from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/2/19, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:

> > I've been on the inside, and I indeed found I had to be very careful.
> Very
> > careful to not do something to upset other sysops, that is. If I had not
> > interfered with the actions of other sysops, I would not have been in
> > problems.
> Interfering with other sysops did not get you in problems to the extend
> that you had to give up being a sysop. It was your choice to give up
> your sysopship. Were you to stand again for sysop, chances are that you
> would be voted in again. I would vote in favour. Being careful not to
> upset other people IS the name of the game.

That's true; however, if I had upset a non-sysop it would have been much
easier  to just ignore it if it were not a sysop but another user that I had
upset.  Worst you can get then is a vote to de-sysop, which in all
probability you pass after which you have been vindicated.

And yes, I am quite convinced that if I put myself up to the nomination, I
would be re-elected hands down. But I am too afraid to get into similar
conflict again. And things that I protested against then are being official
policy now, I don't want to be responsible for them. And finally, there is
also a good thing about not being a sysop: I don't have to worry about
things like blocking policy. When I was a sysop and saw incorrect blocks, I
felt the need to revert them, or at least talk about them. Now I just blame
it on those all-mighty sysops being fools, and forget about it. If you can't
change it, you don't have to worry about changing it either.

> By adding more people to sysophood, the only effect is that you draw more
> > and more of the fighting behind the closed doors of sysophood, which
> > actually makes it easier, not more difficult, to ignore the voices of
> > non-sysops on the matter. Also, you increase the likelihood of having
> rogue
> > admins, and lessen the chances of them losing their sysophood.
> >
> Rogue admins can be de-sysoped. They can even be banned. This is what
> happened to Waerth.

They can.  But in practice they are not. Even in Waerth's case the
de-sysopping  was based on just a minority. Since then, all procedures have
failed. And there is nothing between de-sysopping and approving of whatever
the sysop does. With the effect that anything that a sysop does which is not
bad enough to set up large part of the community against him or her, is
automatically condoned and turned into non-official policy.

>
> > Unlikely if one of the things that the community is getting wild about
> is
> > the blind blocking of proxies. "Just let me do what I want, and
> everything
> > will be fine" is not the way to alleviate the worries of people who
> think
> > you have too much power.
> >
> How come that you assume that proxies are blocked blindly; have you
> spoken about this with Ronald ? Read what he wrote on the mailing list,
> it is reasoned and it sounds that he is willing to arguments to refine
> his ways. He presented on this subject on multiple occasions, last
> Saturday in Nijmegen at the "Moderator workshop". He is approachable.

Interesting, at the moderator workshop. Doesn't that actually prove my
point? One moderator decides that open proxies should be blocked. So they
are blocked. This happens silently for quite a while, long enough to make it
be considered policy, but then some negative consequences appear. What
happens? The other moderators get explanation and the chance to ask
questions. And still you seem to be of the opinion that being a moderator is
NOT a position of power?

> How? RonaldB does his blocks, and even if I do convince people, he'll just
> > go on with the support of that part of the population I did not
> convince.
> > It's either convincing him, or having no effect at all.
> >
> Like me, you do convince people. However, like me you do not convince
> people all the time. When a particular policy that you do not like is
> supported by a substantial group of the community, you really have to
> convince and you may fail at that. That is how the cookie crumbles.

However, if I were a sysop, I could just implement my policy, and that's it.
As a non-sysop, I have to start a discussion, get support, then start a
vote, and there get a majority support who not only agree with me, but find
it important enough to make official policy.

When Waerth feels wronged, when anyone feels wronged, it does not mean
> that he/she has a right to become obnoxious, abusive. It does not give
> him/her a right to threaten people or threaten the system. When there
> are people who vote against sysops on principle, they may but they are
> in my opinion stupid. People have a right to be stupid, they have a
> right to be wrong. They should not be surprised when they are then
> ignored because this behaviour is explicit "assume bad faith".

So feeling that sysops have too much power is now explicitly assuming bad
faith?

Yes, it is your choice to do whatever. I value you as a person, I hope
> you will do the right thing. That is why I take ample time to reply.

And what is the right thing? Can I do it? I think there is a problem with
the way things work between moderators and the rest of us on nl:. As you
said before, making more people moderator won't help - there will always be
people left who are not moderators, and they will feel even more powerless.
Problem is, I don't know what will help either. And even if I would see a
way, I still don't think I'll be able to convince enough people to make it
happen.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am still
	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing


list: foundation-l

from_name: Anthere

subject:
[Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves
	inpt.wikipedia.orgThankyou

body:
This answer is exactly correct.
This is not up to the Foundation.

First, having a software displaying different behavior depending on the
language/project is a bad idea. It makes things very complex and users
travelling from one language to another are likely to find this disturbing.

So, any change in that respect must be reflected in all languages (I
presume the cutoff at 15 or 45 could be negociable depending on
communities, but the concept of having a cutoff should be global).

Such a global change of the software should not be initiated by the
Foundation, but by editors. This is something needed by editors, not by
Foundation. There is no argument for a top down decision here :-)

Discussing it on mailing lists first or on wikis is the way to go.

Anthere

  effe iets anders wrote:
> In my opinion, but of course i can not speak in any way for the foundation,
> this not an issue that is up to the foundation. The local community knows
> best what they need, and I guess that if they find a developer that wants to
> implement this, they can just ask him (her) to do it. I see no need to
> discuss it all over here :-) It would perhaps be something different if you
> prohibit editing for unregistered users etc maybe :)
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/2/18, Titoxd at Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com>:
>
>>No, it only requires some alterations of the site configuration file.
>>Nothing major, actually. The main issue here is if it is acceptable to the
>>Foundation.
>>
>>Titoxd.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
>>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Casey Brown
>>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:58 PM
>>To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves
>>inpt.wikipedia.orgThankyou
>>
>>Hi Daniel, one question:  Was this conclusion reached from a "straw poll"
>>or
>>discussion?  Otherwise, it seems good, but it would probably involve a
>>site-wide semi-protection against moves and upping the "new account
>>cut-off"
>>to 45-days.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
>>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Nix
>>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:25 PM
>>To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves in
>>pt.wikipedia.orgThankyou
>>
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>>In a recent poll on pt.wikipedia it was decided to restrict move
>>pages to users with at least a 45-day-old registered account, the same
>>minimum period to grant right to vote (but without the request of 100
>>valid
>>editions).
>>
>>I made a request on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9024 and
>>it was suggested to consult the Foundation because the decision seems to
>>be
>>very restrictive.
>>
>>Well, the community decision was:
>>
>>First question (pro or con):
>>*52 pro restriction
>>*11 contro restriction
>>
>>Second (time restriction):
>>*15 votes - 5 days
>>*8 votes - 15 days
>>*38 votes - 45 days
>>
>>So, I'd like to know what you think about it and what could be done after
>>this decision.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Dantadd
>>http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Dantadd
>>
>>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Distributed content hosting

body:
> > Have you been paying attention lately; our costs and our traffic are
> > growing exponentially.
>
> Not forever.

I'm kind of assuming that at some point there will be YouTube-style videos
embedded in many pages - e.g. for [[Hummingbird]], there might be a video
which when you click play, will show you a hummingbird flying, and then
again slowed down to show the mechanics of its hovering flight; And for
[[Windsor Castle]] you might get a virtual tour of the highlights of the
castle; for [[Vladimir Putin]] you might get a subtitled excerpt of a
speech he's made; and so forth.

That'd probably impact on someone's bandwidth bill in a big way, although
it's in keeping with the "media" in "MediaWiki", and certainly in keeping
with an encyclopedia for the 21st century.

All the best,
Nick.


list: wikien-l

from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/19/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
> The present state of things, is that any editors can have as much
> involvement in Wikipedia affairs as any admin could. What is the
> difference between an editor that has contributed 20,000 edits in two
> years and that is not an admin, and one with the same level of
> involvement that is one?  Absolutely *nothing*

What is the difference between these two? The editor who is not an
administrator has to live in daily fear that at any point, especially should
they edit on any remotely controversial subject without the protection of
another "friend" who is an administrator, they can be accosted by any
administrator, their rights to edit terminated.

