WikiEN-l June 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

151 participants
160 discussions

cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism userbox
by Molu 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:26:49 +0100 "Tony Sidaway" wrote: >this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox >that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds >that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute. >I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal >of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging, >though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the >like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and >coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only >bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse. >Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where >traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors >vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of >votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be >appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be >made for this particular template This is what I was talking about. When admins consider themselves empowered to completely ignore community consensus on the ground "I know better". The userbox debate has provided the highest amount of this shit, with admins speedying templates kept the day before at TfD. Don't give me that crap about best interests of the encyclopedia, it's subjective and you have no right to overrule community by the virtue of being an administrator. This makes me sick. Thankfully someone with good sense has restored the debate. Molu, disgusted __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

status qou vs reform
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

>Message: 6 >Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:05:09 +1000 >From: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the > satanism userbox >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> >Message-ID: > <a1be7e0e0606011805x7203ed79i526f32d1ae3ef1d0(a)mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >On 6/2/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 6/2/06, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Tony is going around pissing people off badly enough that they RfC him > > > over > > > > it. > > > > > > George, if I breathe someone gets pissed off. This isn't normally > > > regarded as a cause for concern. > > > > > > > No, actually, your day to day stuff only ruffles people's feathers. > > > > Your attitude that it's ok to do that is annoying. > > > > Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing them > > off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because they're > > silly, is a serious problem. > > > > If people are actively pissed off at the way you're behaving it is a serious > > problem. You are the single most active visible WP admin a lot of the time, > > and you're going around causing disruption and conflict throughout the > > community, and acting proud of it. What, exactly, do you think that sends > > as a message to new editors? > > > > It is not ok to go around pissing people off. It is important to figure out > > how to get things done without pissing them off. > > > >Well said, And to think that people are worrying about "possible >polemical" effects and ignoring the deeper problems with the wikipedia >community structure. > >Peter Ansell I think one should not expect any action, in general, from the people who are well fed by the current structure which makes them feel superior, make any attempt towards a bit of change. It is a sociological principle that status quo always resists to the reforms. The community needs to take initiative in that direction. [[WP:OURS]] was a humble example of such efforts waiting for the community involvement. Resid __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

7 9

Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
by Redvers ＠ the Wikipedia 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

