mentions this.

I agree. That's why I asked for evidence other than hearsay on why White
shouldn't be included. You, however, simply pointed to your alleged expertise as
proof. Also, in general, even if a theory is "crankish" (which I do not
consider any of my views to be), if it is verifiable information, it's perfectly
OK to put it in *somewhere*, albeit not necessarily in the main article.

> 4) Just because much of the modern world view began in the Enlightenment
> doesn't mean it's the best view.

That's your POV. It's as good a POV as any, but it's a POV.

> 5) Not all people accept that religion is a destructive force in society

True.

> 6) Erik, who comes at the world believing that religion is by nature (or
> application) socially destructive, that post-Enlightenment thought is in
> some way, more correct, and that the world before the Renaissance was
> somehow a lesser thing to be judged  by modern standards, seems unable
> to keep these views from influencing many of his contributions.

Evidence?

> What
> makes it seem more reasonable in Erik's case is that he assumes that his
> views are both correct and universally accepted as sensible.

This sentence makes no sense. Have you forgotten a "not"? I have never
claimed, or do claim, that my views are the only acceptable ones. If you claim
that I have, you are simply lying.

> This is
> about as neutral as, for example, Helga with her anachronistic
> nationalist backwards projections or Ark with his dogmatic acceptance of
> deMause's marginal theories.

Ah, I see where you're going. Now you're showing your true colors. Instead
of putting up different historical arguments, let's just ban everyone who
disagrees.

> -- He is equally incapable of neutrality and equally anti-social -- one
> has only to read the Galileo talk to see that his inability to work with
> others and his lack of respect for people who disagree with him is
> clear.

I respect people who are willing to work in a mutual spirit of cooperation,
and who do not constantly try to remove legitimate information. It's no
surprise to me that my only unpleasant edit conflict on Wikipedia, besides the
ongoing problems with Clutch, has been with you and Michael Tinkler.

> Y'all might at some point notice that you've lost most of the people who
> actually are specialists in History and who actually work in that field
> as a profession.

Well, if we lose the historians who think that the relativist perspective is
the only one that is valid, I consider that loss nothing to be too worried
about. Your understanding of NPOV is clearly incomplete at best.

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!


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
I agree with Larry's proposal for a moderated Wikipedia mailing list.

Two issues arise therefrom:

* which lists should be moderated?
-- wikiEN-l
-- wikipedia-l
-- both

* who should moderate?

I will support any of following as moderators for either of the the above lists:
* Larry Sanger
* Daniel (mav)
* Jimbo

Larry would be the best, although he also participates. But I trust him not to abuse his role. I only worry that he'd be too soft-hearted on the eedjits and let them rant on too long.

Daniel could also do an equally good job, although I doubt he has the time what with school and all. I bet he'd be quicker to pounce on eedjicy.

Jimbo simply doesn't have the time, so I don't think he'd agree to do this.

And of course while I feel compelled to abstain from self-nomination, I'm willing to take a crack at it: I think I'd make an excellent moderator :-)

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
> Would anybody see the value in having a separate list for mod_wiki
> development questions/arguments?
>
> --
> "Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>

Sounds good to me. Would you like to be its administrator?

Ed Poor
wikiEN-l administrator


from_name: Tom Parmenter

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Actually, from my experience, just having a moderator who weighs in
occasionally keeps the tone a bit higher with no loss of freedom of
expression.  I moderated mailing lists for an addiction group and for
a company and I never had to stop any piece of mail and only had to
ban one contributor (who I now understand to have been trolling).
Every once in awhile, I'd send a piece of mail (I did not otherwise
participate in either list) sort of tooting the lifeguard whistle and
things would calm right down.

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations

body:
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 12:47, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator:
[..]
> Brion Vibber
> * for: Erik, Ed, Larry

I'll pass -- as it is, my Wikipedia time is mostly taken up maintaining
the software and I don't have time to contribute content.

