WikiEN-l December 2002

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

38 participants
107 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

Ed Wrote: >Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator: <snip> >KQ >* for: Toby, Larry, Ed *opposed: KQ best, kq

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

Brion Wrote: >On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 12:47, Poor, Edmund W wrote: >> Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator: >[..] >> Brion Vibber >> * for: Erik, Ed, Larry > >I'll pass -- as it is, my Wikipedia time is mostly taken up maintaining >the software and I don't have time to contribute content. I read the list backwards--I see now. Erik, Ed, and Larry voted for Brion, not the other way around. Apologies, Ed; I've misunderstood your post. Hangdog, kq

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderator nominations
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

Ed Wrote: >Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a list moderator: <snip> >KQ >* for: Toby, Larry, Ed Ed, I did *not* tell you this, and I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. I have not discussed moderation with anyone. kq

1 0

Moderation software
by Poor, Edmund W 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

Erik asked, "...does our software actually support such moderator teams?" I checked on the admin page for the mailing list, under Privacy Options: general posting filters. It has two relevant options: 1. Hold all posts for administrator review 2. Hold all posts, except from a specified list of subsribers, for review I think that'll do it. As of now, there are 3 people listed as wikiEN-l administrators: * me (Ed Poor) * elian(a)gmx.li (Elian) * dairiki+wpadmin(a)dairiki.org (not sure who this is)

1 0

RE: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation
by Poor, Edmund W 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

As far as I know, the mailing list software is already set up to support moderation, either by a single individual or a team -- exactly as previously discussed. The only issues are: * should wikiEN-l or wikipedia-l (or both) be moderated * who ought to be moderator(s) * what should the rules of participation be I bet the first rule we'd all like to have is that a Moderator should not use "moderation" to as a weapon in debate (!) -- just as a sysop should not. Ed Poor (just a list administrator -- not a moderator)

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
by Larry Sanger 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

I wrote: Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be voting. I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself. ----- By "this particular issue" I meant only who the moderators should be--not whether there should be moderation. That is, indeed, something that I think should depend a great deal on "votes." Larry -- "We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderator nominations
by Poor, Edmund W 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

Don't worry, Larry, you're a shoo-in for First Moderator. I just like tabulating things. In fact, I don't think the list is going to become moderated unless there's a consensus. If it's 50-50 or 60-40, maybe we should leave it as is. I'm not trying to ram anything through, and I'm sure you aren't either. I mean, shucks, you only proposed the idea today. A lot of people haven't even read the list digest yet. In scrupulous fairness, Ed Poor

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation
by Larry Sanger 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

Cc'ing wikien-l in case there are members of that list that aren't on Wikipedia-l and haven't seen the recent discussion about making Wikipedia-l or WikiEN-l moderated. Jimbo wrote: >> I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main policy list, wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of censorship, etc. But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation might do wonders. << I suggest we keep discussing this for a while and then, if the discussion is *generally* in favor of some sort of moderation scheme, Jimbo picks the first moderators. (I just thought that appeal to vanity would do the trick. ;-) ) Larry -- "We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Moderation
by Poor, Edmund W 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

As one of the list administrators, I already have the *power* to ban posters or put them on the naughty list (i.e., the "I have to read it before deciding whether to pass it on" list). I don't have the *authority* do to this, though. So I don't even consider doing so. This is just like my status as a "developer", which gives me the *power* -- but not the *authority* -- to ban any user from Wikipedia or promote or demote sysops. Ahh, the responsible exercise of power: how difficult it is! Yet, how essential! Ed Poor wikiEN-l administrator & Wikipedia developer & Wikipedia sysop

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Ireland]] and [[China]]
by Daniel Mayer 11 Dec '02

11 Dec '02

On Monday 09 December 2002 04:00 am, Ray Saintonge wrote: > I don't dispute the factual correctness of Mav's statement (or his hard > work and dedication), but I disagree with the conclusions that he draws > from that statement. I find him to prone to decide issues based on his > genuflections to the Google God. Hm. With all due respect to you and your contributions, I take some issue with your oversimplified analysis of me and don't think such an analysis is really appropriate in the first place. I've stated on many occasions that Google is simply a tool to be used that can give an impression of usage when the most proper usage is in question. That data can then be used as one important external factor to help decide what we should be naming things. If and when a naming conflict arises or there is otherwise an ambiguity issue presented, then alternates need to be sought. >With deepest respect I see Mav as a > dedicated simplifier who would very much like to see knowledge in neatly > wrapped little packages; sometimes that means cutting off the sharp and > thorny bits just to get the gift to fit into the package. Once we get > into that box it is more difficult to look out and see the other > possibilities. Also with the deepest respect, I think your oversimplication of me as a "dedicated simplifier" is a bit off the mark (yet does have a thin veneer of truth to it). For me, its not the knowledge itself but how that knowledge interelates with other knowledge and how everything fits together in a cohesive whole in order to make something superior to the sum of its parts (similar to the role of chemistry and physiology in creating the emergent property we call life). Granted, the use of the short forms of country names was a bit simplistic, but it fit into our established naming conventions and is also the form that most people would expect - thus its perceived overall usefulness for both readers and contributors won the day. This makes perfect sense until the fact that a modern nation like the PRC is not the same as the historical China. So, upon reflection, a more complicated system is needed for naming countries in order to bypass the ambiguity between the two different (yet related) entities and write on-topic articles. I in fact enjoy complex solutions so long as the result is logical, useful and is reasonably self-consistant with the minimum of exceptions. In short, I adhere to Einstein's call to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler. Note the "no simpler" part. So I focus on many details at once and track how those many details might combine to form the big picture. Sometimes the detailed work leads to blind corners (or failed metabolic pathways) because I fail to take related details into account or fail to see their importance (or even their existence). This is what occurred with the China issue; I failed to compute the detail on what in fact was the best and most useful way for the article itself to present and organize its data since I overlooked the fact that the PRC and China are really separate entities. --Daniel Mayer (aka mav) WikiKarma payment. Have you had your Wiki today? http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bacillus&diff=0&oldid=476532

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2002