subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority

body:
Quotes from me are preceded by >, from Erik by >> and followed by <<.

> That's probably one main point of disagreement, then. Suffice it to
> say I've been with Wikipedia from the beginning and I do think that
> things are very bad right now, far worse than they have been in the
> beginning.  I think it's becoming nearly intolerable for polite and
> well-meaning people to participate, because they're constantly having
> to deal with people who simply don't respect the rules.

>> It would be nice to get some specific examples. <<

How many specific examples would it take to convince you, I wonder?  I
doubt I could produce enough, because our difference is philosophical.

>> Perhaps Ed's "Annoying users" page (if renamed) isn't such a bad idea. <<

Due respect to Ed, but I seriously doubt that.

>> I have certainly observed some people like Lir to be quite persistent
and sometimes silly, but I have also noticed quite a bit of hysteria from
the other side (see the recent "Lir again" thread). <<

Hysteria?  I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and she
should probably be banned.  In saying this I am not aware of being
"hysterical."  When you seemingly coolly accuse people of "hysteria,"
Erik, the word implies that the people responding to Lir are purely
motivated by irrational emotions and, like literally hysterical neurotics
like Freud studied, merely have emotional problems.

So, here you come out more or less in favor of Lir, because others have
banned her and/or are suggesting that she should be banned; and you accuse
others, who are trying to keep Wikipedia a ***PRODUCTIVE*** project, of
being "hysterical."

>> So maybe we should start collecting individual case histories and
examine them in more detail, instead of relying on our personal
observations entirely. This might allow us to come up with better
policies, and quantify the need for stronger enforcement. <<

No.  Our collective experience is more than enough proof that we need
*consistent* enforcement, Erik, not *stronger* enforcement.  Right now we
have very strong enforcement.  Your interest is obviously not in reducing
power but in keeping power distributed among a lot of different people who
use it in totally different, inconsistent ways, and none of which has any
particular respect among other users.  Virtually anyone can, for the
asking, get sysop privileges and start banning IPs and locking pages.
That certainly appears to be mob rule and by golly, in my experience on
Wikipedia lately I have to say it certainly *feels* like mob rule.

If we had power concentrated in the power of a rotating group of trusted
individuals who could be appealed to to enforce the *actual rules* that we
now have on the project--we do have rules on the project, but the
enforcement mechanism for them is no longer working, I think--then there
would be, as there is not now, *clear consequences* for breaking the
rules.  These people would have moral authority and respect that *no one*
can command right now.

> In that case, we can always collect a list of people who have been
> driven away or who have quietly stopped editing so much out of disgust
> with having to deal with people who just don't get it.

>> That's not the kind of list I'm talking about, because it only tells us
about the reactions, not the actual actions. You may say that these people
were driven away by silly eedjots, but I cannot tell whether this is true
without looking at the actual conflicts. <<

Be serious--look at what you just wrote.  Does anyone other than you
really need it to be proven?  It's *obvious* to anyone who has observed
very many of the people who have left the project in disgust.  It's also
quite obviously the fact that we have to tolerate a bunch of people who
just don't want to play by the rules--even after being told what the rules
are and that those rules are indeed not going to be changed--that a lot of
highly qualified people see the website and decide not to participate.

>> Often I've seen so-called experts on Wikipedia try to stop reasonable
debate by simple assertion of their authority. This doesn't work, and this
shouldn't work on Wikipedia, and if they can't handle that fact, it's my
turn to say they should better leave. <<

Wait a second.  Take a step back and put this exchange into context.  I
said that Wikipedia is descending into a sort of mob rule, and that this
has driven away, and will continue to drive away, some of our best
contributors.  You reply, here, by defending the mob against the experts.
This seems to me to imply that you simply value the radical freedom and
openness in Wikipedia--which I wholeheartedly agree is one main key to its
success--above retaining the people who can write and have written some of
the best articles in the project.

I think your priorities are seriously askew.

> I'm talking about a body of trusted members, not an "elite."  Tarring
> the proposal with that word isn't an argument.

>> Sorry, but I do not really see much of a difference. A group with
superior powers is an elite, trusted or not. The word "elite" requires a
certain stability of that position, though, so it might not apply to an
approach of random moderation privileges. <<

That shows that you're essentially viewing this ideologically, and that
you're expecting the rest of us to buy an essentially anarchistic
ideology: *any* group of trusted members who has powers others don't have
is *by definition* an "elite."  But in the mouths of any libertarian or
anarchist, "elites" (and "cabals") are necessarily evil.  Hence anyone
distinguished by special powers is an evil elite and to be opposed.

The result of this ideology is that *anyone* who is distinguished in any
way that results in their having more authority--whether officially or
unofficially--will be opposed as an evil "elite" or "cabal" by you and
people like you.  Thus we have a small but **far** too vocal band of
Wikipedians who oppose virtually everything that implies any distinctions:
banning, neutrality, prising off meta-discussion from article creation,
and any community standards generally.

They, like every committed Wikipedian, can't help but derive pleasure from
the fact that we have built up a huge structure of knowledge.  But they
have a woefully incomplete idea what makes it possible.  What makes it
possible is precisely the *combination* of freedom, which makes it easy to
contribute, *and* enforced standards, which define and guide our mission.

But in the context of a wiki, the only way to enforce standards is by a
great enough proportion of contributors *respecting other contributors*
when those other contributors do try to enforce the rules.  When that
breaks down--when a large enough quorum of parasites decides the rules do
not apply to them, or that nobody ought to be paid any special respect--it
naturally follows that rules will be openly flouted.  (And then there are,
emboldened, people like yourself, Cunctator, and a few others who defend
the parasites because you also innately feel that nobody ought to be paid
any special respect and that there should not be any rules.  How elitist.)

And then it becomes a waste of time for people who *do* want to contribute
to a project defined by rules, with a particular purpose.

> Well, the times I'm concerned about aren't necessarily times when people
> are shouting against the majority, but when they write nonsense, brazen
> political propoganda, crankish unsupported stuff, and so forth--in other
> words, violating community standards.

>> Do you mean nonsense in the sense of "something that just isn't true"
or in the sense of simple noise, like crapflooders? How do you plan to
define / recognize "crankish unspported stuff"? <<

Do you really think it would resolve anything in our discussion if I were
to supply you with an answer to these questions?  No, you seem to want to
ask rhetorical questions, and the point of the questions is: there are no
clear standards whereby we can determine when community standards are
violated.

Some standards are explicitly stated and have been vigorously debated and
shaped to something well-understood and -agreed by Wikipedia's old guard
and best contributors; for example, NPOV, having lower-cased titles, and
not signing articles.  Other standards are specific to a field and some of
them are known (and indeed perhaps knowable) only to people who have given
adequate time studying the subject.  There are certainly clear standards
of both sorts, and the fact that there are borderline cases, where we're
not sure what to say, hardly impugns the idea that there are such clear
standards.  Moreover, if it should turn out that I would be unable to
answer your rhetorical questions in general, if I should interpret them as
nonrhetorical, that would prove nothing.  We proceed by practice and
experience and these, as is well understood by philosophers, engineers,
and many others, often produce excellent results even when overarching
principles describing the practice and experience are not forthcoming.

>> Yes, I know, there are egregious cases where we would all agree that
they are not tolerable. I'm just worried that such terms might mean
different things to different people, and if we adopt them, we risk
suppression of non-mainstream opinions. Is Wikipedia's page about MKULTRA,
a CIA mind control project, nonsense, crankish? No, it's not, it really
happened, but the large majority of Americans would never believe that. <<

OK, so you're worried that "crankish unsupported stuff" and other words
we'd use to describe undesirable material and behavior would be such that
we'd disagree about cases.  Of course we would.  But if we're reasonable
people and understand what an encyclopedia *generally* requires, and we
have much experience actually working on an encyclopedia, then we can
certainly agree on a lot of cases.

The lack of absolute unanimity in every case does not--just to give an
example--provide people an excuse to write unsupportable or provably false
stuff in articles, just for one example.  It doesn't mean we can't
forthrightly eject (or completely rewrite) material that is, on any
reasonable person's view, a violation of our neutrality policy.

(As an aside, [[Neutral point of view]] has specific implications for the
case that you raise; where the implications are unclear, we use our
judgment and engage in debate.)

>>> I am, like many others, a big believer in the concept of "soft
> security".

> Why don't you explain exactly what that means here on the list, and why
> you and others think it's such a good thing?

>> The idea of soft security has evolved in wikis, and it is only fair to
point you to the respective page at MeatballWiki for the social and
technical components of soft security:
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SoftSecurity <<

I'm not particularly interested in going to the website to find out what
you mean.  If you want to introduce an unfamiliar term into a debate, it
is polite to define it.  Use information from that Usemod page to make
your case, but don't expect me to go there and provide you arguments
against it here on Wikipedia-L.

>> As to why I, personally, think it's a good idea, that's simple: Once
you introduce hard security mechanisms like banning, deletion etc., you
create an imbalance of power, which in turn creates a risk of abuse of
said power against those who do not have it. Abuse of power can have many
different results, it can encourage groupthink, drive newbies away, censor
legitimate material, ban legitimate users etc. We already *have* a
situation where we occasionally ban legitimate users and delete legitimate
material. We need to get away from this. I am absolutely disgusted by the
thought that we are already banning completely innocent users. <<

Erik, two things.  First, we already have banning and deletion.  We aren't
debating about those, but what you write above makes it sound as if we
were.  From what you say I infer that Wikipedia has LONG AGO decided
against using SoftSecurity.  Those of you who promote it apparently are
trying to change it.