> Having moderation at all: Larry proposed it, and I assume everyone else who "voted" agrees with it
> * dimpled chad: Erik (Eloquence)
> * hanging chad: Tom Parmenter (aka Ortolan88)
> * pregnant chad: Jimbo (won't fight it, but has reservations)
> * opposed: Matthew Woodcraft

I'd be happy with a little self-moderation -- remember, boys and girls,
it's JUST a world-class encyclopedia that will become the primary
reference source for the whole world in centuries to come. No need to
get worked up! ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
I don't much like Ed's suggestion that we moderate people rather than
posts.  With a virtuous few exceptions, most of us have posted things to
the list that would have been rejected by a good moderator.

The idea of having a list of people who need approval first would be
*highly* controversial, and that's controversy we don't need.  We don't
need to give anyone more reason to think that there is a cabal.  I support
treating everyone equal in this regard, even if it means more work for the
moderators.

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 means two things.  First, most importantly, we've got to ensure that
moderators do *not*, in fact, abuse their power.  (Never give the
above-mentioned types legitimate reason to complain.)  The policy has to
be clear and decisions have to be rendered fairly and objectively.
Second, we need to make it clear from the outset that if wikien-l *does*
become moderated, that *does indeed* mean that somebody's going to have
power that they didn't have before.  That in turn means that we have
accepted the associated risks, and a *few* mistakes are perfectly
predictable, and moreover, within the bounds of acceptability.

LP/Camembert wrote:
>> 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. <<

The problem is that the noise drives off the signal and even literally
drives off prime producers of signal (e.g., posts from Julie and KQ would
count as signal).  Basically, there are too many children on the list, and
there needs to be a few playground moms, or else the adults will want to
have nothing to do with the list.

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.


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.

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.


body:
I wrote:

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.

-----

By "this particular issue" I meant only who the moderators should be--not
whether there should be moderation.  That is, indeed, something that I
think should depend a great deal on "votes."

Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Any decent moderator would have cut out:
(A) Julie's attack on Erik
(B) Erik's attack on Julie
(C) Jonathan's attack on RK
etc.

If Uncle Ed ever became moderator, the first person he'd probably
squelch would proabably be Clutch.

(My goodness, I'm even starting to talk like him! "Holy 3rd person,
Batman!")

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
> >> Would anybody see the value in having a separate list for mod_wiki
> >> development questions/arguments?
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>
> >
> >Sounds good to me. Would you like to be its administrator?
>
> 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.
>
> Jonathan

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

Ed Poor


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

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 10:02:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>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.

Those who support my edits:
         - CYD
	 - Eclecticology
	 - myself

>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

There was nothing whimsical or unfactual about that statement; Wagners
anti-Semitic pamphlet "Judaism in Music" was indeed a youthful writing.
Yet, in the spirit of mutual respect, I left it alone when someone else
removed it.

Your characterisation of my edits is ad hominem and not justified by the
actual facts of the case.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20021211/f1514b3d/attachment.pgp


subject: [Wikipedia-l] tit for tat

body:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:44:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>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.

Traditional game theory is a bunch of hokum when applied to the
complexity of real life relationships, where payoffs people seek from an
interaction are many and varied, and definitely different from person to
person.

Jonathan

--
                     Geek House Productions, Ltd.

  Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
  QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
  General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   djw at reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021211/468d0d6a/attachment.pgp


body:
> > And of course while I feel compelled to abstain from
> > self-nomination, I'm willing to take a crack at it:
>
> > I think I'd make an excellent moderator :-)
>
> En toute honnetet?, permettez moi de ne pas ?tre
> *enti?rement* d'accord Edmond...

Je ne me nomine que la liste anglaise.