All this can be done at the whim of any administrator, who can then lock the
talk page, who is then defended should they revert and block any other user
who speaks in the defense of the blocked editor as a "sockpuppet of a
blocked user."

And what will happen should this happen? Nothing at all. The editor will
remain blocked, at the whim of the blocking admin. The appeals process will
not happen, and no resolution can happen. The supposed "authorities" who are
supposed to prevent this prefer to turn a blind eye, to dismiss complaints
against administrators without ever investigating.

Meanwhile, the Admin is growing an ever larger ego, based solely on his
ability to do just this. Rather than acting within policy, Administrators on
Wikipedia are the equivalent of Judge Dredd - they are judge, jury, and
executioner all in one package, screaming "I am the law" and doing whatever
they want, confident that the other Judge Dredds will back them up if any
questions of their abuses are ever raised.

Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are
> perceptions, and not facts. These forced distinctions between admins
> and editors is a fallacy. Admins are also editors, and editors can do
> as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs.

See above. Editors cannot do nearly as much as an admin, because they do not
have the protection of position.

Rather than exacerbating the width of the perceived chasm between
> "admin" and "non-admin", we ought to be building bridges.

A noble concept, but completely inadequate with today's crop of admins; the
goal of the vast majority of the administrators is not to build bridges or
even an encyclopedia, but to consolidate their power and ensure that they
have the power to be as abusive, mean, incivil as they wish to be. The rules
to an admin are for the "little people", not for them.

Parker

--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
>
>> What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do
>> as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs",
>> then
>> what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
> I am not against having more admins. We have an RfA process, that
> although not perfect, it has served us quite well so far. Is there
> room for improving that process? Sure.
>
>> The reality is that there are significant differences (far more
>> than you
>> suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and
>> restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and
>> unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
> Sure, but those tasks are performed under quite strict guidelines and
> our performance evaluated by other editors. That is what we have WP:ANI
>> But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the
>> consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be
>> significant
>> consequences, please tell us about them.
>
> That's is easy, Rich. Adminship carries some necessary and basic
> responsibilities based on a deep understanding of how Wikipedia
> works. Without such understanding, the consequences of having these
> extra privileges in the hands of many will be utter chaos. Don't you
> think so?
>
> Those editors that want to carry the burden of the additional
> responsibilities of adminship, are welcome to self-nominate, or wait
> until a fellow editor nominates them.
>
> -- Jossi
>

Jossi, you say that you are not against having many more admins, but you
are against relaxing the criteria for becoming an admin. Do you have any
useful suggestions for expanding the ranks?

Relaxing the criteria should have benefits beyond increasing the number
of admins. It should help to eliminate the perception that being an
admin is a "big thing". Yes, many non-admins overrate the prestige of
becoming an admin--and many admins do as well.

I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences
that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want
with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This
is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons
for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for
the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may
have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.

If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the
archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I
think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind
some of the recent posts.

-Rich


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Earle Martin wrote:
> On 19/02/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just curious...would [[List of people taller than eight feet]] be OR?
>
> Maybe not, but cue the inevitable edit war from people who think it
> should be at [[List of people taller than 2.43 meters]]... (Who
> themselves have a sub-war with the people who want to spell it
> "metres".)
>
>

Yeah, I am a mid-40's lifetime US resident. While I do appreciate the
metric system, I still think in inches, feet, and yards (and degrees F,
gallons, miles, pounds, etc.).

-Rich


from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

body:
> enwp has a general four day waiting period for page moves - do any
> others use this?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk

And on en.wp anonymous users cannot create new articles. Also the ability for blocked users can edit their talk page in active somewhere, and inactive somewhere else.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Trova il tuo mutuo su misura. Tassi ridotti da 4.25% solo per richieste online, mutuionline.it
http://click.libero.it/mutuionline19feb7


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/19/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.
>
> Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly
> feel proud when they achieve it.
>
> I think this is a bad thing for the project.
>
> >> If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to
> >> view the
> >> archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I
> >> think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie
> >> behind
> >> some of the recent posts.
> >
> > I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more
> > admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins
> > need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage
> > more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors
> > and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their
> > agreement to nominate them for adminship.
> >
>
> And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current
> strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.
>
> I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a
> function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship
> gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the
> community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much
> less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these
> powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings
> and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.
>
> Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become
> admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and
> abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the
> presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big
> deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This
> encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable.
> This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to
> becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing
> cycle.
>
> All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no
> interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject
> themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't
> want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some
> admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through
> these trials aren't fit to be admins!
>
> We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect
> and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins
> that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the
> perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
>
> I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the
> de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more
> effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can
> do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage
> of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any
> active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the
> admin was borderline abusive.
>
> -Rich

Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy,
also, to lose adminship.  In other words, it really must be no big deal,
which it currently isn't (no big deal).

And, yes, Marc Riddell is correct, "when statements along these lines are
made, there is a curious
silence that seems to fall over the List regarding them." And over Wikipedia
in general.

KP


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] One week later and I am
 still	blocked, nobody is doing a fucking thing

body:
Andre Engels schreef:
> 2007/2/19, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
>
>>> I've been on the inside, and I indeed found I had to be very careful.
>>>
>> Very
>>
>>> careful to not do something to upset other sysops, that is. If I had not
>>> interfered with the actions of other sysops, I would not have been in
>>> problems.
>>>
>> Interfering with other sysops did not get you in problems to the extend
>> that you had to give up being a sysop. It was your choice to give up
>> your sysopship. Were you to stand again for sysop, chances are that you
>> would be voted in again. I would vote in favour. Being careful not to
>> upset other people IS the name of the game.
>>
>
>
> That's true; however, if I had upset a non-sysop it would have been much
> easier  to just ignore it if it were not a sysop but another user that I had
> upset.  Worst you can get then is a vote to de-sysop, which in all
> probability you pass after which you have been vindicated.
>
> And yes, I am quite convinced that if I put myself up to the nomination, I
> would be re-elected hands down. But I am too afraid to get into similar
> conflict again. And things that I protested against then are being official
> policy now, I don't want to be responsible for them. And finally, there is
> also a good thing about not being a sysop: I don't have to worry about
> things like blocking policy. When I was a sysop and saw incorrect blocks, I
> felt the need to revert them, or at least talk about them. Now I just blame
> it on those all-mighty sysops being fools, and forget about it. If you can't
> change it, you don't have to worry about changing it either.
>
Given that there are so many sysops, you can easily ignore many of them.
Most are not special and only some can be considered "thought leaders",
you know who you respect and who are respected, these people you can not
safely ignore.
>
>> By adding more people to sysophood, the only effect is that you draw more
>>
>>> and more of the fighting behind the closed doors of sysophood, which
>>> actually makes it easier, not more difficult, to ignore the voices of
>>> non-sysops on the matter. Also, you increase the likelihood of having
>>>
>> rogue
>>
>>> admins, and lessen the chances of them losing their sysophood.
>>>
>>>
>> Rogue admins can be de-sysoped. They can even be banned. This is what
>> happened to Waerth.
>>
>
>
> They can.  But in practice they are not. Even in Waerth's case the
> de-sysopping  was based on just a minority. Since then, all procedures have
> failed. And there is nothing between de-sysopping and approving of whatever
> the sysop does. With the effect that anything that a sysop does which is not
> bad enough to set up large part of the community against him or her, is
> automatically condoned and turned into non-official policy.
>
There is something between de-sysopping and approving. Voicing argued
dissent, argued in a reasonable tone does make a difference. By not
arguing you achieve exactly what you do not want, turning things in a
non-official policy. It is however your choice to speak or be forever
silent.
>
>>> Unlikely if one of the things that the community is getting wild about
>>>
>> is
>>
>>> the blind blocking of proxies. "Just let me do what I want, and
>>>
>> everything
>>
>>> will be fine" is not the way to alleviate the worries of people who
>>>
>> think
>>
>>> you have too much power.
>>>
>>>
>> How come that you assume that proxies are blocked blindly; have you
>> spoken about this with Ronald ? Read what he wrote on the mailing list,
>> it is reasoned and it sounds that he is willing to arguments to refine
>> his ways. He presented on this subject on multiple occasions, last
>> Saturday in Nijmegen at the "Moderator workshop". He is approachable.
>>
>
>
> Interesting, at the moderator workshop. Doesn't that actually prove my
> point? One moderator decides that open proxies should be blocked. So they
> are blocked. This happens silently for quite a while, long enough to make it
> be considered policy, but then some negative consequences appear. What
> happens? The other moderators get explanation and the chance to ask
> questions. And still you seem to be of the opinion that being a moderator is
> NOT a position of power?
>
What is called a "Moderator workshop" has an open door policy; anyone
can come. You do not even have to be active on a Wikimedia project, you
do not need to be a moderator to benefit from this workshop.
Consequently it is NOT a correct argument that strengthens the notion
that moderators are a cabal.
>
>> How? RonaldB does his blocks, and even if I do convince people, he'll just
>>
>>> go on with the support of that part of the population I did not
>>>
>> convince.
>>
>>> It's either convincing him, or having no effect at all.
>>>
>>>
>> Like me, you do convince people. However, like me you do not convince
>> people all the time. When a particular policy that you do not like is
>> supported by a substantial group of the community, you really have to
>> convince and you may fail at that. That is how the cookie crumbles.
>>
>
>
> However, if I were a sysop, I could just implement my policy, and that's it.
> As a non-sysop, I have to start a discussion, get support, then start a
> vote, and there get a majority support who not only agree with me, but find
> it important enough to make official policy.
>
When you are a sysop, you can not just do things because you feel like
it. You are part of a group of people that fulfil certain functions.
These functions have not that much to do with having the "buttons". The
only thing in which the Dutch moderator community is different from
other sysop communities is in them having a separate "moderator
mailinglist".

