Hi,
First, I never said I was speaking in the name of Wikimedia Foundation on irc yesterday night. I would never do so without consulting with Angela and Jimbo, in particular since I know they are both very interested in Wikiversity issues and may not share my opinion (on the naming issue at least :-)).
Second, it is my fault, because I did not write clearly what I meant, and had to interrupt myself in the middle of a discussion to save cookies from burning. When i say "protect the information", I never meant "protect the page", but "protect the information"... Yesterday, Aya indicated on irc he absolutely did not want wikiversity content to be hosted on wikibooks and announced his intention to delete all related pages. Which I absolutely do not agree with.
A week ago, he asked for the creation of the english version of wikiversity, which I opposed, as wikiversity is not a recognised wikimedia foundation project and still under discussion (in spite of the existence of german wikiversity). Aya other option was to move all wikiversity content to meta. I only said 1) content should be protected (ie, deleting it would be vandalism) 2) the community should be asked its opinion before changing deletion rules 3) wikiversity is still under discussion.
There is NO way this will (should) change overnight, and any new project (if started) will be done slowly and carefully. Threats of deleting content are not correct.
That goes for ANY changes to do on Wikibooks. They should be done slowly, only after reaching community consensus, and certainly not imposed. There is no hierarchy and no one has more rights than others. I'll add that many editors are currently very busy at Wikimania and not able to answer requests for speedy decisions.
And though it was my fault I was not clear with my words, please do not mix a personal opinion with a Foundation decision.
Anthere
Angela a écrit:
Despite claims to the contrary, http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity was certainly _not_ protected at the advice of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Perhaps it was advised by one member of that foundation, but other Board members were not consulted. I am disgusted this approach would be taken with no consensus from the community.
Wikiversity has been running for a long time on Wikibooks and I see no agreement whatsoever for it to be suddenly shut down like this.
Protection is a defense against vandalism, not a way of expressing one person's point of view on whether or not a sub-project of Wikibooks should exist. Please remove the misleading statements about protection and explain why you ever thought the Foundation would propose such an awful measure on a popular set of pages like Wikiversity.
Angela.
A week ago, he asked for the creation of the english version of wikiversity, which I opposed, as wikiversity is not a recognised wikimedia foundation project and still under discussion (in spite of the existence of german wikiversity). Aya other option was to move all wikiversity content to meta. I only said
- content should be protected (ie, deleting it would be vandalism)
- the community should be asked its opinion before changing
deletion rules 3) wikiversity is still under discussion.
There is NO way this will (should) change overnight, and any new project (if started) will be done slowly and carefully. Threats of deleting content are not correct.
Seems like a unilateral decision by [[User:Aya]] when I checked at [[Wikiversity]]. It doesn't have my backing at the very least, and it appears to have not been the backing of the majority. Nevertheless, Wikiversity has been target to many a vandal attack lately...
That goes for ANY changes to do on Wikibooks. They should be done slowly, only after reaching community consensus, and certainly not imposed. There is no hierarchy and no one has more rights than others. I'll add that many editors are currently very busy at Wikimania and not able to answer requests for speedy decisions.
I have to admit that I was shocked to hear Wikiversity was protected, since it made no sense to me. Still, WV still suffers from scoping issues that are still not fully resolved at this time. One thing that I still do not understand is why Wikiversity is effectively a book in Wikibooks while the remainder of Wikibooks is effectively a section of Wikiversity...
As for sweeping changes, Aya is admittedly more radical than most (he had proposed to delete [[WB:VFD]] at one point), although this is pretty standard in a community where "community consensus" usually means "after a few months, the only person saying anything on the subject is yourself". Thus much of Wikibooks' own policy is typically done by "consensus of one" (merging [[Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not]] into [[Wikibooks:Deletion policy]]), or in which policies are made but are virtually nonenforceable ([[Wikibooks:Naming conventions]]) without the use of a potentially dangerous bot.
The community in Wikibooks also seems to be very polarized - there seems to be a separate community that deals with BOTM/COTM and another group actively discussing policy issues - lately a few in the BOTM/COTM regulars have accused me of unilaterally changing policy even though they have been thoroughly discussed (even predating BOTM and COTM) but were virtually unenforceable.
Still, at least something had to be done - the decision to make Aya a bureaucrat was a needed one (even if I disagree with someone requesting bureaucratship - I still believe it should be a nominated post), if only to bring more admins to the project to deal with huge admin backlogs. The decision to overhaul policy was needed over huge issues in Wikibooks stemming from forking of Wikipedia content and whether biographies were instructional material.
We should all take out our life savings and pool it all together.. then we can build a huge wikibook mansion and anyone can do anything they want when they are in the house... and we can all fly and save the world!!! WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR!!! ROXORZ!!!
On Aug 4, 2005, at 3:48 AM, kelvSYC wrote:
A week ago, he asked for the creation of the english version of wikiversity, which I opposed, as wikiversity is not a recognised wikimedia foundation project and still under discussion (in spite of the existence of german wikiversity). Aya other option was to move all wikiversity content to meta. I only said
- content should be protected (ie, deleting it would be vandalism)
- the community should be asked its opinion before changing
deletion rules 3) wikiversity is still under discussion.
There is NO way this will (should) change overnight, and any new project (if started) will be done slowly and carefully. Threats of deleting content are not correct.
Seems like a unilateral decision by [[User:Aya]] when I checked at [[Wikiversity]]. It doesn't have my backing at the very least, and it appears to have not been the backing of the majority. Nevertheless, Wikiversity has been target to many a vandal attack lately...
That goes for ANY changes to do on Wikibooks. They should be done slowly, only after reaching community consensus, and certainly not imposed. There is no hierarchy and no one has more rights than others. I'll add that many editors are currently very busy at Wikimania and not able to answer requests for speedy decisions.
I have to admit that I was shocked to hear Wikiversity was protected, since it made no sense to me. Still, WV still suffers from scoping issues that are still not fully resolved at this time. One thing that I still do not understand is why Wikiversity is effectively a book in Wikibooks while the remainder of Wikibooks is effectively a section of Wikiversity...
As for sweeping changes, Aya is admittedly more radical than most (he had proposed to delete [[WB:VFD]] at one point), although this is pretty standard in a community where "community consensus" usually means "after a few months, the only person saying anything on the subject is yourself". Thus much of Wikibooks' own policy is typically done by "consensus of one" (merging [[Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not]] into [[Wikibooks:Deletion policy]]), or in which policies are made but are virtually nonenforceable ([[Wikibooks:Naming conventions]]) without the use of a potentially dangerous bot.
The community in Wikibooks also seems to be very polarized - there seems to be a separate community that deals with BOTM/COTM and another group actively discussing policy issues - lately a few in the BOTM/COTM regulars have accused me of unilaterally changing policy even though they have been thoroughly discussed (even predating BOTM and COTM) but were virtually unenforceable.
Still, at least something had to be done - the decision to make Aya a bureaucrat was a needed one (even if I disagree with someone requesting bureaucratship - I still believe it should be a nominated post), if only to bring more admins to the project to deal with huge admin backlogs. The decision to overhaul policy was needed over huge issues in Wikibooks stemming from forking of Wikipedia content and whether biographies were instructional material. _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org