Edmond Le Pauvre


body:
Ed Poor wrote:

I said that these would all probably be OK, so let's call that a pregnant chad:

>-- April
>Axel Boldt
>Brion Vibber
>Lee Crocker
>Magnus Manske
>maveric149

But this I am against, despite voting on moderators if they must exist,
or at best am a dimpled chad:

>Having moderation at all: Larry proposed it,
>and I assume everyone else who "voted" agrees with it

Even if Jimbo chooses the moderators (and if we have them),
I would strongly suggest avoiding controversial people
(most famously Larry and The Cunctator, also others) --
a single opposition should be enough to derail a moderator
(not counting the case where somebody opposes every moderator).

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
We need a flame-free, no-nonsense haven for discussion of Wikipedia.

I agree 100% with:
*Larry's list of nomimated moderators
*Larry's proposal for the duties of a moderator

Please note that my agreement is NOT contingent on me being one of the moderators; I'm not volunteering myself: just agreeing to serve if called upon.

P.S. I also support starting with wikiEN-l first; anything to make a flame-free haven!

Ed Poor


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations

body:
Ed Wrote:
>Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:

<snip>

>KQ
>* for: Toby, Larry, Ed

Ed, I did *not* tell you this, and I'm curious how you came to that
conclusion.  I have not discussed moderation with anyone.

kq


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations


body:
Brion Wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 12:47, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
>[..]
>> Brion Vibber
>> * for: Erik, Ed, Larry
>
>I'll pass -- as it is, my Wikipedia time is mostly taken up maintaining
>the software and I don't have time to contribute content.

I read the list backwards--I see now.  Erik, Ed, and Larry voted for
Brion, not the other way around.  Apologies, Ed; I've misunderstood
your post.

Hangdog,

kq


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Eloquence wrote:

>Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project
>like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.

Although I've tangled with Larry myself in the past,
and have said that I wouldn't want him to be moderator,
I don't think that this is a fair appraisal.
Larry strikes me as somebody that might not wield power wisely (sorry),
but nevertheless would not abuse it.
And what power he does have and has had has not been abused, AFAICT.
I suspect that he would be particularly loathe
to censor posts critical of himself.

Well, that's my impression of him, in any case.

-- Toby


body:
Could someone please translate the following? It seems important.

(S'il vous plait, traduisez le text prochain; c'est tres important.)

Ne vous inqui?tez pas pour ?a Edmond. Ce n'est que mon
impression, et elle apparait ultra-minoritaire, au vu
du bon travail que vous faites sur la wiki anglaise.
Apr?s avoir lu le mail de notre futur (?) mod?rateur
et des r?gles de mod?ration propos?es, j'?tais
moi-m?me en train d'envisager de quitter la main
liste. Apr?s tout, elle va un peu redevenir la liste
anglaise ? ce qu'il semble.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthere [mailto:anthere5 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:11 PM
To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation of the main list (not the english
list)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations

body:
Ed Wrote:
>Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:

<snip>

>KQ
>* for: Toby, Larry, Ed

*opposed: KQ

best,

kq


body:
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.

-- Toby


body:
I didn't say half the things I said. --Yogi Berra

What makes you think I said I wouldn't have forwarded any of your recent
messages?

May I take your recent post as an admission that what you said about RK
was "an attack"? If so, would you care to apologize to him?

Uncle Ed, a most forgiving man

----

"Come to me, all who are heavy-laden, and I shall give you rest. For my
burden is light and easy to bear." (Christianity)

"Let us reason together, saith the LORD. Though your sins be dark as
scarlet, they shall be made pure as snow." (Judaism)

"Before each post, ask yourself if you are on the path to slack."
(atheism)


body:
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:36, The Cunctator wrote:
> At least 90% of our problems would be solved, without adding hierarchies
> and censorship, if we just moved to a bulletin board system.

What are the problems that this would solve, and how would it solve
them?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations

body:
>Sorry for the confusion.
>
>I meant that you (KQ) have been nominated, and that Toby, Larry and I
have voiced our support for you.
>
>(Also, no one will be *forced* to become a moderator.)
>
>Ed Poor

That's fine, but I'm sorry I'm so testy lately.

apologies (again),

kq (going to soak his head now)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
A moderated list need not be one in which each post is pre-filtered. What if the moderator wants to go to sleep?

