WikiEN-l June 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

137 participants
234 discussions

Policy proposal on dealing with disputes over names
by Chris Owen 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

We seem to have a lot of nationalist edit wars over placenames. I'm sure not many people will have forgotten the Gdansk/Danzig fiasco. A similar row is currently going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs (Greeks and ex-Yugoslavs fighting over names, yet again; they're actively trolling for votes on Wikipedia and offline as well). I'm sure we'll have similar arguments about other disputed names in future. I believe that what we need is a consistent approach to dealing with such issues. I've put together a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisO/Naming_disputes which sets out some criteria for resolving naming disputes. These boil down to: * The most common use in English of a name takes precedence; * If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name ''except'' for conflicting scientific and dialect names; * If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves. Objective criteria that should be considered are: * Is the name in common usage in English? * Is it the official current name of the subject (official in terms of being used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution?) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? * If an historic name is mentioned in the article, is it in an accurate context? Subjective criteria that should not be used are: * Does the subject have a moral right to use the name? * Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? * Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights? * Is the use of the name politically unacceptable? Of course, there's more to it than that - notably that really intractable disputes should be resolved by a neutral committee of administrators (not the ArbCom, which shouldn't waste its time on low-level disputes of this sort). The alternative is to put such questions to votes that will just end up being pissing contests between rival POV-pushers, which is what we're doing at the moment. Comments welcomed... - ChrisO ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: problem with power structure? "Not I", said the fly.
by michaelturley＠myway.com 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

Tim Starling wrote: >This is of course the exact opposite to the position of Michael Turley >and Erik, who believe that the problem is in the existence of a power >structure, rather than the solution. Some Wikipedians believe that all >our problems can be traced to a deviation from anarchy, and that the >solution lies in denigrating would-be leaders by calling them "janitors" >or "bureaucrats". I respectfully disagree with this philosophy, I put my >hope in enlightened democratic leadership rather than the mob. > >Some people complain that those in power are a cabal, rather than an >accountable and democratic body. I'd prefer it if they'd use a more >accurate word (despots?), but besides that, it will remain a perfectly >valid criticism for as long as there is no easy way for the community to >remove them from power. > >-- Tim Starling I believe you've mischaracterized me. I do not believe that there is a problem in the existence of a power structure. There needs to be a clearly defined power structure. But I do believe that there is a lack of real accountability to the very highest standards and ideals that this project claims to be founded on. When RfCs are dismissed on the premise of 'this contributor just gives too much effort to Wikipedia to reprimand', and when an arbitrator calls someone a jerk without a unanimous grumble of disapproval as the '''first''' reaction, just to post two examples, we're not living up to the welcoming concepts that so attracted me here in the first place. I can live with it, but I'd rather look for ways to change it. If people call me a troll, or a member of a pack of idiots, for wanting to see people nudged toward the implementation of the ideals, then I can live with that, too. Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

2 1

RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than "no big deal" and that's poisonous
by michaelturley＠myway.com 22 Jun '05

22 Jun '05

>> Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins >> shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to >> experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just >> an encyclopedia, get over it already... > >Referring to the 3RR blocking as "law" or "near automatic" is flawed, >which is why the treatment of RickK is a disappointment, and the >potential loss of a very valuable individual. If you read the text of >the WP:3RR page, it would not qualify as anything like "law" as we >understand it: > >"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 >hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." > >Emphasis on the "may" part. > >For a good system of law you need pre-knowledge of the rules, fair >application and an independent judiciary. The arbitration committee >approaches these ideals, but enforcement of 3RR? Nowhere close, and >it's causing lots of problems. > >-User:Fuzheado Come on, now. "May" indicates that the administrator had the option to block RickK for up to 24 hours. An administrator used that option to do so. (The very same who had in November 2004 awarded RickK the "Order of Canada" for "past work in defending our integrity".) Certainly you cannot be upset that an administrator used his own independent judgement and chose to use the authority granted to him by the community at large in a way prescribed by formal policy? Part of the more general problem I see here that causes this is that granting administratorship at Wikipedia is meant to be "no big deal", yet anything that even hints at removing such, even for an hour or two, is the seen as end of the world as we know it. If granting administrator status truly is "no big deal", it shouldn't be that much less common to remove it, if only temporarily. Instead, we have more and more policies and procedures that excuse and insulate administrators from the "no big deal" portion and say "forgive the administrator for being mean because you really were a jerk" or "don't worry about the administrator driving off new users because he's so good at catching vandals." If we truly want to live up to the perception and ideal that adminship is "no big deal", it should be a matter of routine to revoke admin priviledges for a few hours for something as little as a single foul mouthed comment, even if provoked and egged on by peers. If this is done, perhaps we will see less admins defending their actions at any cost, and more "shrugging it off" and proceeding with business. For an example of an insulating policy, what's the point of getting another user to certify an RfC if it's only meant to be a request for <i>comments</i>? To paraphrase a comment I posted earlier on WP, it's as if people think of it as two people ganging up on a third to administer a lashing. It probably comes from being the first "formal" step of dispute resolution, but we should try to de-escalate the seriousness of RfC so we have a more basic forum for public commentary. I didn't mean for this to be a rant, but I hope this is an appropriate place for such comments. I also hope that anyone not interested will sell me an indulgence for the price of fifteen good edits as penance. Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