Second, the mere *existence* of sanctions hardly implies that those
sanctions will be abused to any degree at all.  If your point is simply
"Power can be abused," I'm totally unconvinced and I don't think anyone
else will be either.  Surely you must have more reason to support it than
that.

After all, as for example under my rough proposal, we can have strong and
multiple safeguards against abuse.  We can have not just one moderator,
but several who are empowered to check on each other.  We can make sure
that the moderators are selected on a random and rotating basis, so that
no one becomes particularly power-hungry and so that we can take
power-abusers out of the loop.

You're also forgetting that this all happens in the wide-open context of a
wiki.  It's very hard to abuse power in an environment when a sizable
minority of the contributors are virtually drooling with the opportunity
to catch someone in an act of abuse of power.  (I oughta know.)

You say that you're disgusted by the thought that we are already banning
innocent users.  The best way we have of ensuring against that is by
adopting my proposal; it would provide for a totally open, regular,
rational method of imposing sanctions, quite unlike the present system.

We aren't going to stop banning people, Erik.  So we might as well find a
rational method to do it.  One that will reinvigorate a sense of
seriousness about our mission and lend moral authority to those vested
with the power to issue sanctions, something that people lack right now,
but which they SORELY need.

>> My underlying philosophy here is that it's worse to punish an innocent
man than to let a guilty man go free. <<

But that's hardly a reason never to punish anyone for anything, is it?

> It seems to me that in growing numbers people refuse to bow to "peer
> pressure" or to be "educated" about anything regarding Wikipedia.

>> I'd like to see evidence of those growing numbers. Wikipedia's overall
number of users has been growing constantly, are we talking about absolute
growth or relative growth? Again, we should try to collect empirical
evidence. <<

Since that will not be forthcoming, I am hoping that others will voice
their opinions; ultimately in any case, that's all we'll have.  On the
other hand, you know as well as I do (if you've been paying attention on
Wikipedia-L) that there is a growing number of protests over the growing
anarchy that we're seeing on Wikipedia.

Again, remember, we're not talking about adopting sanctions like banning
and deleting articles; we're talking about adopting a new system whereby
they can be more consistently (and, as I would favor, **leniently**)
imposed.

> Without generally-accepted standards and moral authority and the shame
> culture that accompanies them, peer pressure is impossible.

>> Yes, but in my opinion, the worst way to attain authority is through
the exercise of superior power. The best way is through respect. With the
trusted user groups that are part of my certification scheme, it might be
easier to build a reputation. <<

I agree: the best way is through respect.  However, we don't have that
luxury of being able to depend on respect alone, because respect is an
increasingly rare commodity.  The situation in that regard is getting
worse, as we've discussed above.

Respect is already a factor, though, coupled with the present messy sysop
system.  The people we most want to rein in are precisely the people who
*lack* respect for anybody.

> Peer pressure seemd to work relatively well in the past.  It is
> working less and less well as the project has grown and since I left a
> position of official authority.

>> Well, you know that I disagree about the effect of your departure on
the project, so let's not go into that again. <<

No, Erik, I didn't know that, but I don't really care about your opinion
about that, either: that wasn't my point.  My point was that peer pressure
*did* indeed work pretty well under my tenure.  It seems to be working
considerably less well now.  Whether my official presence had anything to
do with it, I don't know or care; I do know that the problem is far worse
than it was.

Again, you could ask the many people who have left or who have stopped
contributing as much.

> They do certainly cool down conflicts if the person receiving the
> statement knows that the person issuing the statement has the
> authority to do something about it.  They also let the recipient know
> that there are some lines that just can't be crossed without the
> community taking a forthright stand against it.

>> I think this kind of last resort authority should not be concentrated
but distributed. If a poll shows that many members think that member X has
"crossed the line", this sends a much stronger message than any non-
totalitarian scheme of concentrated authority. Especially if last resort
measures like banning *can* be approved by the majority. <<

You favor a democracy, susceptible to mob rule as at present; I favor a
republic, where the representatives are in the hot glare of the public
gaze but as a result have the moral authority that individuals in mob rule
do not have.

> When the disagreement concerns Wikipedia policies and obvious
> interpretations of them, when the violator of those policies does so
> brazenly, knowingly, and mockingly--and surely you've been around long
> enough to know that this happens not infrequently now--then it's not
> particularly important that we "express respect for the other person's
> view."  By then, it's clear that diplomacy will not solve the problem.

>> Yes, I agree that those cases exist. But I also believe that we need to
have a lot of patience when dealing with newbies. Not an infinite amount,
but a lot. And I think everyone should be given the opportunity to
rehabilitate themselves. <<

Well, I do agree with that, and it's not at all inconsistent with my
proposal.

> Please do acknowledge that some newbies (and a few not-so-newbies)
> really *are* destructive, at least sometimes.  And that's a really
> *serious* problem, that we must not ignore simply because it violates
> our righteous liberal sensibilities (I have 'em too; I am a
> libertarian but not an anarchist).

>> True. <<

It's nice to know that you agree with that much at least.

> You seem to be implying that, if we simply were nice to people, cranks,
> trolls, vandals, and other destructive elements would be adequately
> manageable.

>> No, I just consider hard security a last resort, to be used carefully
and only when all else fails (as to when we know that is the case, we
might actually develop a timeframe of conflict resolution, based on data
about previous conflicts). <<

If by "hard security" you mean what non-Usemod readers would express by
the ordinary English word "sanctions," I tend to agree with you: actual
sanctions should be doled out carefully and only in relatively extreme
cases.  But the threat of sanctions must be there and must be clear, and
the process must not be so *unnecessarily* slow and painful as to put off
valuable contributors.

I'm surprised that it turns out you can accept any "hard security" at all.
That's also nice to know.

> First, Wikipedia has grown a lot.  It's the biggest wiki project in the
> world.  We *can't* make people nice as you suggest.

>> Allow me to psychoanalyze a bit. <<

This is all very nice, but theorizing is no match for plain experience.
I think our experience clearly indicates that we can't make people nice if
they don't want to be.  It might be different when the trolls are simply
tuned out by an efficient process.  However, as I've observed before,
trolls in the context of Wikipedia can't simply be tuned out; we've got to
go around and clean up after then, in addition.  And Wikipedia's trolls
seemingly get great delight in seeing others try to go around and clean up
after them.

> Third, your proposal requires that the best members of Wikipedia
> follow around and politely educate an ever-growing group of
> destructive members. We've tried that.  We've lost a number of members
> as a result, and I personally am tempted, every so often, to
> completely forget about Wikipedia, and resign it to the dogs.  But I
> don't want to do that.  I still feel some responsibility for it, and I
> think I helped build it to where it is now.  I don't want to see
> something that I've helped build wear away into something awful.

>> Again, I'm not seeing that happen. <<

Then, frankly, Erik, you haven't been paying attention, or your ideology
is blinding you to facts that seem obvious to the many others who have
commented on them on Wikipedia-l.

>> Simple vandalism is a growing problem and really putting the wiki model
to the test. We might consider a rather simple solution:  edits only for
logged in members. This drastically limits the accessibility of the wiki,
but we do have a core of contributors, and if we can't grow without losing
some of them, maybe we should slow our growth. <<

Vandalism is relatively easy to deal with.  I strongly dislike your
proposed solution, and I'm amazed, given what you've said above, that you
actually support it.  Anyway, it's the nearly-worthless contributors who
on balance damage the project by the dross they shovel in (and the
resulting controversies and wasted time) that are the real problem.

> But one reason I'm worried about the current state of Wikipedia is
> that we might have some expert reviewers coming in to do some good
> work here, only to be attacked by some eedjit who gets his jollies out
> of attacking an expert precisely because she's an expert.  That *will*
> happen, almost certainly, if the Wikipedia peer review project gets
> going.

>> Well, I can predict that I'm going to "attack" experts myself if they
add non-NPOV content, fail to cite sources properly, insist on their
authority to make their point etc. <<

Good luck.  Remember, experts know more about their areas than you do.
That's why we call them experts.  So don't embarrass yourself too badly.

>> My view on experts and what makes an expert is very different from
yours, but I believe both views can coexist in a good certification
system. <<

I'm a Ph.D. epistemologist.  My dissertation adviser was (still is) an
expert on the concept of expertise, and I've read several papers on this
area of social epistemology as part of a graduate course.  In addition, I
gave careful thought to this subject while working on Nupedia.  Now, what
is that you think my view of what experts are and what makes an expert?

> The whole reason behind a random sample is precisely to forestall the
> sort of "elitism" and abuse of power that you fear.

>> I know, and I respect this good intention. I just don't think it's the
right approach, it will only lead to less informed decisions. Better keep
the decision process open to (almost) everybody (we need to prevent vote
flooding as well), that way we can reduce abuse of power the most
effectively. That's why K5's moderation system works and Slashdot's
doesn't. <<

I just have no idea why you say the system I proposed would "lead to less
informed decisions."  Perhaps you should reread the proposal (even though
it was, as I said, just a rough outline); I even went so far as to suggest
that perhaps there would be a body of Wikipedia "case law" developed, that
moderators could consult.  This would lead to *less* informed decisions
than in the present case, when virtually anyone can have the power to ban
and delete?

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


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Matt M.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol 1 #839 - 15 msgs

body:
> Could we remove the rest of "wikipedians segregated into categories"
> pages too? I don't like any of them, for the same reason.
> If people can assert on the Wikipedians pages that they are vegetarian,
> mac users, pagan or gay, why not assert their opposition to american
> imperialism?