I envision a moderator classing letter-writers into three groups:
* good (posts go directly to list)
* bad (posts are held pending approval)
* ugly (posts are automatically deleted)

As long as a poster didn't get nasty, they could stay on the good list. If someone started "acting up", the moderator could shift them to the "bad" list for a while. Like, until they calmed down.

Ed "go stand in the corner!" Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
As one of the list administrators, I already have the *power* to ban posters or put them on the naughty list (i.e., the "I have to read it before deciding whether to pass it on" list).

I don't have the *authority* do to this, though. So I don't even consider doing so.

This is just like my status as a "developer", which gives me the *power* -- but not the *authority* -- to ban any user from Wikipedia or promote or demote sysops.

Ahh, the responsible exercise of power: how difficult it is! Yet, how essential!

Ed Poor
wikiEN-l administrator
& Wikipedia developer
& Wikipedia sysop


subject: [Wikipedia-l] tit for tat

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

A tooth for a tooth makes the world's dentists rich. -- my dentist

Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Erik asked,

<< How will the moderation be set up? >>

I think the majority of posts should go directly to the list.

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).

If they keep violating etiquette, the moderator can place the poster on the "screened posters" list. (That is, they'd move a step down from "good" to "bad" on my good, bad and ugly scale.)

Only screened posts would have to be read by a moderator.

Ed Poor

P.S. I don't think Larry actually nominated himself, although he may have seconded his own nomination.

P.P.S. I hereby second my own nomination


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

body:
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:55, The Cunctator wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 17:45, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:36, The Cunctator wrote:
> > > At least 90% of our problems would be solved, without adding hierarchies
> > > and censorship, if we just moved to a bulletin board system.
> >
> > What are the problems that this would solve, and how would it solve
> > them?
> >
> It would solve the basic scaling problems
> * the problem of flooded inboxes

Present solution: Filter your mailbox; put lists in their own folders.
(But not everyone has a mailreader that does filtering, or knows how to
set it up if they do.)

> * the problem of lack of threading

Present solution: Use a threaded mailreader.
(But not everyone has a mailreader that does threading, or knows has to
turn it on if they do.)

> * the problem of ephemerality of content (by making it easy to refer to
> earlier threads)

Present solution: Hyperlink to the archives on the web; most mailreaders
these days will let you click on a URL.
(But it's harder to reply to the original post; it's hard to search the
archives; URLs are long.)

> These scaling problems underlie the current tensions causing the
> upswells of conflict on the lists.
>
> If the bbs were integrated with the Wikipedia system (that is, it
> recognized users and/or allowed people to make wiki links) it would
> solve
> * the problem of obscurity and

Not sure what you mean here -- perhaps easier ability to link from
Wikipedia pages to particular threads in the bbs? How so?

> * the problem of not being able to link directly to [[Wikipedia]]

Now, that _would_ be nice.

> * the problem of not being able to coordinate Talk page discussion with
> list-based discussions

I'm not sure how the bbs helps here. It's trivial to include a URL to a
talk page in a list message, and URLs to bbs threads are about as
obscure as URLs to the mailing list archive.

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.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations

body:
Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator:

-- April
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry

Axel Boldt
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry

Brion Vibber
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry

Ed
* for: Larry, Jonathan (Clutch)
* pregnant chad: Erik (only as co-moderator)
* dimpled chad: Toby
* hanging chad: Anthere (pas *enti?rement* d'accord)

Jimbo:
* for: everyone but him
* opposed: himself

Julie
* for: Larry
* opposed: Erik, Julie, Toby

KQ
* for: Toby, Larry, Ed

Larry
* for: Ed, Jonathan (Clutch)
* opposed: Erik, Toby

Lee Crocker
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry

Magnus Manske
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry

maveric149
* for: Erik, Ed, Larry
* opposed: Jonathan (Clutch)

Ruth
* for: Larry
* opposed: Toby

Having moderation at all: Larry proposed it, and I assume everyone else who "voted" agrees with it
* dimpled chad: Erik (Eloquence)
* hanging chad: Tom Parmenter (aka Ortolan88)
* pregnant chad: Jimbo (won't fight it, but has reservations)
* opposed: Matthew Woodcraft

(signed)
Ed Poor
Administrator for wikiEN-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Against moderation

body:
I am against moderation of any Wikipedia mailing lists.