Jimmy Wales wrote: >I think it would be reasonable to have some sort >of process other than ArbCom whereby admins are >from time to time or upon particular >circumstances renominated for adminship. >The danger, of course, is that such a process >could be used by trolls as a hammer against some >of our more active admins. This is right in both parts. It is very easy for an admin (I speak as one myself) to feel somewhat special and elevated. Admins are, after all, only human like everyone else. And human beings are an intensely hierarchical species - I speak as a Brit, the most hierarchical of all subgroups of Homo Sapiens in the western hemisphere. And, of course, that feeling of being "somewhat special" will have its effects. We dislike WP:OWN of articles, but admins and long-term users all suffer from "ownership" of the project as a whole. As a general rule, this is a Very Good Thing. Without people feeling ownership of Wikipedia, the project would be doomed. But the same problems that exist in editors owning articles exist in editors owning Wikipedia. We don't. The public, the users, the readers - they own Wikipedia. The person who drops in, reads a single article and goes away better informed, or with something to put in her high school essay or something new to add to his mate's point of view... they own Wikipedia. They are the customers. We - the editors and admins - are the burger-flippers, serving the customers what they want when they want it. We know more about how the burgers are made and what goes into the making of them than do the customers on the other side of the window. But that doesn't mean we have any authority over the customers. That's not what we're (not) paid for. (BTW, the Wikipedia critics forget that point more than the real editors and admins do - as a hint to them: that ol' interweb thing, it doesn't exist just for you. Honestly.) However (and there had to be one), however: the first call for me to be desysoped was just 12 hours after I was given the admin buttons. I deleted an article that someone else had tagged CSD-A7; it was a recreation of a CSD-A7, which was a recreation of a CSD-A7. Three editors, two admins and me all agreed that this chap's high school career didn't need to be in an encyclopedia. The chap in question contacted my talk page, emailed me and even emailed someone else asking them to contact me, all with the same message: I had been wrongly "promoted" and should go immediately. A day later, a similar thing happened. Since then, a week on Wikipedia isn't complete without someone somewhere telling me that I should be desysoped for enforcing Wikipedia rules... or writing to a talk page asking someone for their opinion on a rule(!) Any method of evaluating admins needs to remove these people from the process. They have nothing to add to it. If they could create a de-admin process with a single click, they would. And once created that process would attract every nutjob, troll and person who skim-reads a page into voting an admin out of the extra buttons. QED: no more admins in about 12 days. Nevertheless, there should be a way of allowing comment on admin actions and behaviour. Writing to admins' talk pages and email doesn't satisfy the critics, even if they even bother. They tend to go to Esperanza or AIV first. Or to RfA to try to become an admin. Or even directly to the Anti-Wikipedia Forum for Obsessive Nutters or whatever it's called. A route where they could vent would be useful to the complainant, the community and even the admin themselves. We can rely on the community to spot a malicious or ill-informed editor making a complaint, as a rule, and thus reject them (although the critics say *all* complaints are valid... mind you, they're busy ringing people up at work, writing to employers and calling the police over *interweb content disputes*, so they've already somewhat blotted their copybooks in the scale and sanity departments). There's a clear, easy and unabusable "Request for Comment on Administration Actions" system that must exist somewhere. Soemthing that would give everyone useful feedback, help decide policy and would be non-judgmental unless an admin had gone mad with her/his buttons and a 'crat hadn't spotted it. What this system is, I don't know. But there must be one. Simple, easy to use, hard to abuse... surely the internet allows for that somewhere? A system that could recognise that admins are human and therefore are not perfect, but that there's a difference between falability and maliciousness? Above all, a system that ensures that mistakes are learnt from, rather than punished (Lar, MSK, do you hear me? Enough with the punishment fetish, please...) and thus that we grow and develop from it. But I'm at a loss as to what that system is. There *must* be one. Somewhere. -> REDVERS ___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing solutions?
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

Hey Jay, Welcome in. Do you think you got into the discussion from the correct place? I think I was trying to emphasis on the importance of discussing the proposal itself and taking it as a first step in the development of a better one. Anyways... There are some people with lack of short memories. It is OK under standard conditions at which they only need some automated behavioral patterns. It might be hard for them, though, when they are involved in some sort of discussions. They, for example, can easily forget what they said a minute ago? Can you imagine that? In your previous message about Salaadin, you are complaining about conspiracy theories he has in his mind about Jews. I do not mind your ethnic origin, so your concerns are understandable to me. You are on the other hand do not hesitate to construct your own conspiracy theory here: 'new kind of abusive editors trying to push their POV via the back door'. We have no chance other than showing respect to your conspiracy theory, of course, because it is yours and not against Jews. Who wants to be blamed for being an anti-semitist? Yours should be just fine... Would I bother luxury and comfort of your mind if I ask how you think these new abusive editors will abuse something and will make their hidden agenda a policy? Or do you know how a policy becomes a proposal in Wikipedia? I think, I could diagnose a problem in Wikipedia and could suggest a fix for it. I hope it attract some attention and works at the end. I am not able to make a suggestion for you (a good editor working for good of Wikipedia wihtout any doubt and in turn the humanity like you) other than; just follow the main policies such as 'assume good faith'. Best, Resid >From: jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing solutions? >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:27:13 -0400 > >On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Scott, > > > > What is your panic for? > >What's worse, you >appear to be one of the new breed of that kind of abusive editor, the >kind who feels that if they can't push their POV and other policy >abuses onto Wikipedia by force, they will do it via the back-door, >through policy change. > >Jay. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

[[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
by Resid Gulerdem 05 Jun '06