How are they any different from the geographical Wikipedian pages? I don't
see how asserting I'm Queer is any different from asserting I'm Canadian.

Matt


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority

body:
On Sunday 10 November 2002 09:02 pm, Larry Sanger wrote:
> No.  Our collective experience is more than enough proof that we need
> *consistent* enforcement, Erik, not *stronger* enforcement.  Right now we
> have very strong enforcement.

Very strong enforcement? That's interesting I thought the whole reason why we
have been losing contributors is because we are /not/ enforcing our
Wikipetiquette policy. I think you have been out of the trenches for too long
Larry -- please join us; become a sysop again. :-)

>..... Virtually anyone can, for the
> asking, get sysop privileges and start banning IPs and locking pages.
> That certainly appears to be mob rule and by golly, in my experience on
> Wikipedia lately I have to say it certainly *feels* like mob rule.

Are you saying that the sysops are a rampaging mob or that the potential
exists for this to occur? I am offended and hurt by that implication if the
former is what you think and not the later. Some of our best and most active
contributors are sysops and I don't know of a single sysop that would wish to
harm the project (quite the contrary). We are already in the spotlight and
are accountable for our actions. Where is the abuse that you seem to imply
exists? Have I done something wrong? If so I need to know about it.

> If we had power concentrated in the power of a rotating group of trusted
> individuals who could be appealed to to enforce the *actual rules* that we
> now have on the project--we do have rules on the project, but the
> enforcement mechanism for them is no longer working, I think--then there
> would be, as there is not now, *clear consequences* for breaking the
> rules.  These people would have moral authority and respect that *no one*
> can command right now.

Rotating group? How is that going to solve anything? If anything we need more
trusted sysops because there are many times when I'm the only sysop online
and I'm sure other sysops have experienced this as well. This means that
there are other times when nobody with the power to stop a vandal bot is
watching the shop. Also pretty much everybody who is a trusted member of the
community and who doesn't mind the added responsibility is already a sysop.

It would be silly to rotate this responsibility among the current sysops.
Believe me I have already tried to recruit several long time and trusted
users to become sysops. Some of them simply don't want the added
responsibility at all. That's fine and we shouldn't force this responsibility
on them. Nor should we trust sysop powers to a completely new user who is
clueless about our policies and may not really care about the project. What
does that leave us? With what we have now.

I'm not saying this because I am clinging onto the "power" of being a sysop -
that is counter to my personality type (INTJ). If we didn't have vandals, if
everybody got along, and nobody created junk pages that need to be deleted
then there would be no need for sysops and I would be a very happy person. I
for one would rather work on chemistry,  biology and geology articles than
doing the dirty work of sysophood. But in the real world sysops are needed to
do this dirty work and the pool of people who can be trusted with sysop
powers is not yet large enough to enact any kind of rotating sysophood
program.

If you want to establish *clear consequences* for breaking the rules then how
about we add to each edit window a statement saying "By saving this page you
agree to the rules and conditions of using this website" (rules and
conditions would link to our policy page). Of course we would have to redo
the policy page so that only real policies are on it. The policies listed IMO
should be; NPOV, no copyright violations, 'we are an encyclopedia' and yes
Wikipetiquette. That means that conventions or rules to consider should not
be on the policy page  (although consistently and purposely not following
conventions - thus knowingly causing a great deal of work for others - would
be a violation of the Wikipetiquette policy).

There should also be a clear escalation process for infringements of policy
that is rather permissive and forgiving in cases that are not outright
vandalism for at least the first few violations that the user has been made
aware of (enforcement is a haphazard and oftentimes unilateral mess right now
and is often not done for Wikipetiquette - thus we lose users). But users
that show a clear pattern of violating policy should be "gasp" told they are
doing so, told what the possible consequences are and if they ignore this
warning then hard security takes over. But there should be a clear process
that is both open and fair.

Just my POV

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Lir yet again

body:
On Sunday 10 November 2002 05:01 pm, wikipedia-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> On 10-11-2002, Daniel Mayer wrote thusly :
> > Lir just made a Wikipedians page titled "Anti-American_users" which has
> > (as the title would indicate) caused a storm of unproductive flames.
> > Pages like this shouldn't exist because of the divisiveness they cause.
> > They do not further our goal of creating an encyclopedia and only lead to
> > mean spiritedness. I vote for removal. See the talk page for more.
> >
> >
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians/Anti-American_users
>
> I agree with you and vote for removal too.
>
> Is it at all possible to work out policies to discourage political POV
> and propaganda that is totally against the principal goals of Wikipedia ?
> I'd rather refrain from any hard security measures.
>
> Regards,
> Kpjas.

We usually move hopelessly POV stuff to Meta. I vote for moving ALL the
Wikipedia/foo pages there (even the geographic based categories). IMO the
Wikiepdians page at en.wiki should be a alphabetic list with a link to the
the chronological "history" list that states when each user joined.

We needn't set-up different factions of users by having other categories. If
somebody is interested then they can visit the POV-friendly Meta to find out
more by following /one/ vanilla link from the Wikipedians page. I still
wouldn't enjoy seeing the Anti-American page but I really couldn't complain
much if it is in Meta.wiki  -  which is already filled with POV material.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Derek Ross

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kris ROOSE" <k at psy.cc>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:56 AM
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Integrating Two Integrative Sites?

>                                      Integrating Two Integrative Sites

Sounds fine, Kris but please note that we use a very specific "integrative
method", the Neutral Point Of View, and it's important that you realise how
this works.  In summary it attributes any disputed "facts" to that group
which believes them to be true rather than stating outright that they are
true or false in themselves.  Only facts about which there is no dispute are
assumed to be true and therefore unattributed.

If used properly it will allow seemingly contradictory parts of an article
to be integrated.  Please ensure that you know how it works before moving
articles over to Wikipedia, since any Wikipedia articles which do not
conform to NPOV will, sooner or later, be changed so that they do.

Cheers

Derek


from_name: Kris ROOSE

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Integrating Two Integrative Sites?

body:
                                     Integrating Two Integrative Sites

                                     Hi, I'm the webmaster and principal author
of the Integration Website http://noosphere.cc. A fascinating thrill went
through me when I
                                     discovered the Wikipedia Website and the
Wiki Websites System in general.

                                     The similarity in the purpose of this site
and Wikipedia is striking: both sites aim at constructing, by open Internet
cooperation, a
                                     thesaurus of integrative knowledge. Still,
there are two differences: (1) the Wikipedia site uses an automated software,
allowing visitors
                                     to edit existing pages online, while this
site is manually edited, and (2) the Integration site features an advanced
concept of integrative
                                     editing, while the Wiki system is described
as "a collaborative project to produce a free and complete encyclopedia", and
uses the "open
                                     content" paradigm. Although the Open
Content approach is completely compatible with the Integration approach, the
latter goes further
                                     because (1) it proposes a series of
explicit editing rules (while the Wiki context is much more permissive, and its
rules are more intuitive
                                     and inspired by common sense), and because
(2) this Integration concept assumes that by respecting these rules, if
adequately
                                     applied, a degree of plausibility probably
comparable to scientific certitude can be reached.

                                     As I describe in the Future of this Site
page, integration with such an integrative site as Wikipedia will be sought. In
a first stage I'll try to
                                     add progressively our contents to the
Wikipedia site. If, for some reasons yet to discover, this kind of integration
proves impossible, we'll
                                     try to start up a new Wiki-like site, or
introduce the Wiki software into this site.

                                     Any comments? Kris Roose 10 Nov 2002, 14.30
CET


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] phpBBS + phpWiki

body:
>(assuming we use a bbs)
>
>PHP BB (http://www.phpbb.com ) seems to be the natural BBS system for
>Wikipedia to use, since it's GPLed and PHP+MySQL. It may be more ornate than
>we need, but with a little work to coordinate it with the main code, it
>would be very nice.

It would be great if such a thing could be integrated with a multilingual
meta.wiki (the main mailing list is no longer very useful with so many daily
posts). The encyclopedia wikis should be left alone though (IMO eventually
all encyclopedia projects should be on the same wiki - meta should be a
separate wiki for technical and ideological reasons).

>The only crucial thing we need to do is to have people who have logged into
>Wikipedia (any of the language instances) automatically be logged into the
>BBS.

How about just have it so that anybody logged into meta is also logged into
its integrated bbs?

>....
>
>--tc

--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Anthere

body:
--- tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> Matt M. wrote:
>
> >>Could we remove the rest of "wikipedians
> segregated into categories"
> >>pages too? I don't like any of them, for the same
> reason.
> >>If people can assert on the Wikipedians pages that
> they are vegetarian,
> >>mac users, pagan or gay, why not assert their
> opposition to american
> >>imperialism?
> >>
> >>
> >How are they any different from the geographical
> Wikipedian pages? I don't
> >see how asserting I'm Queer is any different from
> asserting I'm Canadian.
> >
> >Matt
> >
> >
>
> Sure.
> But then why are users being prevented from
> asserting their opposition
> to the US in its current state as a polluting
> warmonger ruled by an oil
> baron despot?

They are not being prevented. They can do so on their
talk page. Ultimate pov place...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Soft Bans?

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> If we set a cookie in the browsers of all Wikipedia visitors, anonymous or
> not, we could the assign them random global user IDs. Instead of banning users
> by IP, we could ban them by GUID, which would eliminate the risk of
> accidentally banning legitimate contributors.
>
> While the majority of users have cookies enabled, a minority does not, so
> "soft bans" as I like to call them would not work for them. Other users might
> be smart enough to turn cookies off to avoid the ban. But I consider both
> beyond the technical understanding of most vandals, so I think soft bans might be
> quite efficient.
>
> What do you think?

