On 1/22/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: No we should try and keep things as open as posible. -- geni

Puddl Duk wrote: What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then? Chris -- Chris Jenkinson chris(a)starglade.org "Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Peter Mackay wrote: That kind of availability is key to transparency and accountability. Nevertheless, I am confident that the reasewrship level would be just as stunningly high as it is for Hansard (or the Congressional Record in the US). Ec

That's easy, we could have a conversation without a lot of play by play interference but there would still be an opportunity on the part of the community to view it. Fred On Jan 22, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Chris Jenkinson wrote:

On 1/22/06, Puddl Duk <puddlduk(a)gmail.com> wrote: What would be the point, then? Kelly

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Puddl Duk wrote: Two good reasons such a mailling list should be kept private: 1. Admin A posts to the list "User X is being disruptive. What do I do?" 2. ADmin B posts to the list "I need a sanity check. User Y has done this, & I plan on acting thusly. Comments please." Reasons: * No one wants to admit in public that they're clueless. * People are more likely to admit that they'rewrong in private. * Sometimes a person just needs a vote of confidence to handle a troublemaker. I don't see any of this happening if such a list were archived in public. As for the worry that an admin list might be abused to form a cabal to gain control of Wikipedia for its own nefarous ends -- I dunno what those would be, maybe enforce a political litmus test on articles or replace all uses of BC/AD with CE/BCE -- this could be accomplished right now with an offline, private mailing list. And if this hasn't been attempted yet, then I'm wrong in thinking that there are some people out there smarter than me. Geoff

On 1/22/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com> wrote: #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en technically serves that function, but I've found that #wikipedia's more interested in what's on television (nothing wrong with off-topic chat, but sometimes it'd be nice to get a quick answer in there) and #wikipedia-en is kind of a barren deadzone. #wikipedia-en-vandalism has been my most reliable source of help recently, but very few regulars in there appear to be regulars in the other channels... Just a thought. -- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.