So being a sysop or no, the best way of changing things is by starting a
discussion, getting support and maybe start a vote. You do that when you
feel it is sufficiently important to do so.
> When Waerth feels wronged, when anyone feels wronged, it does not mean
>
>> that he/she has a right to become obnoxious, abusive. It does not give
>> him/her a right to threaten people or threaten the system. When there
>> are people who vote against sysops on principle, they may but they are
>> in my opinion stupid. People have a right to be stupid, they have a
>> right to be wrong. They should not be surprised when they are then
>> ignored because this behaviour is explicit "assume bad faith".
>>
>
>
> So feeling that sysops have too much power is now explicitly assuming bad
> faith?
>
Having the opinion that moderators have too much power is one thing,
being opposed to what these people do, or want to do, because they /are
/sysop is imho explicitly bad faith.
> Yes, it is your choice to do whatever. I value you as a person, I hope
>
>> you will do the right thing. That is why I take ample time to reply.
>>
>
>
> And what is the right thing? Can I do it? I think there is a problem with
> the way things work between moderators and the rest of us on nl:. As you
> said before, making more people moderator won't help - there will always be
> people left who are not moderators, and they will feel even more powerless.
> Problem is, I don't know what will help either. And even if I would see a
> way, I still don't think I'll be able to convince enough people to make it
> happen.
If I always knew what the "right thing" is, I would be sporting a halo.
(I just went to look in the mirror I still do not :). However when you
are convinced that something is the right thing to do. There is no need
to consider if people take it kindly. I am quite happy to take a
minority view when it is what I believe to be the "right thing". When
people do not thank me for it, it is too bad. It only means that I have
to try to convince them with different arguments. When I cannot convince
them, I have tried. Having done what I can, what is within my ability,
is what has to satisfy me.  When I have an occasional success, FINE.. it
is however not a given that I will succeed.

To me this is a truism. Worst than failing is not to have tried.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Christof Sperl

subject: [WikiEN-l] There's a name for an all-out wheel war

body:
A sysop is able to "descent from the clouds" and "rain holy thunder upon
him"?

I find it rather questionable that you make these metaphors... adminship is
not something godly that is used to lay whoopass down upon others... it
should be used as a tool to help the editors, not to burn them.

And seriously, I do not believe in Jimbos "devine vengeance"...

On 16/02/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It would be a terrible idea to give *every editor* admin powers. If you
> don't believe me, let me give an outline of what would happen:
>
> 1. Main page is deleted/restored/deleted/unprotected/protected/etc
> 2. Main page is replaced with tubgirl/goatse/meatspin
> 3: MediaWiki namespace is trashed/vandalised/deleted
> 4: Random editors are blocked for no reason
> 5: Random pages are deleted/protected for no reason
>
> And the terrible thing about this is that nobody could stop it. Normally,
> when an edit war breaks out, a sysop is able to descend from the clouds and
> settle things. When there is an abusive editor, a sysop can rain holy
> thunder upon him.
>
> If every editor can block, unblock, and generally destroy everything,
> who's next? Will the bureaucrats have to step in and lay down a Supreme
> Block? And then what if Bureaucrat is made a default right? And up until
> Steward? Will Jimbo have to step into the fray and lay his divine vengeance?
>
> Now the continuation of expanding user rights is just hypothetical, but it
> gives you an idea.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:

>On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the
>>extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
>>
>>
>That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the
>proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
>
What's amazing about this comment, sent at 8:09 (PST), is that in a
message sent at 8:07 (two minutes earlier) you took me to task when you
said:

>Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are
>perceptions, and not facts.
>
With your new message you not only spurn facts for perceptions, but
invite us to take it further into the realm of speculation.  This is a
very fast conversion from belief in facts to belief in perceptions. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
on 2/18/07 5:08 PM, K P at kpbotany at gmail.com wrote:

> And, this, to me, is the biggest problems with admins on Wikipedia, it is a
> BIG deal, it's such a big deal, that no one who has ever attained it should
> ever have it removed--according to the lucky few who've managed to convince
> their peers that they're just like them.    Adminship is given by people who
> spend most of their time on the web to others just like them, outsiders need
> never apply.  So, is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia that anyone can edit
> (the best idea of its time), or is it a private club for people who spend
> all their time editing Wikipedia?  It's the latter, now, and that will
> always be the entrenched ownership of Wikipedia: a small group of
> like-minded people who spend a lot of time online, people who,
> realistically, cannot be the experts or best editors for the bulk of general
> Wikipedia articles, because they don't go to libraries, they only use online
> resources, they don't know how to access resources not found in cyberspace,
> which is not currently the depository of all knowledge.
>
> There is no willingness or ability to de-admin someone because in order to
> jump through all the necessary hoops, one has to be one of the editors who
> is like the ownership cabal: living in cyberspace, and these people would
> never risk their own future chance to join the exaulted ranks just to take
> down an administrator who does things that could get a regular editor
> permanently banned from Wikipedia.
>
> Adminship on Wikipedia is too special, too elitist, too permanent--have the
> right number of edits and move directly to tenure, do whatever you want
> afterwards.  Editors know how to admin shop--if you have a certain bias and
> want an article to stay with your bias, there's just the perfect admin to
> take it to, instead of requests for protection, if you are one of the many
> Wikipedia editors with nationalistic agendas, you can admin-shop to make
> sure your agenda is well-represented.
>
> If it's really no big deal, it shouldn't be handed out like it is a big
> deal, with the knowledge that it's permanent, that you've achieved status,
> that you can do whatever you want, that you can now protect the pages you
> want to make certain that your POV is locked in.
>
> I think that people underestimate the real damage being done to Wikipedia by
> the way admins are chosen, given absolute power, made an elite class, and
> given tenure the instant they pick up the tools.  Yet, essentially there is
> no way to desysop a bad administrator at Wikipedia, because being an admin
> at Wikipedia IS a very big deal.  The RfA process is a big deal, your status
> at Wikipedia when given admin tools is a big deal, your ability to keep that
> power no matter that you do things that would get an ordinary editor, the
> common, banned, is a big deal, and your ability to manipulate Wikipedia to
> suit your agenda is a big deal.
>
> Ec is correct, there is no consensus, besides that which the ownership of
> Wikipedia by the cyber-living has already established.  At some point, imo,
> it has to be decided, is Wikipedia a general online encyclopedia that
> anybody can edit, or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of
> people who live in cyberspace?  Because this latter group is none too fond
> of the anybodies of the world.
>
>
> KP

HELLO OUT THERE! THIS IS THE POST I was presenting to originally. It has to
do with attitudes - not who's doing what, or how many there are to do it. It
presents to how people are regarded and subsequently treated. It presents to
the very culture of WP itself. You can try to fiddle with the edges and
stick chewing gum in the cracks of the problems, but until the state of the
very culture itself is seriously dealt with it's going to rupture.