05 Jun '06

The comments were very useful in general. The most important ones among them are the ones addressing possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal for it was one of them. I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked indefinitely (how do you think I know the 'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I hope that the points raised below contribute to the efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion... I tried to express it using a semi-formal language. Further explanations are given [in the square brackets]. Best, Resid -------------------- [[WP:OURS]] -------------------- [[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations between sysops and users. [This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User RelationS) as well.] 1. '''Ethics and Standards''' 'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]) [I think content disputes and the disputes around a controversial issue are very important to address. If the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that would reduce the energy loss around these kind of disputes.] [It is easier to write an article on a purely technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor, etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some problems because sometimes (if not all the times) admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience and privileges then does not constitute a base for neutralization of the article but -let me put it this way- rather make them a target for accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain only ordinary user behavior. It is important to realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account of the controversial issues.] [I referred to an updated version of a proposal I started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote properly.] 2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees''' Based on the area of specialization and interest, experienced users (more than 6 months of editing experience) may join the study groups. Study groups work on the controversial articles categorized as being related to their area of specialization and can make recommendations on particular points. If necessary, the study groups may also supervise controversial articles until the dispute is resolved. [Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to form some study groups based on the area of specialization of the users, say 'history of science', etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask the opinion of the related study groups. The group may vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up with a decision. It does not have to be a final decision though, as usual. Many violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way which may result in a more friendly atmosphere between users and admins who feel obligated to force the rules consciously.] 3. '''Mentor-mentee program''' Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia. The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required to have a mentor. Users can change their mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these accounts will be managed as before. [This will indicate the popularity of the admins and will provide a dynamics measure of their success. This dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them periodically. There is almost no accountability of admins in a practical way. They should be accountable to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount importance.] 4. '''Limited block policy''' A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case the mentor is not available, an explanation should be posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate. Anonym IP's will be managed as before. Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by an admin. [Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not be hard to convince an admin about the applicability of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion of the validity of a block onto the admins involved rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives the flexibility to the admins who think a block is unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's toe.] [And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally, after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may bring some reconciliations and peace to the project.] ------------------------ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

7 13

Community vs Encyclopedia
by Joe Anderson 04 Jun '06

04 Jun '06

I've spotted many more organisations are sprining up; the majority either useless or clones of the CVU or Esperanza. I made Community Justice, which I think failed, to be honest. CJ aimed to improve the encyclopedia through more civil (and hence faster and less damaging) disputes. However, four different viewpoints of the Wikipedia have emerged recently: - It is an encyclopedia with a community - It is a community with an encyclopedia - It is an encyclopedia - It is a community I agree with the first, though many users agree with the second and some the third and fourth. With Web 2.0, I see the Wikipedia becoming more and more like a social networking site, which is sad. There needs to be some way to remind users it's an encyclopedia - perhaps a community organisation reminding people to edit the enyclopedia (Wikipedia:Community Encouraging the Community to Expand the Encyclopedia over the Community, Though That Sounds Ironic). (humour :P ) -- Joe Anderson [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

