On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 11:00:17AM -0400, Anthony wrote:
> > IF SUL was implemented from the beginning,
it would have been fine.
> > (Same thing, by the way, with the whole .com/.net/.org analogy.) But
> > it wasn't implemented from the beginning.
[ ... ]
Fair enough. I'm keeping the domain name analogy
in my toolbox for
trying to convince others, because I think it's a good one, but I
accept that it wasn't a good analogy to convince you of anything.
If "the domain name analogy" is what I think it is, it's a poor
analogy.
DNS's multi-2ld shape is *precisely so that* 3ld's which are identical
won't collide, since they fall under different administrative spheres
of responsibility. Why should Ford Motor Co., the Ford Foundation, and
the Ford Car Club of America *not* be able to be
ford.com,
ford.org and
ford.us?
A different situation pertains here: the WMF public wikis *do not* fall
under separate administrative spheres, though I can understand the POV
of some people who assert they might.
There is a reasonable assumption that can be -- and clearly is -- made,
by users, that the entire WMF is under one login namespace. Clearly
that is not the case, but I'm pretty sure that those people who know
that are a) the people who've signed up on more than one, and couldn't
get the same name and b) those people who've made an assumption that
anthere(a)pl.wiki is the same person they think it is (example made up of
whole-cloth, but you know what I mean).
I believe a random statistical sample of wikipedians not directly
involved with SSO, and who don't have accounts on more than one wiki,
would show a "believe that SSO's already there" rate much higher than
you might think.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates
http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274