* It creates a new level of power, and thus goes completely in the
wrong direction and against wiki principles. Some people appear to be
rather eager to serve as moderators because of this. (Was this a
flame?)

* What a flame is can be debated. Erik's recent rather hostile analysis
of Julie's work could certainly be judged either way. But it is always
better to see borderline cases than to suppress them.

* If you, like me, think these lists carry too much traffic, get
yourself a throwaway email account at yahoo.com and/or read the lists
on the web. Yahoo even lets you filter out and trash messages by
subject, author or keyword.

* Simply ignore flames, what could be easier?

Axel

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


from_name: Digital Addictions Software

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

body:
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.  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.  But what do I know, I'm just a lowly wikipedian.
	Ram-Man

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
Lee Pilich wrote:

> At 18:43 11/12/2002 +0000, Jimbo wrote:
>
>> 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.

Lee pretty well captures my on the moderation issue.  There's no point
to my adding more verbiage to this topic.
Eclecticology

>


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

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.

Like: any sysop can protect an article (as I have sometimes done), and any sysop can unprotect it (as Camembert has sometimes done). I presume that moderators won't start a "moderator war"!!! :-)

Ed Poor


body:
Don't worry, Larry, you're a shoo-in for First Moderator. I just like tabulating things.

In fact, I don't think the list is going to become moderated unless there's a consensus. If it's 50-50 or 60-40, maybe we should leave it as is. I'm not trying to ram anything through, and I'm sure you aren't either. I mean, shucks, you only proposed the idea today. A lot of people haven't even read the list digest yet.

In scrupulous fairness,

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
As far as I know, the mailing list software is already set up to support moderation, either by a single individual or a team -- exactly as previously discussed.

The only issues are:
* should wikiEN-l or wikipedia-l (or both) be moderated
* who ought to be moderator(s)
* what should the rules of participation be

I bet the first rule we'd all like to have is that a Moderator should not use "moderation" to as a weapon in debate (!) -- just as a sysop should not.

Ed Poor
(just a list administrator -- not a moderator)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
In answer to your comment Larry

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

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

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 ? 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.

> 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). 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.

> There should also be a French language moderator.
> :-)  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 :-)

> 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.

> I've written two or three moderation policies before
> and I've given them a
> lot of thought.  Roughly speaking (this would need
> fine-tuning), I suggest
> the following:
>
> * When in doubt, approve the post.  Don't block
> posts that are on the
>   borderline.
> * Reject posts that express any sort of disrespect
> for others.  There can
>   be exceptions; for example, if we have to discuss
> a problem troll on
>   Wikipedia, then expressions of disrespect (among
> other things) are
>   totally on-topic.  This implies reject of the
> following:
>  * Plain old insults.
>  * Slightly subtle implications of something highly
> insulting.
>    (Certain Wikipedians have perfected this to an
> art form.)
>  * Really obvious condescension and other
> disrespectful attitudes.
> * To human beings and listmembers (as opposed to
> spammers, for instance),
>   always give some explanation of why the post is
> rejected.  If the
>   software doesn't do it (I think it does, though),
> include the full post
>   with the rejection so that the author can revise
> it.
> * Reject all spam without comment.
> * On Wikipedia-l, reject posts that should go to
> WikiEN-l (I happen to
>   agree with this rule that was foisted upon us
> without much discussion
>   ;-) ).
> * 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.  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.
>
> Larry

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.

