From my point of view. The commons projekt ist an old
one, older than most
of people who working on de.ws. The rules to have an account on
commons
for uploading was before we started to do so.
Here it'is the other way round. We started the project with a new 'vision'
at the beginning of 2006 by forcing to have scan's for all texts (some of
the older ones are still lacking, I know that. But we are seraching for the
scans) and a two staged proof reading process in a free community where
everybody could edit and cotribute IP or with a nick We had a first
different verion of the proofread free for all. This proofread II extension
came up free for al js-based. And after some struggle we accepted the
technical better solution. When we had accepted the technical solution, the
programmer started up to put constraints on the technical good solution.
Excluding IP's, defining more and more hard coded rules, because he was
in fear of vandalism. When we found ways around his contraints on js-level,
he put the next constraints on a different level. Every time we had big
discussions with him.
His constraints are hampering the process of converting older project to PR
II. The only answer is. ok thats true, use a bot and let a bot make the
second proofread process. Excellent solution.
And in his last answer, he says there maybe a way around but you have to
find him yourself, find you a programmer to do it there may be there are
some js people around at de.ws, . What will be the situation with his next
update, will our solution still work, or will he have changed things in a
way, that we can't use our changes anymore as usuall. And what are the
drawbacks of the workaround's Can we use the index page as we do it now, can
we use the special index page with the projects. Both are interesting things
and helpfull.
And with this experience an such attitudes, you are talking about our
attitudes, teak?
Greetings
2009/10/29 teak <teak.wiki(a)gmail.com>
Well... I don't know about reading between the
lines, but you seem to
not be able to read the lines. I criticized the attitude (with which
the issue is presented) in the general mailing list, not the relevance
of the issue itself.
I guess it's perfectly OK in the de.ws community to use this attitude,
since as was mentioned the view represents the community consensus.
But, at least in my book, it's not too smart to call a policy that
every other wikisource community is content with "Orwellian", "control
freak", "or so" in the general wikisource mailing list (read, among
others, by very people who you call control freaks) and expect helpful
feedback. And yes, such insults do not belong in the mailing list to
which users sign up with expectations of constructive discussions,
where respect toward others' opinions is a priory assumed, even if
strong disagreements persist. That's my definition of general.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Cecil <cecilatwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, your attitude isn't any better or do
you think we can't read
between
the rows. Good to know that our issues are not
for the ''general''
wikisource list. So we've learned at least that only general stuff
belongs
to this list and our issues are not general.
Would you please tell us
your
definition of 'general'. Is it only
everything that you consider
acceptable,
everybody else is not welcome? Sorry, but shitty
attitude.
Cecil
2009/10/29 teak <teak.wiki(a)gmail.com>
And I don't think the attitude of the de.ws spokespeople is very
helpful for their cause either. That's all my message was meant to
convey... but goodluck garnering helpful answers. I, for one, would
like to see this issue solved, so that this collective attitude of
"de.ws community consensus" can finally get off the lawn of the
general wikisource mailing list.
teak
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
2009/10/29 teak <teak.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>:
> way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
>
> There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a
> la Godwin's.
>
> teak
I do not think that this answer is very helpful. You can substitute
"Orwellian" with "control freak" or so.
Joergens has written for the consensus of the German Wikisource
community.
Klaus Graf
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l