Marc Riddell


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:

>On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>
>>Just because someone isn't going out of his way to make himself
>>visible
>>in the way that some admins do does not mean that he is doing
>>nothing to
>>keep Wikipedia ticking.  Your attitude is very broadly
>>disrespectful of
>>a wide range of contributors.
>>
>>Have you forgoten that this thread started with complaints about admin
>>burnout.  The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the
>>extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.  But those content with the
>>present state of things argue loudly against it.  You can't have it
>>both
>>ways.  Stop complaining about being overworked, or do something about
>>the problem.
>>
>>
>How can my comment be disrespectful?   And why you interpret my
>comment as "complaining"?
>
In order to be perfectly clear I will begin by quoting back the
statement that you so conveniently left out above:

>A common complaint by these that have much to say but show little
>interest in contributing of their valuable free time to keep
>Wikipedia ticking.
>
>Administrators perform an admirable job and a thankless one, by the
>look if it.
>
On what do you base the notion that those "who have much to say show
little interest in contributing", or add the gratuitously sarcasrtic
"valuable" to your statement.  That is disrespectful of all who working
to find a solution to the problem.

The series of threads did start with a very valid complaint about admin
burnout.  Would you have preferred that I call it "self-congratulatory
whining"? :-)

>The present state of things, is that any editors can have as much
>involvement in Wikipedia affairs as any admin could. What is the
>difference between an editor that has contributed 20,000 edits in two
>years and that is not an admin, and one with the same level of
>involvement that is one?  Absolutely *nothing*
>
And the point is?  That's not what you were suggesting in your previous
post.

>Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are
>perceptions, and not facts. These forced distinctions between admins
>and editors is a fallacy. Admins are also editors, and editors can do
>as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs.
>
The broken AfD process is only a small part of the problem.

>Rather than exacerbating the width of the perceived chasm between
>"admin" and "non-admin", we ought to be building bridges.
>
Reducing the distinction between admins and non-admins would allow us to
build easier bridges than the engineering masterpieces that your
approach would require.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Rich Holton wrote:

>Jossi Fresco wrote:
>
>
>>On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the
>>>extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
>>>
>>>
>>That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the
>>proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
>>
>>
>What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do
>as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs", then
>what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
>
>The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you
>suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and
>restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and
>unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
>
>But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the
>consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant
>consequences, please tell us about them.
>
Or as the editor of a dead-tree encyclopedia might say, "Think of the
consequences of letting just anybody edit."

Ec


list: commons-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject:
[Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons request for input: policy on
	automatic image replacement

body:
On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Here are some main ones I know of:
> * Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
> TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to
> rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all
> and let local projects decide which to use.

I don't think we should make it a policy to always keep extra images,
we should do so only when there is an honest and reasonable
disagreement over which image is better. Many times there is no
disagreement, and we shouldn't keep around many useless near
duplicates just because.

So, for example, if a version is unused on other projects there should
be no problem. And in other cases we should make sure we have a nice
long tagged VFD cycle so everyone who cares can see it on
commonsticker.

> * Small size PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering
> in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but
> without special treatment).

If the small PNG is not index colors then it hasn't been hacked to
work around IE's bugs. Like above we shouldn't keep an image unless it
is actually serving a purpose. Working around IE bugs is a purpose,
but only if they are actually being used for that.

I'm almost tempted to say that IE bug workarounds should be removed
from commons. Perhaps some projects would choose not to work around IE
bugs, and yet we are shoving these workaround images on them?


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Small-scale distributed hosting?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
>   After the previous thread, I ask out of curiosity, what if there
> were just a small number of servers spread around the world, not owned
> by the WMF. Something like:
>
> - Users can access en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia-brazil.org,
> en.wikipedia-japan.org etc interchangeably
> - Each site is a complete copy of the database, and capable of serving
> independently
> - Every change on one database is immediately replicated to the others
> - To make this worthwhile, all the servers except the original are
> owned and operated by third parties on a sponsorship arrangement,
> presumably meaning they get to discreetly stick a logo somewhere
>
> Is this sort of thing technically feasible? The clear advantage is
> faster response time for people near one of the overseas hosts,
> especially when just browsing.

We can acheive faster response time just by having HTTP proxies with
keep-alive working properly. Response times of RTT to Florida plus server
overhead should be possible for most of Europe and Asia, currently it's
more like 6 x RTT + overhead, due to TCP connection setup and slow-start.

The great advantage to this is that it can and will be done in the next
few days, we don't have to wait for all these pipe dreams to magically
come to fruition.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Captcha changes

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I've fixed up the image-based captcha to read from subdirectories, which
should put less load on the file server.

Also I've gone ahead and enabled it for all wikis, partly in response to
concerns that there's some possibly machine-based mass registration
going on which might be malicious.

If there's problems, let us know.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF2gfYwRnhpk1wk44RAgoyAJ9d29QYZU8uio4uutwYhGCeaRSvigCfTkvP
NohYqJpwi07qF5a7HAW2G3Y=
=WJnP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and proxy_check

body:
Hi,

I've configured proxy_check and wgBlockOpenProxies, which seems to be
working, but am still able to edit  our wiki anonymously using Tor. Is
there anyway to tighten this up? It seems the majority of edits coming
from Tor proxies are from vandals.

Thanks,
Travis


from_name: Anthony

body:
On 2/19/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> As for image (or any other) hosting - WMF would have completely no
> power over privacy policy then - unless whole world agreed to turn
> off Referer [sic] request headers.

Actually, there are plenty of ways to refer people to images without
leaking the article title.  I'm not sure what the point would be,
though.  Which pages you're viewing is pretty obvious based on what
images you're loading.

For my part, I don't think the WMF *should* have any power over
privacy policy.  The end users should have that power.  If they want
to browse anonymously, there are plenty of tools out there to do that.
 If they just want to stop giving referer information, there are
plenty of tools for that too.

> Of course, that aside, there're quite some other issues with
> efficiency, and it is mostly about 'reducing costs' rather than
> 'improving user experience'.
>
Reducing costs and improving user experience are fairly synonymous.
If you can cut costs, then you can either spend the extra money
improving user experience or you can have fewer or less obnoxious
fundraising drives.

> It would be much easier just to have someone donate few gigabits of
> IP transit ;-)
>
Yup.

Anthony


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and proxy_check

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Travis Derouin wrote:
> I've configured proxy_check and wgBlockOpenProxies, which seems to be
> working, but am still able to edit  our wiki anonymously using Tor. Is
> there anyway to tighten this up? It seems the majority of edits coming
> from Tor proxies are from vandals.

There's no system built-in to MediaWiki for detecting Tor nodes (they
are not open HTTP proxies, so a search for them would not work even if
the old proxy-blocking code still works, which I don't know if it does).

You'd have to rig up a system for detecting Tor nodes, and/or use a list
of open Tor nodes.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF2gkiwRnhpk1wk44RAinnAJ44r0+U4sKbFohyoMCUG8bsZ8TggwCguBe5
mF6jncGuUhJuZ69SlTisAUs=
=5NtX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
>
>> Jossi, you say that you are not against having many more admins,
>> but you
>> are against relaxing the criteria for becoming an admin. Do you
>> have any
>> useful suggestions for expanding the ranks?
> Endeavor to make at least 5 nominations this month. If we all did
> that ....

I look forward to seeing your nominations.