* 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

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.

Please don't mix flame issues with other issues.

-----

But 2 is the most important point.

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
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.

My proposal is only to use the "naughty" category as a temporary measure, to cool off someone who's flagrantly violating the rules. Like a one-hour, three-hour or one-day suspension of "good" status.

I wager that no more than 2 or 3 people would ever get placed in such status at a time. Even then, if even one member of the Moderator Team approved a post from a "person in limbo", it would go through to the list.

If you were suggesting that ALL POSTS be checked first, then count me out. That would be too much work for me. If nominated, I *might* serve, but I'm liable to just set the "pass all posts" flag and not actually read each one first.

I think we should only filter posts from scofflaws, not from everyone.

I hope I've made my position clear -- if not persuasive.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikitech-l] Advanced search issue

body:
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 19:37, Andre Engels wrote:
> If one does a search in other namespaces, and then presses 'Next 100', one
> gets the 101st to 200th of the normal search rather than the changed search.

Should be fixed now, please confirm.

(I'm having trouble committing the fix to CVS though; sourceforge server
isn't accepting connections.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] tit for tat

body:
It is my understanding that the Biblical injunction, "an eye for an eye
a tooth for a tooth", actually means "the punishment should fit the
crime".

These figures of speech will get away from us no matter what we do.
"No love was lost between them" was written to mean, "all love flowed
between them and none was lost".

Tom P.
O88


body: yep. (see subject line)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
The moderator doesn't have to approve every posting.  Just watch the
list, toot the lifeguard whistle from time to time when swimmers go
too far from shore or bother others, correspond privately with problem
posters, have the power to check mail from a problem poster and use it
wisely, including permanently sending their mail to the bit bucket if
necessary.

Tom P.
O88


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderation software

body:
Erik asked, "...does our software actually support such moderator teams?"

I checked on the admin page for the mailing list, under Privacy Options: general posting filters.

It has two relevant options:
1. Hold all posts for administrator review
2. Hold all posts, except from a specified list of subsribers, for review

I think that'll do it.

As of now, there are 3 people listed as wikiEN-l administrators:
* me (Ed Poor)
* elian at gmx.li (Elian)
* dairiki+wpadmin at dairiki.org (not sure who this is)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations

body:
> >KQ
> >* for: Toby, Larry, Ed
>
>
> Ed, I did *not* tell you this, and I'm curious how you came to that
> conclusion.  I have not discussed moderation with anyone.
>
> kq

Sorry for the confusion.

I meant that you (KQ) have been nominated, and that Toby, Larry and I have voiced our support for you.

(Also, no one will be *forced* to become a moderator.)

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
> The moderator doesn't have to approve every posting.  Just watch the
> list, toot the lifeguard whistle from time to time when swimmers go
> too far from shore or bother others, correspond privately with problem
> posters, have the power to check mail from a problem poster and use it
> wisely, including permanently sending their mail to the bit bucket if
> necessary.
>
> Tom P.
> O88

That's exactly what the mailing list software is set up to do.

I just took a look at the administrative website, and I'm prepared at the drop of a hat to implement a Moderation Policy. All I need is a list of who's on the Moderator Team.

I suggest we bat it around for a few more days, though. No sense in making a quick decision.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
 I will stop participating in Wikipedia if the lists are moderated by
anyone other than Jimbo.

This is, to use one proposed moderator's turn of phrase, a "*really,
really* bad idea, nay, a breathtakingly idiotic idea".

Or to use another proposed moderator's turn of phrase, "Horseshit".

Or maybe we should have the person who wrote "I hate everybody and
everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop me." moderate.

Or maybe the one who wrote "The mailing list is the semi-secret
repository for the behind-the-scenes scheming to change Wikipedia."

At least 90% of our problems would be solved, without adding hierarchies
and censorship, if we just moved to a bulletin board system.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Moderator nominations

body:
If a single veto were to derail a nomination, that would appear to winnow the list down to Axel, Lee, Magnus and yours truly (Uncle Ed). A number of nominees have already declined to serve.