This sounds like a reasonable tool, one among many.

We have yet to deal with a really persistant vandal.  99.9% of them just need to be
slightly discouraged.

--Jimbo


from_name: Michael R. Irwin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Soft Bans?

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> If we set a cookie in the browsers of all Wikipedia visitors, anonymous or
> not, we could the assign them random global user IDs. Instead of banning users
> by IP, we could ban them by GUID, which would eliminate the risk of
> accidentally banning legitimate contributors.
>
> While the majority of users have cookies enabled, a minority does not, so
> "soft bans" as I like to call them would not work for them. Other users might
> be smart enough to turn cookies off to avoid the ban. But I consider both
> beyond the technical understanding of most vandals, so I think soft bans might be
> quite efficient.
>
> What do you think?
>

Seems like a step in a right direction to me.

If we must ban some people it would be nice
to be banning only the actual vandals.

Regards,
Mike Irwin


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Small Request

body:
ASB wrote:
Also, re the Wikipedians/Anti-Americans I think that if we're going
to
letp eople categorise themselves, they sohuld be able to categerise
themselves into whatever they want to. Moving these pages to
metapedia is
a nice idea, but at the moments accounts aren't universal (as in
you have
to register to each wiki seperately), so it could be annoying.
--------------------

I agree. The work of wikipedia, in my opinion, would be better served
if people were able to create and join focus groups of like minded
people.

I also think one advantage would include the ability for viewers to
see the varied makeup of the wikipedia contributors and thus decide
for themselves theusefulness of the encyclopedia to them

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


from_name: Pierre Abbat

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia is stuck again

body:
I've been trying to delete [[Chur]] (it just says "gr?ezi") for almost an
hour and getting timeouts. Can someone kick the server?

phma


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sidebar change, comments?

body:
At 03:28 PM 11/11/02 +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>- "What links here" needs a questionmark.

I disagree with this one. The meaning is clear with the current name (I
read it as an abbreviation of "This is a list of what links here"), and
more importantly question marks are already heavily used to indicate a link
to a nonexistent article.

The others seem fine to me.


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sidebar change, comments?

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:

> The modified sidebar looks like this:
>
> Main Page
> Recent changes
> My watchlist
> Random page
> Current events
> --------------------
> Edit this page
> Watch this page
> Move this page
> Discuss this page | View article
> Older versions
> What links here?
> Related changes
> --------------------
> Upload file
> Special pages
> Bug reports

I like it. Should "watchlist" be one word or two?

Axel

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


from_name: Larry Sanger

body:
Mark Christensen wrote:

>> I want to point out a couple of things about this brief interchange. <<

>> First, it is probably not in good taste to call anyone hysterical, as
it implies that the root of mental illness is the uterus. <<

It doesn't imply that for most people (who aren't familiar with Freud),
and it has nothing to do with why I think the word was inappropriate in
this case.

>> Second, labeling Lir as a disruptive child is not particularly
productive.  I think it would better to say that Lir's behavior is often
disruptive, and that the overall impression that this behavior gives is
one of childish stubbornness. <<

I disagree, Mark.

>> My overall point is that if we are looking to find "moral authority" we
need to think and act in ways which respect human dignity, and which
encourage at least a basic level of kindness and civility. <<

So your point is that we have to treat even our trolls with kindness and
civility, and that is what will allow our productive members to be
respected and treated as if they had some legitimate authority on the
project?  I disagree completely.

Your point too is far overstated.  There is much more than we could
possibly do than simply "encouraging at least a basic level of kindness
and civility."  I do agree that we should do that.  I disagree that
calling a troll a disruptive child conflicts with that ideal; I would hope
that you'd be able to see that, Mark.  Anyway, again, moral authority
comes from *respect*, and respect is not merely given by kindness, as many
harmless milquetoasts with no opinions of their own have found out.  It is
given in addition by making useful contributions, knowing a lot about the
subject, and--this is what I think we're lacking--working in an atmosphere
in which breaking the rules has consequences that are consistently
enforced.

Larry


from_name: Mark Christensen

body:
>>I have also noticed quite a bit of hysteria from the other side (see
the recent "Lir again" thread).

> Hysteria?  I have to support Zoe here; Lir is a disruptive child, and
she should probably be banned.

I want to point out a couple of things about this brief interchange.

First, it is probably not in good taste to call anyone hysterical, as it
implies that the root of mental illness is the uterus.  Freud's misogyny
has no place here, and while I'm aware that words have current meanings
apart from their entomology, it is important to know that the use of
this word will sometimes be deemed offensive.

Second, labeling Lir as a disruptive child is not particularly
productive.  I think it would better to say that Lir's behavior is often
disruptive, and that the overall impression that this behavior gives is
one of childish stubbornness.

My overall point is that if we are looking to find "moral authority" we
need to think and act in ways which respect human dignity, and which
encourage at least a basic level of kindness and civility.  Sometimes we
will miss out on this because we aren't aware that what we say could be
seen as offensive by others, and sometimes we'll miss out because we
just aren't careful with our wording, but we should always aim towards
the highest level of respect, and be willing to apologize when we fail
to live up to that standard.

I want to be clear about one thing -- this comment is not directed at
Larry or Erik specifically.  In fact, I chose this exchange because I
think these two cases reflect unintentional and very minor examples of
the larger problem. But I think it is obvious that there is an larger
trend on the whole list toward open hostility and name calling, and it's
not just the most egregious examples which need to stop.

I believe that the current hostilities on the list are in effect
poisoning the village well.  If this trend continues, the mailing list
will become less than useless because it does more harm to the project
than good.

Basically, I'd propose that we restate our former agreement to refrain
from "name calling" on the list as well as on Talk pages -- because
"name calling" IS disruptive and childish.  I also think that we should
agree to calmly and collectively point out our disapproval of such
actions whenever they occur.

Yours
Mark Christensen


subject: [Wikipedia-l] F***ing A**h***

body:
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
>
> What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following
> all over Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical
> case, I assure you ;-)
>
>
> "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you
> can't stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"

Indeed, Ed, what would happen in that *purely hypothetical* situation? ;-)

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] What if a signed-in user started writing the
 following...

body:
Cunctator wrote:

>> We'd revert the changes, and probably publicly wonder what the user's
problem is. I for example would question the "hate everybody and
everything" assertion. Is that really possible? I mean, it takes a lot of
energy to truly hate. And then there's the question of if you hate
everybody and everything, why have you not committed suicide? <<

I doubt many people would ask such questions; I mean, such a person would
be beneath contempt and therefore not particularly interesting as a
subject of such speculation.

>> And why choose Wikipedia as a target? I mean, really. WP does not have
that much influence or importance, especially if the targets of your
hatred are "everybody" and "everything". <<

Again, Cunc, you're speculating about stuff that doesn't matter, giving
credibility and interest to someone who clearly isn't worth our interest.
I mean, as you ought to know, that's precisely what trolls want.

The question, rather, is how soon we will delete the user page.

>> Writing the above all over Wikipedia is hardly the way to destroy it.
<<

On the other hand, tolerating trolls, as has been our policy in too many
cases, invites trolls.  And trolls--well, not to grant them more power
than they actually have, trolls *are* a way to do damage to Wikipedia.  We
still haven't cleaned up after all our trolls in the past.

One useful thing would be to try to track down who the person is, and see
if he or she couldn't be matched up to some other person presently on the
project.  Then to "out" that person.

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
elian wrote:

>tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com> writes:
>
>>Matt M. wrote:
>>
>>>How are they any different from the geographical Wikipedian pages? I don't
>>>see how asserting I'm Queer is any different from asserting I'm Canadian.
>>>
>>Sure.
>>But then why are users being prevented from asserting their opposition
>>to the US in its current state as a polluting warmonger ruled by an
>>oil baron despot?
>>
>Because of the "Anti". Enlisting as a queer user says nothing about your
>attitude about non-queer people. Positive categories are fine (ecologists,
>human right or peace activists, atheist, christian or muslim), negative
>categories are evil: "anti-christian", "antisemite", because they don't say
>only something about the self-categorized person but also insult other
>people.
>
I'm prepared to tolerate the "anti-" pages.  If people want to paint
targets on their foreheads for everybody else to shoot at, I don't think
that the rest of us need to jump in to prevent their suicide.  People
who choose to put their names on these lists need to know that being
there may say something to the rest of us about their credibility.
 There can even be several pages that seem to say the same thing
(anti-american/anti-yankee or anti-gay/anti-queer/anti-pervert) with
each expressing a different perspective on the subject.

If some of the sillier debates can be marginalized to these personal
anti-pages, the more serious contributors are likely to ignore them
completely, no matter how offensive they get.  Individual user pages
don't quite do the job for the people on these pages; they often need to
feel that they are a part of a group, even if it is a group of one.

Eclecticology


subject: [Wikitech-l] Bottleneck: Internal link resolution

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Hi,
>
>after some browsing around in the code, I've found a major bottleneck:
>the current internal link resolution system.
>
>If you have a local Wikipedia install, try it for yourself: Visit a few
>very link heavy pages, like [[List of reference tables]]. You will
>notice that the rendering speed depends directly on the number of
>internal links (not on the actual text size, or formatting tags). The
>link cache seems to work as page rendering gets faster as you load a
>page repeatedly, but it remains rather slow for link-heavy pages.
>
I address this issue as a non-techie.  I have worked on some very
link-heavy pages, such as the ones for the Academy Awards whose loading
time increases with the addition of more data.
    1. Is it likely that a technical solution will soon be found for the
slow loading?
    2. Are there ways in which data could be better organized to
minimize the effects of slow loading?
    3. Should articles like the Academy Awards listings be broken down
to more manageable sizes, and if so, how does one determine optimum sizes?