>
>> Relaxing the criteria should have benefits beyond increasing the
>> number
>> of admins. It should help to eliminate the perception that being an
>> admin is a "big thing". Yes, many non-admins overrate the prestige of
>> becoming an admin--and many admins do as well.
> Adminship *is* a big thing, as it pertains to the level of
> responsibility given to us.  The "prestige" thing, in my experience,
> is not so much an issue for us as admins, but mostly to newbies that
> tend to give you some kind of credence because your are an admin. Any
> Wikipedian *knows* that adminship is both a privilege and a burden.
> Are there some admins that walk with a swagger because they are
> admins? Sure. But that is the exception and not the rule.
>
>> I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences
>> that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I
>> want
>> with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review.
>> This
>> is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons
>> for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for
>> the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who
>> may
>> have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one
>> example.
> That is a small point... If an article was deleted by community
> consensus, it should be kept deleted. What interest should an admin
>   have to view a deleted article, beyond addressing a Deletion Review?
>
You're picking at my example, rather than addressing the larger issue,
which is your earlier statement that "editors can do
as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs".
However, since you made that statement you have stated that "adminship
*is* a big deal" (emphasis yours). So I assume that your earlier post
was in error, or I misunderstood, or you've changed your mind.

We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.

Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly
feel proud when they achieve it.

I think this is a bad thing for the project.

>> If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to
>> view the
>> archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I
>> think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie
>> behind
>> some of the recent posts.
>
> I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more
> admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins
> need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage
> more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors
> and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their
> agreement to nominate them for adminship.
>

And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current
strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.

I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a
function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship
gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the
community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much
less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these
powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings
and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.

Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become
admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and
abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the
presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big
deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This
encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable.
This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to
becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no
interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject
themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't
want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some
admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through
these trials aren't fit to be admins!

We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect
and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins
that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the
perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.

I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the
de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more
effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can
do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage
of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any
active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the
admin was borderline abusive.

-Rich


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 19/02/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:

> > It is a great piece of research.  However, is it Wikipedia's or
> > WMF's thing to do this?  It seems like a generic web component,
> > almost like Apache, the PHP programming language or the Squid
> > proxy server.  If the fully distributed web server architecture
> > was a really good idea, many kinds of websites could find use for
> > it and someone else might already have implemented it.  Even if

> WMF is unique in that its bandwidth requirements are astronomical
> compared to its income. There are plenty of high-bandwidth sites. And
> plenty of low-budget sites. But there's nothing that comes close to
> Wikipedia in the proportion of the two. So if the (probably not that
> critical) problem is "how to host a huge amount of highly-requested
> content on a shoestring budget", it's not surprising that no one has
> attempted to solve it before.

LiveJournal is a slightly comparable site - a commercial site, but not
terribly rich before the buyout. They developed useful toys like
memcached because of their unique circumstances.

If it's going to go into Apache or whatever, it'll probably have to be
us or people that love us that do it. Scratching that itch.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout (deputy admins)

body:
On 19/02/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:

> > As you're the second person to use the phrase "you both" when replying
> > to me, I should point out that... oh, forget it.

> Heh, sorry, point taken. I meant Ray and Thomas. See what happens when
> you stray into the crossfire?

Indeed. *ahem* ALLA YOUSE KIDS. QUIETEN DOWN. DON'T MAKE ME COME DOWN
THERE! I DON'T CARE WHO STARTED IT!

- d.


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Domas describes the status quo. He does describe it well. It does
> however not detract one iota from the usefulness of doing this research.

It is a great piece of research.  However, is it Wikipedia's or
WMF's thing to do this?  It seems like a generic web component,
almost like Apache, the PHP programming language or the Squid
proxy server.  If the fully distributed web server architecture
was a really good idea, many kinds of websites could find use for
it and someone else might already have implemented it.  Even if
this technology existed, it isn't clear that it should be deployed
at WMF in Florida, but perhaps instead at Kennisnet in Amsterdam,
as a way to offload the Squid servers.

Rather than discussing this on wikitech-l, perhaps you should take
the idea to people who develop Apache and Squid?  Then when a
working prototype exists, perhaps it can be tried and evaluated
for some part of Wikipedia.  Since I don't know of any existing
technology today, it seems to be at least several years into the
future before it can help to reduce WMF's bandwidth costs.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Christiano Moreschi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
My thoughts: it is possible to have NPOV-lists with POV-sounding titles: as
example, List of major opera composers is a featured list. The methodology
there is a good model: compile ten external, reputable lists of Major Opera
Composers and those who appear on the majority of those lists appear on the
Wikipedia list. That seems to work quite well, and it reflects existing
scholarship in this area accurately.

So, it might be worth seeing whether something similar could work with this
List of Tall Men. Is this at al possible?

Alternatively, something to think about might be a list of World Record
Holders for height, or something similar. But the current arbitrary
definition of x.y metres is not really acceptable. Arbitrary definitions are
original research.

Cheers,

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving ? check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
I must be missing something. What non-standard way of using talk pages are
you referring to?
Asking whoever welcomed you for advice could get some pretty far depending
on who it was in the first place.

Mgm

On 2/19/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/19/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the newbies try to reply on their own talk page, we should include a
> > "please click here to reply" link to avoid that.
>
> The (not necessarily drastic) downside of that is we would be teaching
> them a non-standard way of using talk pages that won't actually get
> them very far.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jim Wilson

subject: [Wikitech-l] Trick Parser to render full links?

body:
I got no response on the IRC channel when I asked there either - does no one
know?  Is this an uncommon request?  Thanks in advance.

-- Jim

On 2/19/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a way to trick the Parser into rendering fully qualified URLs
> _other than_ setting "action=render" at the URL level?
>
> The last time I wanted this feature was circa MW 1.5.1 - and I know at
> that time you had to hijack global $action to get any results.  I'm hoping
> this is no longer the case?
>
> I'm developing an extension that needs to run on 1.6.x, 1.8.x, 1.9.x and
> 1.10 - Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> -- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/19/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Rich Holton wrote:
>
> >Jossi Fresco wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the
> >>>extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the
> >>proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
> >>
> >>
> >What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do
> >as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing  AfDs", then
> >what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
> >
> >The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you
> >suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and
> >restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and
> >unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
> >
> >But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the
> >consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant
> >consequences, please tell us about them.
> >
> Or as the editor of a dead-tree encyclopedia might say, "Think of the
> consequences of letting just anybody edit."
>
> Ec

The consequences that we should most consider, imo, are the consequences of
losing anybody because our adminship is so poorly thought out and so hostile
to the individual who doesn't live in cyberspace, both by creating a
position of privilege unavailable to these editors, adminship, and by
creating an exclusive group on Wikipedia that is oftentimes overtly hostile
to these part-time editors.  It was possible, just because of this
atmosphere, to totally dismiss the possibility on this thread that I, as one
of these outsiders, could even make a contribution to Wikipedia.  I do
volunteer charity work, in addition to spending time with family, job and
passion--no successful charitable organization that relies upon volunteers
should ever discredit people who have only a few hours to give.

What's great in Wikipedia is due to the huge variety of anybodies, not the
small exclusive group of admins, and creating a body of administrators who
are so incredibly like-minded, which is what the current RfA process and the
big deal about adminship create, is not conducive in the long run to making
Wikipedia a place where anybody can edit.

And the consequences of letting anybody edit are becoming clearer over
time.  Here is one of anybody's edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sei_Whale

Don't forget to compare Britannica's article on the same subject.

KP


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] [Logo] One True Wiktionary logo

body:
Hoi,
Many Wiktionarians do not like the new logo. If they did, they would
have implemented the new logo. There may have been a poll but in effect
the projects have voted by dragging their feet.