On the other hand, maybe I've just turned a deaf ear to all those who wouldn't want me to moderate the list. C'mon, let's have a little negative campaigning, here! ;-)

Ed Poor


from_name: Robert Kaiser

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Offense at repeated slander on the Wikipedia-L list by Clutch

body:
Jonathan Walther <krooger at debian.org> wrote:>
Jimmy, I caught RK pulling 'facts' out of his ass, and provided a link
>to it.  Bias is one thing, but outright fabrication should be taken
>seriously.  Do you take it seriously?  Do we as an encyclopedia take it
>seriously?  I personally take it very seriously.

This is outright libel. Jonathan is not only lying, he has a public history
of flaming both me and other Wikipedia contributors with virulently
anti-Semitic statements.

He has created some rather hateful lies about how Wikipedia is turning into
"Zionipedia" (itself a blatantly racist statement); he has some clinically
paranoid delusions about how "Zionists" are warping "Zionipedia". The facts,
however, show no such thing. If people take the time to read the Talk pages
that Jonathan is contributing to, they will see that I also make a good
faith effort to work with others to create NPOV articles - for instance, see
my recent contributions to the Book of Revelations article and the Book of
Mormon article. In contrast, note that virtually everyone is opposed to his
virulently hateful attacks, and his distastfeful apologetics for
anti-Semitism within Wikipedia articles.

I have stayed silent on this issue long enough. Time and time again he is
slandering me on this forum, and it has reached the point of libel. Stop it.
And stop it now. If people on Wikipedia cannot act like civilized human
beings, then leave. But don't use this forum for repeated libel.

Robert (RK)


body:
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 17:45, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:36, The Cunctator wrote:
> > At least 90% of our problems would be solved, without adding hierarchies
> > and censorship, if we just moved to a bulletin board system.
>
> What are the problems that this would solve, and how would it solve
> them?
>
It would solve the basic scaling problems
* the problem of flooded inboxes
* the problem of lack of threading
* the problem of ephemerality of content (by making it easy to refer to
earlier threads)

These scaling problems underlie the current tensions causing the
upswells of conflict on the lists.

If the bbs were integrated with the Wikipedia system (that is, it
recognized users and/or allowed people to make wiki links) it would
solve
* the problem of obscurity and
* the problem of not being able to link directly to [[Wikipedia]]
* the problem of not being able to coordinate Talk page discussion with
list-based discussions

Etc.


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Moderator nominations

body:
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 17:48, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> If a single veto were to derail a nomination, that would appear to winnow
> the list down to Axel, Lee, Magnus and yours truly (Uncle Ed).
> A number of nominees have already declined to serve.
>
If a single veto were to derail a nomination, that would winnow the list
to Jimbo.


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Moderator nominations

body:
Jimbo already refused, leaving no one.

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

Ed Poor


from_name: Robert

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

body:
Please ban Clutch (Jonathan Walter); his harassment has
gotten totally out of control. I agree with Erik Moeller's
recent posts on this issue.

As Erik has stated, "Clutch" continues to violate Wikipedia
policy and always unilaterally removes portions of the
Richard Wagner article which illustrates Wagner's
anti-Semitism. Clutch then inserts a breaktakingly
dishonest apologetic for anti-Semitism, and then slanders
me as a "Zionist" for daring to disagree with him.

(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.)

Also, Erik points out, there is a long-defined consensus on
the Talk: page among all the participants that Clutch is
violating policy.

Further, in recent days he has taken to posting libelous
statements on the main meta-Wikipedia listserv, and is
intent on portraying himself as the victim of a
Wikipedia-wide "Zionist" conspiracy. (For those not in the
know, Clutch has repeatedly slandered the Wikipedia project
as being a "Zionipedia" project.)

This is not just annoying. He is an internet troll trying
to disrupt the community. Please do not allow him to
continue doing so.