Eclecticology


subject: Pro and contra, was: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l digest, Vol  1 #839 - 15 msgs

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

> Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
>
>> So it's okay to be pro Osama bin Laden, but bad to be anti American? ;-)
>>
>
> OK, let's open a pro-Osama page. Once all have signed in (especially
> americans), I'll be happy to forward the URL to the FBI. I'm sure
> they'll have shut down wikipedia in no time ;-)

If we logically pursue the position of the anti-anti forces a pro-Osama
page would be fine but an anti-Osama page would be un-Wikipedian ;-)
Ec


from_name: tarquin

body:
Matt M. wrote:

>>Could we remove the rest of "wikipedians segregated into categories"
>>pages too? I don't like any of them, for the same reason.
>>If people can assert on the Wikipedians pages that they are vegetarian,
>>mac users, pagan or gay, why not assert their opposition to american
>>imperialism?
>>
>>
>How are they any different from the geographical Wikipedian pages? I don't
>see how asserting I'm Queer is any different from asserting I'm Canadian.
>
>Matt
>
>

Sure.
But then why are users being prevented from asserting their opposition
to the US in its current state as a polluting warmonger ruled by an oil
baron despot?


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sidebar change, comments?

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

> At 03:28 PM 11/11/02 +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> - "What links here" needs a questionmark.
>
> I disagree with this one. The meaning is clear with the current name
> (I read it as an abbreviation of "This is a list of what links here"),
> and more importantly question marks are already heavily used to
> indicate a link to a nonexistent article.

Grammatically, "What links here" can be either a question or statement.
 As a statement it becomes "This is what links her." with the "This is"
being implicit.

That being said, would it be so difficult to use the above-mentioned
nonexistent article feature at this spot to indicate an orphan article?

Eclecticology

>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

body:
Erik decried the creation of an elite and the resultant imbalance of power.

I agree to some extent, and I do worry about the results he predicts. But as I wrote last week, we already have an elite, and there already is an imbalance of power.

Jimbo has supreme power.

The developers have all the rights of sysops, plus the "can" revoke anyone's sysop status, ban a signed-in user and permanently erase any version of any article. (This doesn't mean they're "authorized" to, just that the power is in their hands.)

The sysops can protect or "delete" a page and ban any IP, even one used by a signed-in contributor, as was done temporarily to Lir. Sysops can edit a protected page.

Ordinary signed-in users have immunity from banning, although they might have to jump through hoops if their IP is blocked. They can't delete pages, edit protected pages or block IPs. They get a user page.

The non-signed-in can edit any page except the few protected pages, and they don't get a user page. They can be blocked by any sysop.

Can anyone view this as other than a 5-level hierarchy, with each level having more power than the levels below? Are not the higher levels an elite? Is this not an "imbalance of power"?

The question is not how to avoid creating an imbalance of power, but what to do with the current imbalance. If everyone is satisfied with the 5 levels we currently have (as is Cunctator, apparently), then we need do nothing. That is what Jimbo will most likely do: don't fix it, 'cause it ain't broken.

But Larry and others are saying:
* it's broken, so fix it or I'll leave, or
* it's broken, and you didn't fix it, so I'm leaving

I'm saying:
* it's broken, so let's all put our heads together and find a way to fix it before it falls apart completely

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority	(wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 11/11/02 2:15 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand your "functionality" vs. "authority" distinction.
>>
>
>Again, there's a doctor, a plumber, and a fry cook in a room. Who has more
>authority? Who has more moral authority?
>

It depends!  Is somebody having a heart-attack?  Are they being sprayed
by water from a broken pipe? or  Are they simply all feeling hungry?

Ec


from_name: The Cunctator

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (was
	Re: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

body:
On 11/11/02 11:24 AM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Can anyone view this as other than a 5-level hierarchy, with each level having
> more power than the levels below? Are not the higher levels an elite? Is this
> not an "imbalance of power"?
>
> The question is not how to avoid creating an imbalance of power, but what to
> do with the current imbalance. If everyone is satisfied with the 5 levels we
> currently have (as is Cunctator, apparently), then we need do nothing. That is
> what Jimbo will most likely do: don't fix it, 'cause it ain't broken.

Huh? Why would I be satisfied? There's always some improvement to be made.

A "hierarchy" describes levels of authority, rather than functionality.

There are those who, shown a doctor, a plumber, and a fry cook, would say
there's an obvious hierarchy there. But that's an unhealthy way to deal with
people.

I've been saying that Mr. Poor could frame the issue in a better manner, not
that there isn't an issue.

Mr. Poor has properly distinguished the functional categories. But to draw
conclusions from those categories about how to manage Wikipedians is
probably not the best thing. For example, a week ago I was in the same
category as Mr. Poor and Maveric. I don't think we're equivalent
Wikipedians. Now I'm in the same category as LDC and Brion Vibber. I don't
think that makes us equivalent Wikipedians.


from_name: Tucci

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Tokerboy weighs in

body:
Tokerboy
:Ed Poor

I originally only wanted to respond to two posts.
First of all, I like the Cunctster being a prick--he's
a vaccine against groupthink because no decision will
ever be unanimous as long as he is here--makes me
wonder if that's his goal.  Many CEOs and team leaders
and the like secretly designate one board/team member
to disagree on every decision, because otherwise
groups tend to accept the first even remotely viable
option presented.

With that said, he can be a cock.  (a throbbing,
monster one, even)

:I might be an anarchist, but if I see a gang of kids
:going down the
:street, methodically knocking out car windshields
:with baseball bats --
:I'm calling the cops. And I want them to have
:handcuffs, mace and guns.
:Sometimes having a police force is the lesser of two
:evils.

Bad vandals destroy cars, property and occasionally
people, but a corrupt police force doesn't stop any of
this and tears apart the community.  The best solution
is to have the community oversee the police force.

:Now, I'm not dismissing the risk that "law and order"
:can turn into
:fascism. Hitler is ever on my mind. But have you ever
:lived in a
:gang-controlled neighborhood?

I've lived in several, and it depends on the gang and
the city.  In Baltimore, for example, gangs are indeed
dangerous and to be stayed away from.  In Richmond,
organized crime gangs exist, and fight with each
other, but generally leave others alone.  In some
cities, some gangs have done more to help the local
community than governmental programs.  The Mafia is
the same way.

Anyway, we're not discussing organized crime here, but
I think it's a valid analogy.  My solution is below.

:With no legitimate authority, mob rule develops. With
:excessive
:authority, dictatorship ensues. What are we to do?

I know exactly what to do, and everybody who disagrees
with me is clearly wrong and should go live in the
desert for forty years and forty nights and ponder the
depths of your wrongossity and incorrectitude.

I think we should divide the controversial powers up.
Currently sysop status is not difficult to achieve;
that's fine and wonderful since it means more people
to delete silly vandalism and ban such IPs.  I propose
separating this from the position of moderator.  I
don't know if we need/it's possible to do this through
the software, but I think it would work anyway.

Sysop: delete obviously vandalized articles, delete
pages to make way for a move, ban anonymous IPs if
necessary.  If there is _any doubt_ as to whether a
change should be considered vandalism, refer the
matter to a moderator.
Moderator: powers of sysop above, but intervenes in
edit wars and disagreements if a user or sysop asks
(or if the moderator simply sees one developing).  The
moderator tries to get the situation cooled down, and
the argument resolved in one way or another.  I'd say
the standard for freezing an article is 1: if an
actual edit war has erupted and 2: the article should
be frozen at the state it was before the war, or with
no text at all and a reference to the talk page.  I'd
also suggest allowing both sides to write an article
(or a section) from their POV, and then having one or
more moderators combine the two.

If someone does not agree with the moderator's
decision, some sort of court should be established
where a user can complain about a moderator's actions,
and other moderators and/or sysops can discuss the
decision and whether or not it was justified.

Moderators should be chosen through some sort of
anonymous nomination system.  Any signed-in user can
nominate another user and when a person has been
nominated five times (by different users), he can be
made a moderator.  Alternatively, perhaps a person
must be a sysop for a month or two before becoming a
moderator.

I think regardless of the merit of what I propose
above, I do believe we should have a Bill of Rights of
sorts for users without any special status (i.e. not
even signed in) to more effectively guarantee that
abuse will not occur.

1:Users have the right to edit any page, except for
specifically protected ones or articles temporarily
frozen because an edit war was developing
2:Users have the right to access a forum to complain
of abuse of power

Those are the only two I can think of right now.  I
have a good bit of experience in trying to spread out
too little power among too many people, which is the
problem we're having now, in one of my old jobs.  The
reason this is occuring is because sysops have two
roles: general maintenance and moderation.  The power
for general maintenance should be spread out, because
if the basic rule that only clearcut vandalism and
nonsense can be deleted is followed, this can only
help the wikipedia grow.  I think that in 99% of
cases, a sysop ruling to delete a page/ban an IP
(currently) is simply because of vandalism.  It's the
minority of cases where judgement, and potential abuse
of power, comes into play.  If 99% of the problems is
one discrete type, then 99% of the enforcement power
should be directed towards those problems, and the
other 1% where judgement comes into play should be
considered separately, because it is a separate
problem.

