Sandra (the Foundation communications person) suggested an "About
Wikipedia" link go in the sidebar, not just at the bottom of each
page. So I floated it on [[MediaWiki Talk:Sidebar]], got no objections
and put it in today. This is to be the sort of "about" link lots of
websites have.
The link goes to [[Wikipedia:About]]. I ask the august embattled
wikiveterans of this list to hack at said page until it's actually the
sort of thing a completely fresh visitor would expect to see linked
from "About Wikipedia." At the moment it strikes me as about twice as
long as it should be and entirely peppered in caveats ... thoughts
plz.
- d.
On 2/10/07, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of reasons not to give people admin powers after just 50
> edits. I'm guessing that one of them is copyright. Right now there are a
> lot of deleted copyvios. If anyone who registers (just about) has access to
> those copyvios, then aren't we back to publishing the copyvios? It would
> also create a lot more need for oversight - we'd be opening up a huge amount
> of personal information to the public.
>
> ...
> While we probably need lots more admins, we don't need automatic admins.
Agreed, automatic admins, or granting it people with fewer than 1000s
of productive edits isn't the solution.
However, the issue of access to copyvios increases with the number of
admins. In my opinion this isnt solved with less admins, but by
expunging copyvios completely or further restricting access to them.
In this, I am more thinking about copies of articles from other
encyclopedias, as opposed to the snippets taken from a website. These
copyvios are of limited usefulness to admins after a few days and
should be inaccessible, both in the article history and the deletion
log; instead a boilerplate page should alert the reader that the
version they have requested is a copyvio and provide the details, such
as source, contributors name, etc. All access to these copyright
violations after it has been removed should be restricted to case by
case needs.
I expect that this would require an "Request for Expunction" process,
which amounts to more bureaucracy, but if its creation allows for more
admins, the net effect is fewer backlogs.
Is something like this possible with the current MediaWiki and dump
creation software?
--
John
Sorry to send this to the list, but please read on.
My broadband is playing silly buggers, up and down every few seconds.
Outbound email is going eventually (the server at home keeps retrying
and gets the messages out after a few dozen retries).
If someone would be so kind as to stick a message on [[User talk:JzG]]
to say I'm suffering connectivity problems, so people don't think I'm
ignoring them / their requests I'd be very grateful.
Thanks,
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Given the recent discussions on this list, and the continuing increase
in de-facto requirements for new admins, I have to wonder if we are not
now well on the way to the creation of an elite class on Wikipedia.
It appears to me that the vocal representatives of the current crop of
admins (meaning those who have become admins within the last year or so)
have left far behind the idea that being an admin is "no big deal".
They see being an admin as a big deal, and want things to remain that way.
As I understand things, these admins view themselves as the
indispensable shield between Wikipedia and the world, which is full of
devious and persistent vandals. Without them (the admins), Wikipedia
would fail utterly. Essentially, they carry the weight of the survival
of Wikipedia on their shoulders.
Each new admin, having just gone through a "rigorous" application and
approval process, has essentially been selected for taking this sort of
view. And each new admin has every good reason for maintaining or
increasing the requirements for successive admins. In this respect, it
becomes very like the process of hazing found in many clubs and
exclusive organizations). This trend toward ever more "rigorous"
requirements has led to cases of hazing on some US university campuses
that were so severe the "applicant" died as a result.
Of course, the admins point to the very real challenges that vandals
pose as the reason for the rigor of the application process. They reject
any proposal that might place Wikipedia is peril.
Perhaps they're right. I'm certain that they truly want what it best for
Wikipedia.
But what I don't see is any real desire for a change in this trend
toward ever more rigorous requirements for becoming an admin. What I
don't see is any concern for the inherent conflict between the mere
existence of admins and the wiki principles that are the real reason for
the success of Wikipedia. I don't see any comprehension of the
possibility that the elitism of admins is the cause of some of the
vandalism. What I don't see is recognition that there is a problem worth
working on.
Perhaps the solution will require a complete re-thinking of how "special
rights" are allocated on Wikipedia, or even a complete re-thinking of
how vandalism is handled. But unless those involved are willing to
perceive the problem, and willing to engage the problem, nothing will
happen towards solving the problem.
-Rich Holton
(user:Rholton)
geni wrote
> The problem is that risks going the Citizendium rout and getting major
> fallings out over which cat things should be in rather than say both.
Yes, I think the WP model has scored here, by allowing a bit of soft pedal when it comes to aspects of the categories that are not quite right. I actually made a public comment about the category system and failure-in-principle (you know, Leibniz, [[universal characteristic]], all that) at the first ever meet-up, in London. Fortunately Jimbo moved swiftly on.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Dear Members,
Please let me make apologize to you if my mail disturb you.
I would like to introduce myself first. I am a master student studying
in Information Management field of study, Asian Institute of
Technology, Thailand. Currently, I am doing thesis for the development
of wiki collaboration space for e-Learning. Now I am preparing to
collect the necessary features of wiki for e-Learning. My thesis goal
is to figure out the necessary features of wiki for e-Learning. I would
like to request everyone to give suggestions for wiki in e-Learning. I
truly appreciate your helps.
The followings are my thesis goals:
1. To figure out the problems in wiki for collaboration in e-Learning.
2. To fulfill the necessary features of wiki for collaboration in e-Learning.
3. To make the standard guidelines that provide the complete features
of wiki for collaboration in e-Learning.
4. To develop the prototype of wiki for collaboration in e-Learning
5. To evalute the wiki for collaboration in an e-Learning course
Therefore, I need to study the instructor's perspective, students'
persceptive and wiki administrators' and users' perspective for wiki
in e-Learning.
I am looking forward to hearing from you. Almost welcome any comments
and idea for wiki.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Win Myint Aung
Master Student-Information Management
School of Engineering and Technology, AIT
Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120,
Thailand
Mail Box 1272
To any & all,
I am doing some thinking about how the WP Community could help Admins who
are struggling with the work. My goal is to come up with a formal mechanism
that these Admins can turn to for help and support before they choose to
simply give up and leave the Community. It could serve as a form of
intervention before a burnout occurs.
What are your thoughts about this?
Marc Riddell
A higher authority than me (who has jurisdiction) just said that I have
to quit Wikipedia and has threatened legal action :(
Just replace my userpage on en:wp with "flameviper has left the building" in all
lowercase. Blank my talk page, and protect my userspace...
I'll miss this place.
...
/me leaves the room
---------------------------------
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
I think that a "nom for delete" tab would be an excellent idea.
Obviously, it would be abused, but so can the entire Wikipedia concept of editable pages. That hasn't stopped us yet.
But in order to make it somewhat reliable as a source of legitimate information, we would probably have to make it available only to logged-in users. The same thing is already in use for page moves, so there is no danger of breaking precedent.
And if even that isn't enough, we might even have to bury the option somewhere in User Preferences.
The technology is already avaliable to nom an article for CSD (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flameviper/monobook.js), we only have to modify it to work for AFD and prod.
SO THAR.
---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.
Did anyone else receive an email recently with the subject
''Requesting to make comments for e-learning wiki''? I did, from a
student in Thailand, and I found it rather rude. Surely people are not
supposed to randomly grab addresses from mailing lists they subscribe
to?
--
Gary Kirk