Robert (User:RK)

=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]

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


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
If I were a Moderator, I would give Jonathan a "day off" from the list. You have been very patient and cooperative, though, Robert.

Ed Poor
--not a moderator, just an admin for wikiEN-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Moderator nominations

body:
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 18:01, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Jimbo already refused, leaving no one.
>
> Who vetoed Axel, Lee or Magnus? (And I forgot to mention April).
>
> Ed Poor

It was I, said the sparrow.


body:
Well, I have to go to church now and help the choir practice subversive songs like "In Excelsis Deo" and other Christmas carols.

See ya all tomorrow.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation

body:
I'm not entirely opposed to moderation. Julie's personal attack against me
would not have made it to the list with proper moderation in place, and the
same goes for Larry's flames against TheCunctator et al. However, as someone
who currently moderates a mailing list with 170 members, I can say that it's
quite a lot of work to do so, and it's also often hard to make fair decisions.
I would oppose a moderation system where the entire duty of moderation rests
on one person, but if there's a system we can use where moderation decisions
are reviewed by several persons, that would sound reasonable.

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!


subject: [Wikitech-l] mod_wiki

body:
> Would anybody see the value in having a separate list for mod_wiki
> development questions/arguments?

I have suggested this when the mod_wiki idea first came up and still support
it. I would probably subscribe to that list, too.

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: Rosa Williams

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations & compromise suggestion

body:
> >-- April

Wha, wha?  I'm honored and flattered and enormously pleased. :)   That said,
I have enough self-knowledge to know that I can run pretty hot-tempered at
times, I just express it as sarcasm rather than direct insult. Same song,
different key... just as inappropriate for someone who has to be impartial.
I also, realistically, doubt that I'd have the time to put in to proper
moderation duties.

That said, I was struck by what Tom Parmenter said earlier: how just having
a striped shirt around to blow the whistle and say "cool it, guys!"  can be
bloody useful.  This gives me the idea for a compromise proposal.  Instead
of moderating the list, at least for now, why not appoint a few "referees"?
Their function would be to respond ASAP when a discussion starts to get
ugly, and say: "TWEET!!  If I were a moderator I would have blocked that
post for X reason."   This means the list keeps at its current speed and
responsiveness,  while still having people around to step in and point out
that someone's going beyond the pale when they're too emotionally involved
to see it themselves.

Nor would the position of referee be toothless, as some might fear. After
all, they can always threaten to start up the moderation discussion again.
;)  More seriously, if someone's collecting a lot of whistle-toots, that can
be brought to the attention of Fearless Leader... er, kidding, Jimbo.... who
can then Take Appropriate Steps. Note that this doesn't require too much
extra effort either from Jimbo or the referees, making it quite easy to
institute. And such "referees" could check each other, too, an important
point to keep in mind, as we're all human and slip sometimes.  This, my
objections to myself above would not apply to a referee position (hint,
hint... :)

Now, on the other side of things, some people are vehemently against
establishing any sort of heirarchy.  It is, of course, quite possible for
everyone to referee; to an extent, we all do (calls to stop flaming, etc).
However, there's a difference between a few people saying "stop that!"  and
a few people /who have been mutually agreed upon by the list to keep an eye
on things/ saying "stop that!"  The first is an expression of personal
opinion; the second is an expression of personal opinion backed by a mutual
agreement.  When attending demonstrations, there are often people with
orange T-shirts or armbands running around, and the demonstrators usually
listen to them. They have no legal power, but the demonstrators understand
that they're there for the safety and well-being of all.   (Yes, there are
some who will get out of hand. That's why we have police and Jimbo,
respectively...)

And, of course, my best argument:  if we try voluntary moderation via
referee, and it doesn't work, then full moderation will remain an option,
and now with the advantage of saying, "we tried it the other ways..." :)

-- April (chucking another opinion onto the pile)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations & compromise suggestion