Tokerboy

PS: It has been decided that we will, one way or
another, upload fair use material like album covers,
right?  I should continue to upload such things as
needed, right?  I didn't mean to raise a ruckus,
brouhaha or shenanigans--I was just fed up trying to
describe psychedelic album covers ("There's a woman...
probably... with much... bizareness around her, and a
star... or maybe it's a koala bear") and I saw others
uploading video covers.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2


subject: [Wikitech-l] Watchbox patch committed

body:
On 11/11/02 11:29 AM, "Giskart" <giskart at wikipedia.be> wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Since there were no objections, I have committed the patch for the
>> watchlist checkbox in article edit mode (Magnus has given me CVS
>> access). I have checked out a second copy and tested it quite
>> thoroughly, but let me know if there are any problems.

Actually, I did object. And Giskart is right.

>
>
> Not that i have objections against this change, but changes to the
> software/userinterfase of the Wikipedias should be announced formaly and
> well in advance.
>
> Somthing like this;
> Give 3 weeks notice.
> Send a message to Wikipedia-L and Intlwiki-l like this;
>
> (first week)
> Subject:[RFD]Software change announcement
>
> Explain what you want to change and why.
> Give a change for discussion to change mayby somthing. The ambassadors
> or then announce the posibel change to there Wikipedias
>
> (second week)
> Subject:[NOTICE1]Software change announcement
>
> Explain the change.
> Tell what you need. Like translations of some words.
> Tell to who to send them.
>
> Tell when the change will be done.
>
> (3th week)
> Subject:[NOTICE2]Software change announcement
>
> Explain the change.
> Tell what you need. Like translations of some words.
> Tell to who to send them.
>
> Tell when the change will be done. (end of the week)
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: opposition to the US

body:
Tarquin,

Nobody is stopping users "from asserting their opposition
to the US in its current state as a polluting warmonger ruled by an oil
baron despot?"

They are free to do so:
* on their own user page
* on any talk page relating to the US, pollution, warmongering, oil, barons or despotism

I would like to see us stop the petty bickering and factionalism and get back to the work of creating an encyclopedia.

Please contribute to the articles on [[pollution]], [[environmentalism]], [[George Bush]], the oil industry and so forth. Put in as much as you wish about how Bush in particular or Americans in general are selfishly advancing their interests at public expense.

Just be careful not to lapse into partisanship. If you say for example, in an article, that Bush wants to "destroy the Alaskan wilderness" I'll revert that immediately. If you say that Danby Artisan opposes drilling in the ANWR because he believes it would destroy the Alaskan wilderness, I'll give you an "attaboy" (redeem 6 attaboys for a special prize! :-).

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole

body:
What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure you ;-)

"I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sidebar change, comments?

body:
On 11/11/02 9:28 AM, "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> The links are perfectly OK, but I have problems with the words used and
> sometimes with the positioning. The modified sidebar looks like this:
>
> Main Page
> Recent changes
> My watchlist
> Random page
> Current events
> --------------------
> Edit this page
> Watch this page
> Move this page
> Discuss this page | View article
> Older versions
> What links here?
> Related changes
> --------------------
> Upload file
> Special pages
> Bug reports
<snip>
> If there are no objections, I will apply this change later today or
> tomorrow.

Good, except for the question mark. Actually, have you seen the way the
pages are arranged on the Cologne Blue interface? That's probably an even
better way, and maybe should be the arrangement for the standard skin.

Please wait a little longer than 24 hours for feedback. In fact, the easiest
way to do this without *any* problem is to design an alternate skin, put
that up, and then ask if people want it/features from it to be the default.


body:
What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:

(1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.

(2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia articles, that's nice too.

Which is it going to be, people?

I happen to think both are possible, but our choice of which to make PRIMARY will make all the difference. "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood..."

If we make Wiki participation primary, and allow anyone with a magic marker and a pair of scissors to come in and deface or cut out any page, eventually the vandals will overcome the project. It won't happen in 2002; but I won't take any bets on the next 3 years.

Clutch has been reined in, somewhat, by my mentoring. Lir has become bearable, but not trustworthy. While I personally don't mind spending 80% of my screen time checking up on the kids, that's because I really am a Sunday School teacher: I see the value in helping kids to grow up. However, others lack the time or patience or "talent" for this kind of mentoring.

Also, as a mentor of my friends' children, I did not only speak softly; I carried a "big stick". I could give a time out, or even do the dreaded letter-to-the-parents ploy. "Johnny, what will your parents do with you if I write them a letter telling them everything you did today?" "Oh, please, don't send that letter! I'll be good!" "Very well, go apologize to Billy." "Billy, I'm sorry I hit you!!"

Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could be taken too far. But he misses several points:
* like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
* the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
* I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their attendance (no prisoners)

The reason attendance increased in proportion to order was that the children found out (and told their friends) how pleasant it was to be there. Kids are aware of the difference between order and chaos. They're not all imbeciles or trouble-makers; even the rambunctious ones just want to have fun. As a teacher, I channeled that desire for enjoyment in a positive direction.

Cunctator, you're never going to call me "Uncle Ed", because you're not one of the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really work with Lir and her ilk.

Lir proclaimed herself Empress of Wikipedia, if you recall. We others contribute only as she deigns. Maybe this was a joke; I certainly tried to characterize it as such. But in jokes can often be found a germ of truth.

Unless a contributor shows that they place NPOV, et al., above their other goals for participation, then I for one do not and cannot trust them. I don't have to check up after the dozens of contributors I've come to admire. Sure, they might make a typo or grammar error; sure, I can tighten up some wordy prose or wikify it a bit; yes, occasionally they'll get a fact wrong by accident. But when Jeronimo or Axel, to pick just 2 out of many dozens, makes a change -- I rest tranquil in the confidence that I will not have to check for a neutrality violation. I only read the article if I'm curious about the subject.

Like Larry, Julie and the lot, I too get tired of clean-up duty. I would find it less tiresome (A) if more people would be mentors, as Erik suggests; and also (B) if we had moderators with just a bit more power and some rules that were a bit stronger and to the point than "do as you like".

I myself chose the 3 rules of my Sunday School class, after watching Ah-nuld in Kindergarten Cop. I adapted his approach to the situation and after some trial and error settled on (1) no hitting, (2) no grabbing, (3) no teasing. The only sanctions I permitted myself were (A) time-out and (B) "take this letter to your father, please" (i.e., expulsion).

I regard our situation of November 2002 as somewhere between the date I saw Kindergarten Cop and the date I settled upon the "three noes" described above. It was a period of sorting things out, in discussion with parents and church officials.

I took it upon myself to start using power, even before it was authorized. I just decided I wouldn't endure the chaos any more, and like Ah-nuld I "blew the whistle", so to speak: I appointed myself sheriff. Okay, I was a vigilante or an "elitist", a one-man "cabal". But that is often how government arises out of anarchy.

No system is perfect. The US separation of powers into legislative, executive and judiciary isn't perfect. Wikipedia works because Jimbo is a genuinely good guy. It is *de facto* a benevolent dictatorship. What will happen after control and sponsorship passes from his hands is anyone's guess.

I don't really know what is best for Wikipedia. But if I had the power to do so, I would give all sysops banning rights over signed-in contributors; with each ban undoable by any other sysop. Or we could create a super-sysop (moderator) with that power, undoable by any other moderator. This obviously leaves open the question of who should have "ban-a-signed-in-user" power. I guess we could just discuss it on the list, as we do now with granting sysop power.

But whether we do this or not, we need to come up with a clear (and preferable short) list of rules. My Sunday School rules were as short as possible, mainly so that even a 4-year-old could understand them. What is teasing? You said something that hurt his feelings. Don't call someone "stupid", okay? "Okay, teacher." Same with calling a picture someone drew "ugly". If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. These ideas are easy for children to understand.

Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly of them are men. Does the fact that men are not children mean that Wikipedia need no rules, no "hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.

We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules" will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace it.

I suggest -- and hereby formally submit for the community's consideration -- that we formulate a set of rules, which like my Sunday School's "three noes" are readily seen as mutually helpful. That is, contributors will follow the rule set we will formulate, BECAUSE DOING SO IS TO THEIR BENEFIT as well as to the benefit of others and the project as a whole.

Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in place:
* don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
* don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
* don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
* don't post copyrighted material, except fair use

Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
* anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV violation (soft security)
* a sysop or above can ban an IP address
* developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
* Jimbo can ban a signed-in user

Is this is fine, then let's keep it. If it could possibly be improved, let's improve it.

Ed Poor
"My opinions are only mine, not my employer's."


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] What if a signed-in user started writing the
	following...

body:
On 11/11/02 12:09 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over
> Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure
> you ;-)
>
>
> "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't stop
> me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
>
For someone who really doesn't like swearing, you seem to do it a lot.

We'd revert the changes, and probably publicly wonder what the user's
problem is. I for example would question the "hate everybody and everything"
assertion. Is that really possible? I mean, it takes a lot of energy to
truly hate. And then there's the question of if you hate everybody and
everything, why have you not committed suicide? And why choose Wikipedia as
a target? I mean, really. WP does not have that much influence or
importance, especially if the targets of your hatred are "everybody" and
"everything".

Writing the above all over Wikipedia is hardly the way to destroy it.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Soft Bans?

body:
On Monday 11 November 2002 04:00 am, wikitech-l-request at wikipedia.org wrote:
> If we set a cookie in the browsers of all Wikipedia visitors, anonymous or
> not, we could the assign them random global user IDs. Instead of banning
> users by IP, we could ban them by GUID, which would eliminate the risk of
> accidentally banning legitimate contributors.
>
> While the majority of users have cookies enabled, a minority does not, so
> "soft bans" as I like to call them would not work for them. Other users
> might be smart enough to turn cookies off to avoid the ban. But I consider
> both beyond the technical understanding of most vandals, so I think soft
> bans might be quite efficient.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

This seems like a good idea. However many browsers now have the ability to
easily block cookies so to combat this we would have to require everyone to
accept cookies in order to edit - which I don't think is too Draconian.