So whatever you do, you will do it wrong. The old one is more popular
than the new one. The new one was elected in a vote.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Aphaia schreef:
> Hello,
> [[m:Logo]] claims logo should be consistent. I agree.
> This document shows us the "scrabble" type logo as Wiktionary logo; at
> least it was a result of straw poll. I am not sure if the Wiktionary
> active editors love it. Perhaps not.
> On the Wikimedia Foundation website, on "Our projects" table and
> [[Wikimedia:Our projects]], both pages show visitors the old one (dic
> entry type) logo as project logo.
>
> On the project itself, most of projects - I visited top 10 websites of
> Wiktionaries to write this mail - most of projects use the older one
> as their logos, except one. The Vietnamese Wiktionary uses the
> scrabble type.
>
> We need to pursue consistency here? Or is it okay for all parties involved?
>
> I think it is a matter of promotion/publification, not only the
> community, so sent a cc to Communication committee (before I failed to
> type the current email address of this list) .
>
> Two different logos:
> "scrabble type"
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiktprintable_without_text.svg
> "dic entry type"
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiktionary.png
> --
> KIZU Naoko
>   Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
>   * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
>


from_name: Boris Eetgerink

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
>   After the previous thread, I ask out of curiosity, what if there
> were just a small number of servers spread around the world, not owned
> by the WMF. Something like:
>
> - Users can access en.wikipedia.org, en.wikipedia-brazil.org,
> en.wikipedia-japan.org etc interchangeably
> - Each site is a complete copy of the database, and capable of serving
> independently
> - Every change on one database is immediately replicated to the others
> - To make this worthwhile, all the servers except the original are
> owned and operated by third parties on a sponsorship arrangement,
> presumably meaning they get to discreetly stick a logo somewhere
[...]

As far as I know, you've just described (more or less) the MySQL Cluster
database: http://mysql.com/products/database/cluster/

Boris


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
On 19/02/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now, how can we collectively come up with a list as good as that? An
> objective height requirement is clearly the least useful metric we
> could use for the reasons stated. What would be better?

As I suggested, [[List of men famous for being tall]]?

- d.


body:
On 2/16/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/16/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > And the terrible thing about this is that nobody could stop it.
> Normally,
> > when an edit war breaks out, a sysop is able to descend from the clouds
> and
> > settle things. When there is an abusive editor, a sysop can rain holy
> > thunder upon him.
> >
>
> They do that whenever they can come up with the slightest excuse, let
> alone
> for "abusive editors."
>
> One must consider that part of the problem of our crop of current abusive
> administrators may be due to burnout and overstress, and your suggestions
> to
> expand the admin pool have merit, but the fact remains that many of the
> administrator tools are way too easy to abuse, and get abused on a regular
> basis.
>
> Adminship is a big deal, these days. Else so many of them wouldn't be so
> dead-set on never having any review of their own actions.
>
> Parker

That's correct, and being afraid of having your own actions reviewed makes
you dead set against having anyone else's actions reviewed: because if it's
so easy to review administrator actions, your might come under the
microscope next.  So the culture protects what it creates, and makes it
impossible to correct its own mistakes.

KP


from_name: Cheney Shill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:54:29 -0800 (PST), Cheney Shill
> <halliburton_shill at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd support you, but, sadly, I have been blocked since
> last
> >year for doing nothing more then trying to apply policy
> and
> >remove original research
>
> THIS IS THE POLICE!
>
> DROP THE STICK AND STEP AWAY FROM THE HORSE CARCASS!

That's a good first try.  You should use "interrogation
officer".  Suggesting you're a public servent may result in
long term incarceration instead of just getting fired and
rehired by one of our affiliated corporations.  Also,
terrorist detainees will neve have sticks.  Just get them
naked and drop them on the horse and let nature take it's
course.

~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)

--spam may follow--

____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Rich Holton wrote:

>I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences
>that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want
>with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This
>is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons
>for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for
>the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may
>have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.
>
One way in which I would have found this useful when I was more active
in Wiktionary would have been to review the history of articles that
were transwikied.  Such a use would have been entirely passive in that
it would involve no change to the Wikipedia database.  Needing to be
dragged into the usual battles over deletion, blocking, etc. would be
too high a price for such a privilege.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Rich Holton wrote:

>Yeah, I am a mid-40's lifetime US resident. While I do appreciate the
>metric system, I still think in inches, feet, and yards (and degrees F,
>gallons, miles, pounds, etc.).
>
Even so, I think that city dwellers have a hard time conceptualizing
acres. ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
On 19/02/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just curious...would [[List of people taller than eight feet]] be OR?

Not with good refs IMO. Might include arguably famous near-misses.
[[Longest novel]] takes some judgement calls, and there are books that
were advertised as "longest novel since ..." that are nothing like a
longest-novel contender. But editorial judgement in the cause of
usefulness is not OR except for an extreme black-and-white thinker.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
No, of course not. That's perfectly fine, at least in my opinion. Nothing
wrong with a list of those above 8 feet.

What IS original research is to pick a completely arbitrary definition of
"tall" as being above x.y metres, and then to go on and use that.

Cheers,

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving ? check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rx Dosage Instructions in Wikipedia

body:
On 2/19/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't
> bake a cake using a recipe from Wikipedia without checking against
> outside sources first...

Ingredients:

* 2 cups self-raising flour
* 1 cup sugar
* 2 eggs
* 2 tbsp nitroglycerine

Method:

Mix dry ingredients well. Beat egg and fold into dry mix. Throw
nitroglycerin at the mix as hard as you can.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated

body:
Agreed. That's the problem. What is more, the definition is hardly objective
in the first place, because it's YOUR definition/the list compiler's
definition.

Cheers,

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
Upload 500 photos a month & blog with your Messenger buddies on Windows Live
Spaces. Get yours now, FREE! http://specials.uk.msn.com/spaces/default.aspx


from_name: Nicolas Ruest

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bulk Page Creation

body:
I am currently testing out the possibility of using mediawiki for a historical image collection.  The image links and meta data are in mySql database.  What is the best way to batch import a collection into mediawiki?  Would the MediaWiki Bulk Page Creator be the best way?

Thanks,

Nick Ruest


body:
On 2/19/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
> > For my part, I don't think the WMF *should* have any power over
> > privacy policy.  The end users should have that power.  If they want
> > to browse anonymously, there are plenty of tools out there to do that.
> >  If they just want to stop giving referer information, there are
> > plenty of tools for that too.
>
> Yay, let's just give away all logs to the public, everyone will be
> happy, and the ones concerned about privacy will be able to use Tor.
> Or some anonymous proxy .
> Why should WMF have power over that? Because the potential target for
> the privacy violation attacks is the one who doesn't know about the
> possibility.
>
> Anyway, this is wrong place to discuss privacy policy. I just mention
> that there're technical issues where we'd fail to comply with it.
>
Well, I think you're completely oversimplifying things and either
missing or completely ignoring solutions to the problems you bring up.

Your response is a strawman.  But since you don't want to discuss it,
I'll leave it at that.

Anthony


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

body:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 10:04:42PM +0000, geni wrote:
> On 2/18/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 18, 2007, at 15:06, George Chriss wrote:
> >> Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect,
> >> as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
> >
> >These are prescription drugs? If so, I'm sure said people will trust
> >their doctors and the labels on their drugs and the inserts which
> >come with the drugs far more than an online encyclopedia. Perhaps
> >they will call their doctor and say, "I read that the usual dosage
> >was much higher/lower, what gives?" And their doctor will tell them
> >the information was wrong. Even if they trusted the information,
> >that's no reason to act on it.
> >
> >--keitei
>
> My general experience based on how people react to information about
> "alt med" on the net suggest that there are a fair number of people
> who will not trust their doctors or even consult them.
> --
> geni
>
More a response to keitei, but I deleted his original message.

We have to also think about the fact that "prescription drugs" and "call
your doctor" are First World things. In West Africa for example, what we
call prescription drugs are often frequently available in the market.
Their misuse is one of the factors that leads to drug resistent bacteria.
Maybe reliable information about doses may be usefull here. I'm not
sure.

Brian.

>
> ------------------------------

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity


from_name: Jossi Fresco

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:

> If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that
> admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not
> the
> kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We
> need to
> have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just
> like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a
> vandal
> causes.

Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering"
and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 12:52 PM, K P wrote:

> What's great in Wikipedia is due to the huge variety of anybodies,
> not the
> small exclusive group of admins, and creating a body of
> administrators who
> are so incredibly like-minded, which is what the current RfA
> process and the
> big deal about adminship create, is not conducive in the long run
> to making
> Wikipedia a place where anybody can edit.