12 22

Wikipedia ideals
by Svante Welin 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Hello, my name is Svante Welin, and I am a Swedish freelance journalist writing an article about the Wikipedia project, focusing mostly on the Swedish Wikipedia. One thing I'd like to know more about, though - and here is where I hope you can help out - is more on the idealistic issue of the Wikipedia project. What I'm saying is... I've found lot of information on the servers, statistics and technical data history of the Wikipedia project. Even though this is interesting, I'm looking for something more. What do people behind the project think about the potentially revolutionary democratic encyclopedia Wikipedia has put into place? Pros? Cons? What future do you think Wikipedia could have, what are the possibilities? Any other thoughts related to these questions are welcome. Especially from people who've been involved in the project from the beginning, or for a long period of time. Thanks, Svante Welin Sweden

1 0

Anarchy and punishment (was: RickK leaving)
by Poor, Edmund W 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Anarchy and punishment don't go well together, and I'm glad Ambi brought them up. Thanks to the US military, the world has the Internet. Okay, it would have come about sooner or later, but the same fun-loving guys who launched the GPS satellites funded much of the research: the Pentagon deserves a little credit. A drop. A smidgen. But due to the Internet's design criteria - notably, that it should keep working despite nuclear war, and route around failure points automatically - there is no central control, no government. But many people have this "working model" of society, as well as Internet collaboration : that THEY can each be the boss, the ruler, the one who metes out punishments for all those who do not conform to their standards. It's tempting; I know; I've succumbed many times to the Lure of Authority. And I think Jimbo was very wise not to appoint me to the arbcom - but to the Mediation Committee instead. But I wish we would ALL stop it. Stop all these vendettas and punishments and Lone Ranger campaigns to make the world over the way WE ALONE know is right. Let's find ways to cooperate together on this encyclopedia project. Something other than anarchy, please. And don't let's set up a court system either. There's got to be a better way. Uncle Ed

2 1

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: automatic annual revocation of admin
by Poor, Edmund W 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

>Three months of enforced >humility might be good for some people. I'll never forget the time one of my Moonie friends said something like this. I said, "If I humiliate you, will that make you humble? What if I start treating you like a slave and say things like, 'Fetch me a cold drink, you worthless piece of scum!'?" He was black and I was white. I nearly got the ass-whupping of my life before he could see that I was just making a point. Ah, those carefree college days. Now, can we puh-LEASE get back to working on articles? Ed Poor

2 1

Ed Poor puts the ME in melodrama
by Poor, Edmund W 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Ray wrote: > I'm glad to hear you prove my point. US presidency? Don't you think > that the world would be well served by having GWB take three > months off? > :-) > > If being a sysop is not a source of power they won't miss it, > and they > won't be missed since at any given time there will always be > enough left > to wield the mop and broom. How is it that being required to take a > vacation is "punishing"? > > You say that it isn't a source of power, but then ask people to "stop > trying to fight the power." Isn't that just a little inconsistent? Okay, I have a confession to make. Are you all sitting down? Good. /deep breath/ Hi, my name's Ed, and I'm a Wikiholic. * Hi, Ed! I feel inordinate pride in being a Wikipedia Administrator. * /a chorus of murmurs fills the room/ Even though Jimbo said it should be no big deal. * Be strong, Ed! We're here for you, Ed! And when they said /choke, sob/ * Yes? That they might take /gasp/ my ... Oh, I can't say it ... * You can do it, Ed! Er, could I have a glass of water, please. * /audience member brings him a paper cup filled with water/ /sips, pauses/ Well, I ...

1 0

RE: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*
by michaelturley＠myway.com 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