It would be great to have this /in addition to/ the current IP blocks but
please keep this functionality -- it is needed to at least temporarily block
the more technically savvy.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> What it comes down to is a tough choice between two choices:
>
> (1) We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software.
>
> (2) We are maintaining a Wiki community. If we make some good encyclopedia
> articles, that's nice too.
>
This is a false dilemma.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

We have one choice:

(1) We are building a free Wiki encyclopedia.


from_name: Tom Parmenter

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce them

body:
|From: Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu>
|Content-Disposition: inline
|Sender: wikipedia-l-admin at wikipedia.org
|Reply-To: wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
|Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 17:45:55 -0800
|
|Tom Parmenter wrote:
|
|>People are confusing the Wikipedia (particularly talk pages) with the
|>Usenet.  If non-participating "moderators" were willing to jump in,
|>delete nonsense from talk pages, and enforce civility, even incoherent
|>or ideological contributors can learn NPOV.
|
|I like the idea that people come from outside the discussion
|to impose civility in this fashion by moderating.
|We don't have to give people extraordinary powers for us to do this.
|(To a large extent, this is what Ed Poor has been doing the whole time.)
|These actions would be based on moral authority, not police force.
|
|
|-- Toby

Larry Sanger has been doing it recently, generally to good effect
(against me, as it happens).  I would add that anyone doing this sort
of graybeard oversight will have to forego the luxury of sarcasm, even
in the comment line, and resist the temptation to chime in on every
little point.  Those things reduce the value of the outside
intervention and make it seem less disinterested (neutral).

Tom Parmenter
Ortolan88


from_name: Brion VIBBER

subject: [Wikipedia-l] A Wikipedia "mirror"

body:
Nick Hill wrote:
> By making the wiki database .MYI,  .MYD and .frm  files available by
> anonymous rsync, mirrors can sync their database to the wiki database in
> minutes, with relatively little data transfer (Rsync only sends the
> differences between the local and remote copy of the file over the
> network). With such a system, I can imagine lots of databased wiki mirrors
> pointing their edits back to the main wiki.

IIRC, the .MYI. MYD, and .frm files are not portable across platforms
(and certainly not across database backends!). I'd be very leery of
using them that way.

> The same thing would work just as well, and be easier to implement, using
> rsync on an HTML tree image of Wiki.

This, however, would be ideal.

>>And perhaps a way to dump a static HTML tree. -- Incidentally, the total
>>combined size of the pages in article and Wikipedia: space on the
>>English wiki is about 172 megabytes. The upload directories bring
>>another 134 megs;
>
> This surprises me. I would think it closer to 400Mb. The current article
> database seems mostly plain text and weighs in at 404Mb without revision
> histories. I have viewed the database with Hexedit and less than 10% is
> non-text.

You're forgetting the talk pages and user pages, which I can't imagine
would be included in a simple encyclopedia mirror.

>>we still fit on a CD-ROM uncompressed. That may not
>>remain so, though...
>
> The KDE Konqueror web browser can navigate and open files in a .tgz
> archive, but this would only be a medium-term partial solution.

There's always self-unzipping JavaScript. ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole

body:
On 11/11/02 12:36 PM, "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:

>
>
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following all over
>> Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical case, I assure
>> you ;-)
>>
>>
>> "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you can't
>> stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
>>
>>
>>
> Well it's not hypothetical any more:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AFucking_Asshole
>
I believe Ed created the account himself, I suppose to prove a point. At
least it has his email address. I haven't checked the IP logs to make sure.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

body:
Your solution to the "dilemma" I posed fails to take the bull by the horns.

Our goal is NOT to build a free Wiki encyclopedia, but rather to build a free encyclopedia. Our choice of the Wiki Way is a means to the end, not an end in itself.

Open source software development, such as the GNU project, allows the submission of any change, but the unusable forks are quickly discarded. Only good forks remain.

In writing an NPOV article on a controversial subject, the forks must be incorporated into the text. X says Y about Z.

We cannot continue with the one-pronged, he-who-laughs-last-laughs-best approach. There must be a standard, if there's a standard there must be enforcement.

I trust YOU to be a sysop, moderator or developer. That's because you're dedicated to the cause, which is a higher value than whatever your current opinion happens to be on a subject.

But I do not want Julie's articles mangled. And I do not have the time to follow Helga around, checking whether each edit is constructive or destructive.

I might be an anarchist, but if I see a gang of kids going down the street, methodically knocking out car windshields with baseball bats -- I'm calling the cops. And I want them to have handcuffs, mace and guns. Sometimes having a police force is the lesser of two evils.

Now, I'm not dismissing the risk that "law and order" can turn into fascism. Hitler is ever on my mind. But have you ever lived in a gang-controlled neighborhood?

With no legitimate authority, mob rule develops. With excessive authority, dictatorship ensues. What are we to do?

Just wait and see? No, I think we should plan ahead. Please work with Larry and Erik and others (me, perhaps) to come up with a plan to present to Jimbo.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] F***ing A**h***

body:
> > What would happen if a signed-in user started writing the following
> > all over Wikipedia? How would we deal with it? (Purely a hypothetical
> > case, I assure you ;-)
> >
> >
> > "I hate everybody and everything. I will destroy Wikipedia, and you
> > can't stop me. Your own stupid rules forbid it, BWAH HA HA HA!"
>
> Indeed, Ed, what would happen in that *purely hypothetical* situation? ;-)
>
> Larry

Well, if it was "one of us" trying to make a point, he'd probably give up before someone decided to look up his IP and unmask him.

But if it wasn't hypothetical, it would be handy to have a Moderator (rotating or otherwise) with enough clout to block him.

Ed Poor


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Multilingual Wikipedia

body:
On 11/11/02 12:44 PM, "tarquin" <tarquin at planetunreal.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>> This is a false dilemma.
>
> Cunc, I think your above reasoning should also be applied to the
> following (that you posted a while ago)
>
> (a) we are one multi-lingual encyclopedia
> (b) we are many encyclopedias, one in each of many languages

Good point. Is the above a false dilemma? It is if there are other options
which are not being considered, or if there isn't a substantive difference
between the options listed above.

I think we generally agree that the above options fairly describe the
possibilities.

Are they in fact not substantively different?

In other words, are they interchangeable premises? Can you draw the same
conclusions from either option? I don't think so.

I believe "We are one multi-lingual encyclopedia; therefore, we should have
an integrated user database" is a stronger (and different argument) than "We
are many encyclopedias, one in each of many languages; therefore, we should
have an integrated user database."

Simply put, (b) doesn't in itself provide any reason for the various
participants of different languages to work together, whereas (a) does.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority
	(wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

body:
On 11/11/02 12:48 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Your solution to the "dilemma" I posed fails to take the bull by the horns.
>
> Our goal is NOT to build a free Wiki encyclopedia, but rather to build a free
> encyclopedia. Our choice of the Wiki Way is a means to the end, not an end in
> itself.

Hardly. There's a reason this is called "Wikipedia". The Wiki software is
what distinguishes this project from other projects such as Nupedia, which
also had the goal to build a free encyclopedia.

Did you mean to say
"Our goal is to build a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software."
instead of
"We are building a free encyclopedia. Therefore, we use Wiki software."

?

They don't mean the same thing.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: problem accessing site

body:
Giskart wrote:
> Matsunaga, Richard wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I get the following when I try to access the site. I have tried
>> clearing my cache to no avail.
>>
>>
>> *Warning*: Host 'localhost.localdomain' is blocked because of many
>> connection errors. Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts' in
>> */usr/local/apache/htdocs/w/DatabaseFunctions.php* on line *19*
>> Could not connect to DB on 127.0.0.1
>>
>> *Host 'localhost.localdomain' is blocked because of many connection
>> errors. Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'*
>>
>> If this error persists after reloading and clearing your browser
>> cache, please notify the Wikipedia developers
>> <mailto:wikitech-l at nupedia.com>.
>
>
> So it is not changed to "wikidown AT bomis.com" ?
>
> If sombody is reporting a problem whit wikipedia to wikitech-l like the
> message says and the are not a listmember it have to wait until i aprove
> it, like this one. That is not good.

The only place it wasn't changed as of a few minutes ago was the
September 11 wiki.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Alexander Stephen Bradbury

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Small Request

body:
I have a small request for the wikipedia left hand bar, could a link be
added to your recent hcnages page, as in the user contributions for the
user you're logged in under, it could go below my page and my talk as my
history. I would find it useful, and I know it would be next to no effort
to add. Comments?

Also, re the Wikipedians/Anti-Americans I think that if we're going to
letp eople categorise themselves, they sohuld be able to categerise
themselves into whatever they want to. Moving these pages to metapedia is
a nice idea, but at the moments accounts aren't universal (as in you have
to register to each wiki seperately), so it could be annoying.

ASB

--
<signature>
There are only 10 types of people in this world;
Those that know binary...and those that don't
</signature>


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Sidebar change, comments?

body:
Erik Moeller wrote in part:

>- "What links here" needs a questionmark.

"What links here" doesn't need a question mark, because it's not a question,
it's a noun phrase.  The link takes you to a list of "what links here"
("that which links here", but "what" reads better than "that which").