I am really not following... Can you please elaborate on the
contradiction you see between having a body of administrators and
having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

Can you give concrete examples of admins being "overtly hostile to
part-time editors"?  And if you can produce such examples, are these
the exception, or the rule?

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Rich Holton wrote:

>> Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering"
>> and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
>>
>> -- Jossi
>
> Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your
> point is...?"

My point is that you do not define rules by their exceptions. If
there are exceptional cases, then these need to be dealt with
separately of the norm. In our case that would be ArbCom stepping-in
and desysoping these few admins that abuse power.

-- Jossi


subject: [Wikitech-l] Captcha changes

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brion Vibber wrote:
> If there's problems, let us know.

The captcha now works for clients with cookies disabled; it can use the
memcache infrastructure for storing captcha session information instead
of the cookie-keyed general PHP session.

Logins still require cookies, but this will make the signup form a
little more clear, and anons with disabled cookies will be able to add
URLs to pages as long as they can pass the captcha.

You can enable this on a local installation by setting:
$wgCaptchaStorageClass = 'CaptchaCacheStore';

(Caching has to be set up such that $wgMemc will be useful; a default
install of MediaWiki would just send that data into a black hole.
Memcache will work, APC/eAccelerator/etc might or might not.)

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF2hiKwRnhpk1wk44RArqEAJ0bGQZ47x+8JTxffuzsv2Mv5I4NIwCeLITk
YbdUK0UmB+gILGcia5a0MFk=
=OQsV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
K P wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.
>>
>> Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly
>> feel proud when they achieve it.
>>
>> I think this is a bad thing for the project.
>>
>>>> If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to
>>>> view the
>>>> archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I
>>>> think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie
>>>> behind
>>>> some of the recent posts.
>>> I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more
>>> admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins
>>> need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage
>>> more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors
>>> and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their
>>> agreement to nominate them for adminship.
>>>
>> And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current
>> strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.
>>
>> I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a
>> function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship
>> gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the
>> community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much
>> less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these
>> powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings
>> and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.
>>
>> Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become
>> admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and
>> abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the
>> presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big
>> deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This
>> encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable.
>> This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to
>> becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing
>> cycle.
>>
>> All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no
>> interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject
>> themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't
>> want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some
>> admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through
>> these trials aren't fit to be admins!
>>
>> We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect
>> and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins
>> that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the
>> perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
>>
>> I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the
>> de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more
>> effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can
>> do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage
>> of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any
>> active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the
>> admin was borderline abusive.
>>
>> -Rich
>
>
> Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy,
> also, to lose adminship.  In other words, it really must be no big deal,
> which it currently isn't (no big deal).
>

Agreed. If this wasn't clear in my long rant above, it was an omission
on my part.

-Rich


from_name: Ilya "Voyager" Schurov

subject: [Wikitech-l] Incremental article IDs

body:
Hi there,

I'd like to use MediaWiki as a storage for some kind of items, which
doesn't have "natural" titles (just like bugs in Bugzilla). So I'd like
to allow user to create new article without specifying the title and I
want the system to generate the unique title by itself. The best
solution I see here is to use consequent numbers in particular namespace
-- e.g. when user clicks "Add item" the system allows he or she to fill
in some form (with textareas and other input fields) then creates an
article containing the data from this form (by template) and a title
like "Items:1234" (assuming we already have "Items:1233").

Is it possible to implement such a feature as an extension?

Actually, I see that it can be done using external script which
communicate with MediaWiki via API, but I'm not sure it'll be reliable
in sense of collisions (e.g. if two users click "Submit" almost
simultaneously, they can both obtain the same ID for their articles and
data will be lost or editing conflict occurs).

Thanks,

--
With best regards,
Ilya V. Schurov.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
>
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
>
>>> Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering"
>>> and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
>>>
>>> -- Jossi
>>
>> Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your
>> point is...?"

 From [[WP:LA]]

There are 1,122 (as of February 19 2007) users with sysop rights
(active and otherwise), 814 of them active (as of January 18, 2007).

How many of these admins, in your opinion, would fit in the category
of "power abusers", "hostile to editors", etc?

-- Jossi


from_name: K P

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/19/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
>
> > If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that
> > admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not
> > the
> > kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We
> > need to
> > have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just
> > like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a
> > vandal
> > causes.
>
> Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering"
> and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
>
> -- Jossi

But earlier you had to discredit me personally and my contribution to
Wikipedia in order to support admins, so I have to wonder if you're
looking.   I do think that most of the administrators on Wikipedia can be
supported for the jobs they do, without discrediting casual contributors.
But look around, look at user RfC and review some of the admins who have
been up there.   There is plenty of obvious swaggering.

Wikipedia is huge.  There are places on Wikipedia you've probably never
imagined.  The rampant nationalism on Wikipedia is staggering.  And much of
it is supported by entrenched pet administrators.  Although this is slowly
working itself out in certain areas, for one FAR is taking some of these
pages down, and others may be held up by a stricter FAC.

There are also a lot of administrators who go above and beyond the call of
duty, like one poor guy who stepped in to edit an article posted for
deletion, got his solid edits reverted, got personally attacked by article's
owners and his 8 sock puppets, then recruited other editors to fix the
article while being attacked by these idiot socks!

But he's not the problem.  The problem and issue is the overall damage to
Wikipedia by the presence of administrators who do abuse their power, and is
the system broke, and can it be fixed if it is?

If there is a problem, denying it doesn't address it any better than
attacking the messenger.  Particularly when a large part of the problem is
the denial of a problem, and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and
solutions to the problem.

KP


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Rich Holton wrote:

> How many would you consider to be an acceptable number?
>
> -Rich

No, Rich. The ball is in *your* court now.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:43 PM, K P wrote:

> Particularly when a large part of the problem is
> the denial of a problem, and an entrenched culture that prevents
> reviews and
> solutions to the problem.

That is, of course, your assessment and not a fact.

You speak of "entrenched culture". I speak of a culture that has
produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line
collaboration. I am proud to be have had the opportunity to be part
of it, btw.

You speak of "denial of a problem". I speak of certain perceptions
that may have been based on exceptional cases.

-- Jossi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 19/02/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy,
>> also, to lose adminship.  In other words, it really must be no big deal,
>> which it currently isn't (no big deal).
>
>
> This is unlikely to happen - it strikes me there's not a lot of net
> plus in firing the experienced admins. The cases aren't symmetrical.
>
>

Right now it takes an ArbCom decision or direct intervention from Jimbo
to de-admin someone. This is *very* asymmetric to the RfA process.
Perhaps this is why there is the perceived need for the RfA to be so
stringent.

If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that
admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the
kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to
have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just
like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal
causes.

I do believe the relaxation of de-facto requirements to become an admin
needs to come first. But streamlining the process to remove abusive
admins is also an important step.

-Rich


from_name: Matthieu Barba

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re : Re:  [Logo] One True Wiktionary logo

body:
Salut,
This page states that " Logos are global: All languages have to use the same logo ". The old one and the new one both are not consistent : every language has it's own version of the logo.
And as Gerard said, there is a dilemna...

Darkdadaah

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> a ?crit : Hoi,
Many Wiktionarians do not like the new logo. If they did, they would
have implemented the new logo. There may have been a poll but in effect
the projects have voted by dragging their feet.