10 18

Time to start discussing solutions?
by Resid Gulerdem 04 Jun '06

04 Jun '06

Dear Scott, What is your panic for? My account is blocked, yes! This is the third time you are repeating the same thing on this list. I disclosed that at the beginning of the proposal too. I hope people smart enough here to see that you are trying to denounce the proposal by mud-throwing at me. I expect you will continue doing so to distract the attention of the community from the proposal itself. I had issues with some admins, blocked at the end and '''that is why I know the admin-abuse problem by heart'''. I am trying to make some structural suggestions so that new comers do not live through the same difficulties I had here. Isn't that really understandable to you? If you would like to talk about the issue, focus on the proposal and find some mistakes in it, that would be more persuasive that I am doing bad and be more useful to correct it. I am so sorry to say that you are not an exemplary editor in my sight from whom I can take some advise, and maybe in the sight of a few other users you are messing up around. I do not want to waste my time to provide links to show what kind of editor you are. (There are already two links in my previous message, accidentally.) Maybe I should just say this: It is no good to watch each and every step of a fellow editor and try to create a negative atmosphere around him by distorting the facts, slandering, using your experience and naivety of the new users in a negative manner, biting the new users, trying to spoil any positive relation the user may have by secretly talking to others, organizing other users against a fellow editor etc. It is not also good to spoil and ruin the articles and proposals by starting edit-wars, reverting without discussion, tag'ing the articles at which you have no other contributions or idea about without any explanation, etc. I cannot see the basis for your motivation and do not like to describe it in terms of phycology for the sake of kindness. I just want to let you know that those are the behaviors that damage the community spirit of Wikipedia. I want you not answer it to me but ask this question yourself: What will I gain from ruining another proposal ([[WP:OURS]]) as I did in the case of [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]? Is mud-throwing ethical and can considered among the behaviors of a gentleman? Should I stop this poor behavior? If you have difficulty to find an answer please consult your parents for your childish behavior. If you remember, I told you 'bye' far ago. When I say it, I really meant that. Let me see if I can make myself more clearer this time: Bye again... Resid >From: "Scott Stevenson" <wikinetscott(a)gmail.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing solutions? >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:15:08 +0200 > >Resid Gulerdem you are a PERMANENTLY BLOCKED EDITOR who has not only >been disruptive on English Wikipedia : >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem with corresponding >extensive block log: >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:… >but you've been disruptive in an entirely independent way on the >Turkish Wikipedia: >http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanýcý:Rgulerdem >Where you have also been repeatedly blocked: >http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Özel:Log&type=block&page=Kullanýc… > >For you to be discussing policy at this point is ridiculous. You >should STEP AWAY from the project for at minimum 1 YEAR and then come >back to try and contribute as at this point it is surely likely that >you'll once again be disruptive when trying to formulate any sort of a >"policy" like [[WP:OURS]] through demonstrating the same types of >disruptive editor behaviour you've already repeatedly demonstrated >(involving WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV). > >-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]] > >On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some > > good suggestions in it, I believe: > > > > 1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about > > the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user > > relations. Isn't it time to start talking about > > solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent > > versions of the same problem? > > > > 2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from > > my point of view. Can be and need to be modified. > > > > 3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot imply > > that this one will follow the same path, can it? It is > > early to make a decision at this stage before > > discussing the proposal. > > > > 3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not > > devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not > > attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not > > propose radical changes but maybe a different look and > > acceptable variations of the current > > infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for > > ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of > > Wikigod(des)s. > > > > 4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of > > admins. > > > > 5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than > > irritate them. > > > > 6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from > > possible problems before they arise (by constructing > > study groups, etc., for example). > > > > 7. As discussed by some users, both community and > > encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The > > problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges > > between these two components are not efficient'''. > > [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to > > strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of > > these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention. > > > > Regarding Wikiethics discussion: > > > > If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and now > > referring to that approval poll you are, > > unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are new to > > that discussion, I would recommend you to review the > > comments carefully. > > > > Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user, > > who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the > > approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I > > then started another poll right after that to ask the > > community if an approval poll is needed at that stage. > > I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that > > the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the > > poll I started to ask what people think about the > > timing of an approval poll vandalized many times: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=ne… > > or its place suddenly became a problem: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44… > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45… > > Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote > > on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is > > not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid > > by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check > > the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are > > saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at > > that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I > > started, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a… > > simply because it was not available to them. So the > > numbers you reported does not reflect the case as is. > > > > Best, > > > > Resid > > > > > > >From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> > > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> > > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> > > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform > > >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000 > > > > > >On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think one should not expect any action, in > > > > general, from the people who are well fed by the > > > > current structure which makes them feel superior, > > make > > > > any attempt towards a bit of change... > > > > > >There must be an awfully large number of people who > > are content with > > >the current structure, given that the general > > approval poll on your > > >Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are > > evil, of course, and > > >not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly > > comprehensive, and > > >came from all sectors of the community. I would > > imagine that "OURS", > > >if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would > > receive a similar > > >amount of opposition for similar reasons. > > > > > >There are dozens of similar proposals put up every > > year. If any of > > >them actually received support from the community, > > they would be > > >successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of > > registered users - even if > > >we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could > > overrule a true > > >community movement. > > > > > >[1] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Pol… > > > > > >-- > > >Stephen Bain > > >stephen.bain(a)gmail.com > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 3