Everything else is an improvement IMO, however.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole

body:
Well, duh!

If I wanted to hide it, I would have used a fake e-mail address. But I'm not that sneaky.

Besides, just imagine the coincidence of ME asking about a "hypothetical case" of a rant appear on the same day and hour as that rant actually appears, word for word the same?

The point is: what do we do about "obscene" usernames? Is Throbbing Monster Cock okay, just because you see an image of a chicken towering over the skyline and thus "get" the joke? (Not talking about the user himself; he's a good chap; just his nick.)

If we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt, then we have a standard. All I'm saying is: let's refine and enshrine our standards.

Ed "F.A." Poor


body:
Let me say that I think much of what Mr. Poor says is well-reasoned and
intentioned, even though I'm going to focus on the points which I think are
incorrect.

On 11/11/02 12:21 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Cunctator correctly points out that an analogy could be taken too far. But he
> misses several points:
> * like a Sunday School, the Wikipedia has a lofty goal (higher ideal)
> * the enjoyment of peace resulting from not being hurt by others (golden rule)
> * I refused to accept students in my class whose parents required their
> attendance (no prisoners)

Rather, I said that it was a poor analogy. Yes, there are connections, but
there are also crucial differences that preclude doing too much reasoning by
analogy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm).

> Cunctator, you're never going to call me "Uncle Ed", because you're not one of
> the kids. You are the paradigmatic example of the rational anarchist. I may
> not agree with all your article edits, but I can work with you. I can't really
> work with Lir and her ilk.

Is anyone going to call you Uncle Ed here at Wikipedia? I hope not. Mr. Poor
is essentially right in describing me as a rational anarchist, but I want to
make it clear that this is entirely situational; I only think anarchism is
to a reasonable degree possible in such a well-defined online space such as
Wikipedia. I don't think it's a reasonable real-world answer. It doesn't
really work well when people can be physically controlled.

<snip>
>
> Wikipedia is not for children. It's run by adults, and nearly all of them are
men.
> Does the fact that men are not children mean that Wikipedia need no rules, no
> "hard security"? Even anarchy requires guidelines or customs of some sort. If
> everyone carries swords and knives, then you show an open hand as sign of
> friendship when you approach another armed man, or you risk a sudden
> skewering. That's a custom -- not a law.

There are no equivalents to guns or knives at Wikipedia.

<snip>
> We have some customs. We need to review and codify them. "Ignore all rules"
> will have to go. "Please follow the rules or be blocked" will have to replace
> it.

Doing so will destroy Wikipedia. Rather, the type of contributors will
steadily become limited to a certain type of person, which type will over
time become more and more limited.

<snip>

> Here is a partial list of the customs or guidelines I see as already in place:
> * don't delete an entire article or insert random nonsense (no vandalism)
> * don't alter other user's comments (no forgery)
> * don't write partisan articles on controversial subjects (NPOV)
> * don't post copyrighted material, except fair use

The only problem (other than the fair use thing, which is a different kettle
of fish) with these guidelines is that they are not equivalent. It's a lot
easier to determine if a page has been erased than if someone is being
partisan on a controversial subject. "Don't write partisan articles" is
about the same kind of guideline as "Don't write dictionary entries". It's a
matter of degree.

> Here are the 3 enforcement mechanisms:
> * anyone can undo a change, thus reverting the vandalism, forgery or POV
> violation (soft security)
> * a sysop or above can ban an IP address
> * developers can ban a signed-in user (not "authorized" but "can")
> * Jimbo can ban a signed-in user

You forgot also:
* editing to improve entries
* peer pressure
* mentoring

the enforcement mechanisms that you yourself have used.

There's also the enforcement mechanism of denigrating other people, which
some people use.


from_name: koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole

body:
tarquin about Ed's unhypothetical hypothetical:
>Well it's not hypothetical any more:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AFucking_Asshole
>
>Could we have a vague policy that profanity is not okay for user names?
>(vague because people's idea of profanity doesn't always match -- we'd
>have to decide on a case by case basis)

Throbbing Monster Cock points out that [[fisting]] or whatever is in
the wikipedia so his username is really no different.  Well, it is:
[[fisting]] does not edit other articles, showing up on Recent Changes
a hundred times a day or more.

I don't mind the name, really.  I had a brief chuckle & then went on
with my business--but I can see how other people would mind the name
(and apparently do, as his talk page emphasises).

kq


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Ed F.A. Poor

body:
On 11/11/02 1:17 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

> Well, duh!
>
> If I wanted to hide it, I would have used a fake e-mail address. But I'm not
> that sneaky.
>
> Besides, just imagine the coincidence of ME asking about a "hypothetical case"
> of a rant appear on the same day and hour as that rant actually appears, word
> for word the same?
>
> The point is: what do we do about "obscene" usernames? Is Throbbing Monster
> Cock okay, just because you see an image of a chicken towering over the
> skyline and thus "get" the joke? (Not talking about the user himself; he's a
> good chap; just his nick.)

As obscenity goes, Throbbing Monster Cock and Fucking Asshole are not in the
same category. If you were attempting to make the comparison, you should
have used something like Slick Wet Beaver.

(apologies.)

All I can say is that we have never had a case of vandalism which paralleled
the one you just committed.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority(wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)

body:
Okay, let me be clearer. And I'll try to stop swearing, damn it!

MY OWN goal is to help build an unbiased encyclopedia. To a certain extent, that goal coincides with Jimbo's goal. Moreover, that goal is sought be many other signed-in contributors whose work I've come to respect.

The Neutral Point Of View policy is, as I see it, a MEANS toward an end. By requiring disputants to cite sources and attribute points of view to spokesman, we avoid the bias that inevitably mars other encyclopedias.

MS Encarta and E. Britannica have long been unfair to my church, as well as being way to soft on Communism.

The idea that Jimbo and Larry have championed is that on controversial matters, we agree to disagree: A said X about it, while B said Y about it. This lets the reader make up their own mind, based upon whatever criteria they choose.

Neutrality in itself is not a goal I believe in. It's only a shared means to an end. Jimbo is pro-free-markets and anti-Marxist. I doubt that he is personally neutral on these subjects, but I daresay he AGREES that the articles should neither favor nor oppose free markets or Marxism.

Likewise (as a small mind may imitate a greater mind) I favor the Unification Church and oppose homosexuality. Yet I have agreed to write neutrally on both these subjects, and I think I've done well enough on maintain "editorial neutrality" to justify the confidence the community has placed in me. (What confidence? Oh, shut up!)

Let us re-examine our aims; then we can decide on means to achieve the ends.

Ed Poor
"My opinion, not my company's"


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: 90000 articles

body:
Larry Sanger wrote:

>I think we should implement the greatly-pared-down counting scheme we were
>discussing on the list earlier.  We don't have 90K articles.  We have
>about 50K articles and about 40K geographical entries automatically
>created from a database.

Why don't we just say "thousands and thousands of articles"?

Since we've agreed that there's no certain way
to automatically detect which articles are "real",
making milestones like 100K even more meaningless than usual,
we shouldn't pretend than any one figure is correct.
Anybody that's interested in a total count,
using any of the various automatic definitions of "article",
can look at [[Wikipedia:Statistics]] for that information.
Anybody that believes a particular method of counting to be useful
can announce milestones based on it on [[Wikipedia:Announcements]].

We can even link from [[Main Page]] to [[Wikipedia:Statistics]]
directly from the phrase "thousands and thousands of articles",
so even newcomers can get an easily accessible precise count --
deciding for themselves which precise count is most accurate.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikipedia-l] We aleady have a POV wiki, so lets use it.

body:
On Monday 11 November 2002 10:03 am, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I'm prepared to tolerate the "anti-" pages.  If people want to paint
> targets on their foreheads for everybody else to shoot at, I don't think
> that the rest of us need to jump in to prevent their suicide.  People
> who choose to put their names on these lists need to know that being
> there may say something to the rest of us about their credibility.
>  There can even be several pages that seem to say the same thing
> (anti-american/anti-yankee or anti-gay/anti-queer/anti-pervert) with
> each expressing a different perspective on the subject.
>
> If some of the sillier debates can be marginalized to these personal
> anti-pages, the more serious contributors are likely to ignore them
> completely, no matter how offensive they get.  Individual user pages
> don't quite do the job for the people on these pages; they often need to
> feel that they are a part of a group, even if it is a group of one.
>
> Eclecticology

But the wikipedia:namespace is not an appropriate forum for this. POV views
held by contributors are only supposed to be on user pages and in the meta.
Let's keep focus here people - we needn't have this material in the NPOV
encyclopedia area. The Wikipedia namespace is supposed to be about the
project, not about the views of the users.

Having these anti pages on the regular Wikipedians pages paints a very skewed
and wrong image about our project. The new user will see different factions
of other users and then will be presented with a choice; which faction should
I join? This can only work against NPOV and against community building
(because it in fact creates sub-communities).

We already have a POV wiki and user pages, so lets use them for this placing
POV material and not the general wikipedia:namespace.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Let me say first of all that I agree with Cunctator's well-reasoned points.

However, stop being an idiot! People don't change just because you call them names, you fool!

And you have failed to explain how reviewing and codifying our customs and/or blocking violators of codified will "destroy" Wikipedia. What the heck does "limited to certain type of person" mean? Are you afraid that people like you would be kicked out? Shucks, you're the first person I would vote for to be a Moderator!

We already block the IPs of graffiti artists. How would reviewing and codifying the "vandal blocking" policy make things worse?

Ed Poor