So whatever you do, you will do it wrong. The old one is more popular
than the new one. The new one was elected in a vote.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Aphaia schreef:
> Hello,
> [[m:Logo]] claims logo should be consistent. I agree.
> This document shows us the "scrabble" type logo as Wiktionary logo; at
> least it was a result of straw poll. I am not sure if the Wiktionary
> active editors love it. Perhaps not.
> On the Wikimedia Foundation website, on "Our projects" table and
> [[Wikimedia:Our projects]], both pages show visitors the old one (dic
> entry type) logo as project logo.
>
> On the project itself, most of projects - I visited top 10 websites of
> Wiktionaries to write this mail - most of projects use the older one
> as their logos, except one. The Vietnamese Wiktionary uses the
> scrabble type.
>
> We need to pursue consistency here? Or is it okay for all parties involved?
>
> I think it is a matter of promotion/publification, not only the
> community, so sent a cc to Communication committee (before I failed to
> type the current email address of this list) .
>
> Two different logos:
> "scrabble type"
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiktprintable_without_text.svg
> "dic entry type"
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiktionary.png
> --
> KIZU Naoko
>   Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
>   * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiktionary-l mailing list
> Wiktionary-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
Wiktionary-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l

---------------------------------
 D?couvrez une nouvelle fa?on d'obtenir des r?ponses ? toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des exp?riences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/R?ponses.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 2/19/07, Anthony <wikitech at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As for image (or any other) hosting - WMF would have completely no
> > power over privacy policy then - unless whole world agreed to turn
> > off Referer [sic] request headers.
>
> Actually, there are plenty of ways to refer people to images without
> leaking the article title.  I'm not sure what the point would be,
> though.  Which pages you're viewing is pretty obvious based on what
> images you're loading.

And how do you propose we hide what pages an image is used on?
Switch them up randomly?


from_name: Dr. Robert P. Biuk-Aghai

subject: [Wikitech-l] Instant Messenger / Email integration with MediaWiki

body:
Hi,

I have two common requests from users of MediaWiki at my site:

1. Being able to communicate via instant messenger *through the site*,
where the chat gets recorded in the related article's Talk page.

2. Being able to edit articles by email, where the entire article gets
emailed back and forth, and emailed changes to the article get saved as
new versions.

I can imagine a technical solution for (1) being an integration of an
instant messenger server with MediaWiki which would save the IM
conversation to the relevant Talk page; and for (2) a mailing list
integrated with MediaWiki that would extract and clean up the article
from the mail (removing any indents) and save it as a new version.

My question: has anyone implemented anything like this before?

Robert.


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
on 2/19/07 1:33 PM, Rich Holton at richholton at gmail.com wrote:

> We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect
> and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins
> that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the
> perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.

Rich,

Yes! You are presenting to the condition of the culture. It is interesting,
though, that when statements along these lines are made, there is a curious
silence that seems to fall over the List regarding them.

Marc


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] wikifoundation in defence of Google

body:
Getting an open source search engine would definitely be a great thing. Best
thing would be if a cooperation were programmed in, so that we can have
different search engines based on the same platform which cooperate at some
places (especially spidering), but each serve somewhat different niches (for
example, search engines for specific subjects, separate ones for
entertainment, shopping and research, for fringe languages etcetera). And I
definitely agree the Wikimedia Foundation should stand behind such an
initiative.

However, I doubt whether the Foundation is actually the right group to be
the organizer or main supporter of such a development. We have our mission
statement, but we also have our background. And to me our background and
strongpoint is definitely with 'massive volunteer collaboration'. If that's
not the best mode of operation for this project, we may not be the best ones
to do it.

My feeling is that if you put something like that into the workings of a
search engine, what you end up with will be more like dmoz than with Google.
If we want a real search engine, there will be a massive task of creating
and maintaining the software, but hand-improving the database is not
something that works very well with the 'thousands of volunteers' approach.
In short, I think that an open source search engine is definitely something
that should be worked on, better start yesterday than today, but I think
it's a task that would be more fitting for the likes of the Free Software
Foundation than for the Wikimedia Foundation.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/19/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/02/07, Jossi Fresco <jossifresco at mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you give concrete examples of admins being "overtly hostile to
> > part-time editors"?  And if you can produce such examples, are these
> > the exception, or the rule?
>
>
> Indeed. List any such cases (that's the put-up-or-shut-up bit) and see
> if these can be dealt with by less than apocalyptic means first
> (that's the assume good faith in the admins as well bit).
>
> There's a lot of unspecified accusations in this thread and very
> little in the way of concrete examples at all.
>
>
> - d.

There are plenty of examples all over Wikipedia where admin abuse are
reported, admin user RfC is an excellent example, but so is ArbCom.
Unspecified accusations?  What specifically is unspecified?  You're stating
that admins are perfect, the admin system is perfect?

I've had some incredibly ridiculous stuff said to me by Wikipedia editors
and supported by admins, before I saw this situation.  Part-time editors
readily see it, and others who aren't won't ever see it, because they're not
looking for it, or they're trying damned hard not to see it.  If you want to
look for particular instances to specifically discredit me, my user name is
KP Botany, so feel free to peruse my edit history.

But an excellent example is that when a new or part-time editor has an issue
they are required to use policy to resolve the issue, when a regular or long
term editor has an issue that might require administrator intervention they
feel free to gather up their friendly neighborhood administrator to take
care of the matter.  Look at administrator talk pages anywhere on Wikipedia
and see that inspite of there being places to request page protection,
vandalism, 3rr, administrators are routinely requested to do this on their
talk pages.  This is an unwritten rule of Wikipedia never shared with
newcomers: don't bother with policy, schmooze (hope that ain't Yiddish) an
admin to address any issues that you run up against.

Anything but discuss the issue, or even consider that administratorship of
the elite might not be ideal for an encyclopedia with Wikipedia's
aspirations: deny it, attack the accuser, ignore it.  But it could never be
a problem with admins on Wikipedia, could it?  Run, run, run, run away from
that idea.

I think a really good example, though, is the douche-bag incident,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee
And probably exactly what you are seeking, any personal beefs I may have
with administrators.  I don't, however, think InShaneee or Khoikhoi are that
important but simply symptoms of a larger issue. And I don't think devoting
time to specific issues, which is what Wikipedia RfC and ArbCom are set up
for, addresses the issue, which is what this mailing list should be
addressing, instead of doing anything but address the issue.

Current RfCs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tr%C3%B6del

Although I haven't looked it or the others over.  Multiple accusations of
administrator abuse all of the time on AN/I, many bogus, but some solid
reports.

I think that if you don't see any swaggering by administrators, or any abuse
of powers by administrators, you're trying hard not to look at it.

AN/I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:an/i

One of the complaints that I notice is when administrators protect pages in
which they are involved in edit disputes, or block users they are having
issues with.

I'm not looking for it in particular, but I am very concerned about
administrator abuse--it detracts highly from what I think Wikipedia should
be: and encyclopedia anybody can edit.  I've found my comfort zone on
Wikipedia: uber aggressive--it keeps the bullies out of my face.  But it
makes visits to Wikipedia uncomfortable.

Administrators are complained about all the time all over Wikipedia.  If
you're not seeing it, you're making certain you aren't.

KP


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/19/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> on 2/19/07 4:43 PM, K P at kpbotany at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If there is a problem, denying it doesn't address it any better than
> > attacking the messenger.
>
> Or simply ignoring him.
>
> > Particularly when a large part of the problem is
> > the denial of a problem,
>
> Your are seeing that in action right now!
>
> > and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and
> > solutions to the problem.
>
> Don't fix it - if it works for you.
>
> Marc

Deserving of an Austin Powers quote if ever there was an e-mail to earn
one.  KP


from_name: Pill

body:
Matthieu Barba wrote:
> Salut, This page states that " Logos are global: All languages have
> to use the same logo ". The old one and the new one both are not
> consistent : every language has it's own version of the logo. And
> as Gerard said, there is a dilemna...

Well, I totally agree with you. People like me didn't like the old
"logo" (which is not a real logo at all), but they find the new one
even worse. But as the vote showed, the community is against keeping
the current one (there was en extra-section for "keeping the current
logo", not too many people voted for that). In my opinion, it is all
in all a problem of the voting procedure; there were so many voters
who are not involved in the Wiktionary project. The vote only should
have been open for people participating in Wiktionary because at the
end it's the "Wiktionaryans" who have to change their logo. We have to
reach a consensus inside the Wiktionary community, otherwise we have
that kind of problems.

Due to the fact that most people are interested in having a new logo,
I guess we should rehold that vote, maybe there will be new proposals
that make the decision easier :-)

Greetings,

Pill (wiki.pill @ gmail.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiktionary-l/attachments/20070219/67c8b47b/attachment.pgp