G'day folks,
Killer Startups reports:
http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikiped…
Do we need yet another online
encyclopedia<http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikiped…>that
is powered by the people a la Wikipedia? It seems we do, as that is
exactly what WEBYpedia is all about. It is an encyclopedia entirely fuelled
by users. Anybody can contribute to it, in the way that he wishes: by
creating a new post, by modifying an existing one, by leaving a comment with
his own ruminations on anything that has been published… But if we were to
compare it with Wikipedia
<http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikiped…>,
it would be necessary to mention that there is one difference at play.
Granted, it is merely a technical one but it is a difference all the same:
WEBYpedia is a blog encyclopedia. This means that contributing an article is
considerably easier than submitting anything to Wikipedia. Any person who
has ever blogged will know how to do it.
Still, that is unlikely to make people desert Wikipedia and turn to this
site massively. Wikipedia has got a prestige that is hard to take down. I
guess that those who always think that it’s convenient to have alternatives
to go around will check WEBYpedia out. I am not sure about the rest.
This is their website. There seems to be a lot of how to material there.
http://webypedia.com/
--
Keith Old
62050121 (w)
62825360 (h)
0429478376 (m)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:46:05 +0100
From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com>
>The point is not to have admins.
>
>You could just have it so that the vote blanks/unblanks the page, in
>real time, whenever the total is a majority for blanking. You would
>have to make sure that juries are taken from well-established editors,
>and that it's understood that people that vote to blank for bad faith
>reasons would get permanently blocked (if another jury found that you
>had done that).
>--
>-Ian Woollard
Sounds like Pure wiki deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system (and that's not
a good thing). Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform.
If normal admin deletion were retained (which it will be), a jury system would
make AfD like a trial: editors make arguments for and against deletion, acting
as the prosecution, defense, and witnesses, then the jury decides the outcome,
which an admin (judge) enacts, presumably with veto power if the jury has
decided something crazy. Are admins generally making such bad decisions that we
need to replace their decisions with laborious jury panels? ArbCom works as a
jury panel, and it moves at snail's pace. Remember that we do have DRV for
controversial decisions. A simpler change, which I've proposed before, would be
to require admins to give a rationale for their close on any AfD that is not
unanimous.
DRV allows participants in the original debate to take part, which is somewhat
flawed. A jury system could work for DRV, as there would be a managable workload
compared to assessing every single XfD decision. The system would need to have a
way of involving active editors in 'jury duty', which is tricky for a volunteer
project.
F&W
Apropos of recent discussions.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>
Date: 25 August 2010 17:19
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Page eliminators at ptwiki
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:51:42 +0200, "GoEthe.wiki" <goethe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> At ptwiki, we recently implemented a usergroup to help with the backlog
of
> requests for speedy deletions, articles for deletion, and others (see
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Eliminadores). This was done to
try
> to dismistify the admin role, and increase community participation in
admin
> tasks, trying to counteract the significant decrease in the number of
> admins
> during the past two year (we currently have less than 40 admins). I
invite
> you all to accompany this as I believe that the success or failure of
this
> strategy will have valuable lessons for other projects.
A similar group has been active in Russian Wikipedia for about a year
(only deletion reviews, no speedy deletions). It has been generally
regarded as a success.
Cheers
Yaroslav
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I appreciate that your suggestion is not to have admins. But aside
from the issue that juries will be slower and less efficient than the
current system for dealing with attack pages, what is the error rate
for admin deletion of attack pages and blocking of vandalism only
accounts? There are areas where admin decisions are sometimes
challenged or contentious, but in my experience the deletion of attack
pages and the blocking of vandalism only accounts rarely if ever
involves admin errors. So this proposal would replace a system that
works well with one that at best would achieve comparable results but
more slowly and less efficiently.
As for blanking attack pages, yes patrollers can and do do this. But
that doesn't stop people cyber bullying by emailing a diff of the
attack page, nor does it help when as so often happens the name of the
attack page is itself an attack.
WereSpielChequers
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 21/08/2010, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Is it possible to have the ability to blank an attack page and keep it
>> locked until an admin looks at it and deletes it?
>
> The point is not to have admins.
>
> You could just have it so that the vote blanks/unblanks the page, in
> real time, whenever the total is a majority for blanking. You would
> have to make sure that juries are taken from well-established editors,
> and that it's understood that people that vote to blank for bad faith
> reasons would get permanently blocked (if another jury found that you
> had done that).
>
>> Carcharoth
>
> --
> -Ian Woollard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 28
> ****************************************
>
I was thinking, after the talk about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandal_fighters which doesn't
terribly look like it's going anywhere, why don't we possibly "bundle" a
few of the other userrights into one, such as my proposal below:
User right: "Superuser"
Rights included: rollback, autopatrolled, reviewer, accountcreator
As far as who would grant/revoke such a right, I would personally want
bureaucrats to do that job, as that is their natural-given right as
bureaucrats (to grant/revoke userrights). Some pros and cons that I forsee:
Pros: Consolidating userrights, increasing transparency for those are
not wiki-experts, less stuff for sysops to do, less confusion
Cons: Abuse of one of the tools like rollback (as with sysops), trend
seems to be for "unbundling" rights instead of "bundling", updating
those users who aren't around anymore, dispute on procedures to grant
this (i.e. simple request, "requests for adminship"-type voting, etc.)
I'm throwing this out here to see what people would think. Any thoughts?
-MuZemike
Hello my fellow Wikimedians/Wikipedians, i have recently started a
WikiProject called WikiProject Microsoft. However, we are slowly gaining
participants. I am e-mailing the lists to see if anyone out there is
interested. If you are, you can simply add your name to the participants
list on the project page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MICROSOFT>.
Thank you,
--
User:Dwayne
>From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
wiki(a)dwayneflanders.com
(apologies for the cross-post if you're on Foundation-L)
Hi all,
I wanted to very quickly bring you up to speed on the work we're doing
for Wikipedia in higher education through the Public Policy Initiative [1].
Today, we've announced the eight professors who will be participating in
the Initiative this upcoming term. You can see the announcement in a
Wikimedia Foundation blog post [2].
If you haven't already, please check out the WikiProject:United States
Public Policy [3] to see what we're doing and track the progress of the
students in these courses throughout the term.
LiAnna
[1]http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative
[2]
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/08/19/wikimedia-registers-for-classes/
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Pol…
--
LiAnna Davis
Communications Associate - Public Policy
Wikimedia Foundation
ldavis(a)wikimedia.org