Time to start discussing solutions?
by Resid Gulerdem 04 Jun '06

04 Jun '06

Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some good suggestions in it, I believe: 1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user relations. Isn't it time to start talking about solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent versions of the same problem? 2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from my point of view. Can be and need to be modified. 3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot imply that this one will follow the same path, can it? It is early to make a decision at this stage before discussing the proposal. 3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not propose radical changes but maybe a different look and acceptable variations of the current infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of Wikigod(des)s. 4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of admins. 5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than irritate them. 6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from possible problems before they arise (by constructing study groups, etc., for example). 7. As discussed by some users, both community and encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia. The problems are caused by the fact that '''the bridges between these two components are not efficient'''. [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention. Regarding Wikiethics discussion: If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and now referring to that approval poll you are, unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are new to that discussion, I would recommend you to review the comments carefully. Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user, who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I then started another poll right after that to ask the community if an approval poll is needed at that stage. I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the poll I started to ask what people think about the timing of an approval poll vandalized many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=ne… or its place suddenly became a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45… Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a… simply because it was not available to them. So the numbers you reported does not reflect the case as is. Best, Resid >From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000 > >On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I think one should not expect any action, in > > general, from the people who are well fed by the > > current structure which makes them feel superior, make > > any attempt towards a bit of change... > >There must be an awfully large number of people who are content with >the current structure, given that the general approval poll on your >Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are evil, of course, and >not binding, but that level of rejection is fairly comprehensive, and >came from all sectors of the community. I would imagine that "OURS", >if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would receive a similar >amount of opposition for similar reasons. > >There are dozens of similar proposals put up every year. If any of >them actually received support from the community, they would be >successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of registered users - even if >we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we could overrule a true >community movement. > >[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Pol… > >-- >Stephen Bain >stephen.bain(a)gmail.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
by Resid Gulerdem 04 Jun '06

04 Jun '06

I would like to start by applauding Mr. Wales for his wonderful idea of writing a free online encyclopedia by the contribution of volunteers. I am hoping that it can be improved to a reliable source of information as time goes. At this point, it is evident that, there are some structural problems in Wikipedia. Ignoring these problems doesn't lead to a reasonable solution and doesn't help. The main problem I can see is the unbalance between the user rights and admin privileges. It can be adjusted and corrected but the problem needs to be identified first. It might not seem to be a serious issue for one who is not effected, but it really is. It is of paramount importance to realize that motivation of ordinary users from any background can be stimulated only by a fair treatment of their edits. It is also equally important to realize that the conjuncture has a strong influence on the editors without an exclusion of the admins. Some people feel marginalized and faced to bias actions from some admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The answer to the question is strongly related to the strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive. Please note that any person leave Wikimedia is not only a minus to the community, in general, is a plus to the anti-Wikipedia community. I, myself, am at or around that border line and before crossing it I wanted to make a friendly call for a discussion of the issue. I would be glad to discuss the issue and make some suggestions for the solution if you are interested. Best, Resid __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

6 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 10
by Daniel R. Tobias 04 Jun '06

04 Jun '06

On 3 Jun 2006 at 16:13, Ilmari Karonen <nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote: > > Even if the cartoonist would draw Mohammed a third time, > > he wouldn't need be afraid as long as his drawings wouldn't > > have been published before. > > Cartoonists generally do draw things with the expectation that they will > be published. And those with some sort of fanatical need to suppress offensive cartoons won't necessarily limit themselves to opposing ones that are published; look at the case of [[Mike Diana]], the only American to be convicted of obscenity for drawing a cartoon (this happened in Florida in the 1990s). As part of the court order following his conviction, he was ordered not to draw any more obscene cartoons whether published or not, with the authorities having the right to do inspections of his home to make sure he hadn't drawn anything illegal. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

2 1

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 2006