>I swear, this whole discussion is making me want to follow you out of Wikipedia. > >I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots who just >camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with authority. >I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main >namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that admins should >be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting really sick >of this. > >-- ambi Well, I don't "camp out on wikien-l and VFD", and I have made very many edits to the main namespace in the last fortnight, and I don't have "some sort of problem with authority". But I still get the feeling that I'm being grouped into a "growing group of idiots" by an admin and arbitrator because I '''sincerely''' think an admin should face a temporary penalty for as little as a snide remark. Receive, perhaps not; face, absolutely. In ambi's reply, I see defense at all costs, including the cost of an offensive comment. This is not "wikilove", as far as I know it. This clearly is much more than "no big deal" to ambi, but I don't resent that. I do hope that administrators can remove their ego from the equation and see the image that this sort of comment projects, if it isn't actively refuted by other admins. The very fact that my opinion is characterized as a "problem with authority" says that ambi thinks of her adminship as "authority". Is that the original intent? (From [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority".) If the above were my post, I hope that my response would be to come back an hour later and say "Hey, I was out of line calling people who disagree with me a 'growing group of idiots'. Someone please apply a temporary ban on my account and notify the offended parties." Then I hope I would accept the ban, then get back to work. If being asked to be civil in public in all cases is not possible, then we have to ask that admins carry less of their ego around. If they cannot, and that means an occasional hour or two, or six or twenty four off, then so be it. I'm not calling for admin lynchings, and I will support no such ideas. But what I am asking for is for admins to hold ''themselves'' to a higher standard '''voluntarily'''. I think such real, observable gestures of sincere apology are the essence of "wikilove", but I don't know for sure because I only been around about 8 months total (including time as an anon). Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

3 2

Re: automatic annual revocation of admin
by michaelturley＠myway.com 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

Ray Saintonge wrote: >Fastfission wrote: > >>But that's again because being an administrator is supposed to be "no >>big deal" or whatever Jimbo said about it. It generally just means >>"this person has been around for awhile and does not have some sort of >>pathological editing problem that makes large amounts of people hate >>them." It is not a title that is supposed to relate to any particular >>POV except "Wikipedia is a good thing" which even then you can find >>some variety in. >> >If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status >should be no big deal as well. Perhaps being desysopped should be >automatic for everybody afte maybe a year. There could then be a three >month waiting period before being readmitted. Three months of enforced >humility might be good for some people. Since this would apply to ALL >admins there could be no claim of descrimination. > >Ec This an interesting idea, at least to me. The primary problem I see is that three months without admin tools after one year with is a total of 15 months in an admin cycle. 3 months out of 15 is 20%. That's far too much to lose, if the goal is just to ensure a few people don't develop a calcified bad attitude. It certainly would encourage administrators to be especially civil, if they knew they had to renew their appointments periodically. But the cost is probably too high. Ultimately, I think the solution is going to be more coaxing and encouragement (and reward) of the behavior we want most, and discouragement of that which we don't. And yes, that does include reprimands and punishments, starting with as minor as we can conceive of, and going upward as far as we need to. But my original point was that it should be no big deal when there are very minor punishments applied. The ideal goal is that good administrators will recognize and acknowledge their own occasional outbursts as inappropriate, and ''request'' these minor punishments, in large part to show good faith and a level playing field to those who aren't administrators, as well as to set an example. Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

1 0

Proposed policy:Troublemakers not welcome here
by Poor, Edmund W 21 Jun '05

21 Jun '05

> --- Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots > who just > > camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with > authority. > > I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main > > namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that > admins should > > be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting > really sick > > of this. > > Then somebody will need to bring some cases against them to > the ArbCom. If some users are causing trouble and > contributing very little to the main namespace, then we > should get rid of them. We need to ask this question of them: > Does having them around help us toward our primary goal of > creating the best encyclopedia possible? If not, then they > are parasites/trolls that should be shown the door. > > -- mav I agree, and I think this should be made policy. I came to Wikipedia for one reason, and one reason only. To help make a great encyclopedia which is free for all. In fact, I'm so good at it that I've been *hired* by another encyclopedia project - which is using mailman for its mailing list and MediaWiki for its articles. Sorry, it's not open to the public yet, but Jimbo and Angela know about it. Anyway, our little community (in the other project) places priority on the success of the project and thus we all get along very well. Troublemakers are not welcome there. Managing volunteers is a bit harder, I'll grant you, but the same standard should apply. If you're more trouble than you're worth, here's the door. You want another chance, fine. Come back next tomorrow (or next week) and we'll see. Let's make this an official policy. I'd be more than happy to have this standard applied to me. Have I been pulling my weight the last few weeks? No? Then boot me the hell out. Am I rubbing people the wrong way, making snide remarks, moving and refactoring text too boldly? Fine. Tell me to stop. User:Ta Bu Shi Da Yu did just that, I haven't touched the gitmo book abuse page since last week. (In fact, it's partly because of Tabu's leadership that I supported him for admin; it's nearly unanimous, by the way.) But if we had a more orderly crew, then no one would WANT to take matters in their own hands like I did recently: I thought I saw NPOV violations, and I sprang into action like a blizzard (or maybe a hailstorm - sorry if I bruised anybody's head). RickK thought he saw a violation -- what was it, copyright material by coolcat? -- and jumped into high gear. It takes WEEKS to get the arbcom to act. Did you ever try filling out the required paperwork? It's easier to get a driver's license. We need something else. I know we can find it. We just have to want it enough. Uncle Ed

1 0

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
24
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 June 2005