Maybe. But innovation is no bad thing, and if a disproportionate number of ideas are rejected too early rather than explored or trialled, perhaps some that would find value will be lost.
It's easy to forget that a wide range of processes and tools we take for granted today started off being considered questionable at their proposal.
FT2
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Maybe the ideas aren't good enough? :-)
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:04 PM, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I have had an idea how we could help resolve POV and sourcing wars, that would fit very well with Wikipedia philosophy. I might dust it off some time. The mood in the community is such that few proposals are welcomed
by
sufficient users to get accepted, and at the same time the problems
persist
and are critiqued.
Anyone else notice that?
FT2
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Hall <sinewave@silentflame.com wrote:
OK - so I think a fair summary of this proposal (correct me if I'm
wrong)
is: We should create a group of experienced BLP editors (or similar) to edit a BLP that has been the subject of an edit war. The page would be protected from editing by other (non-sysop) users. This would form an alternative to or replacement for page protection, and would hopefully lead to more editing than page protection. We should also allow users to create draft articles in their userspace that are (by default) protected from editing by other non-sysops.
I share FT2's concerns about the need to avoid creating a BLP cabal with the first point, and I also have concerns about the second point
- it could lead to POV forks and encourage people to hide an imperfect
article in their userspace rather than it being more visible and publically editable, which will lead to faster improvement. It could also lead to greater feelings of article ownership - if you grew an article to (say) A-class in your userspace before moving it to article space you'll probably have greater feelings of ownership than if it was in publically editablearticlespace from the start.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:05, Jay Litwynbrewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
Subject-Was: Re: A new solution for the BLP dilemma
"Nothing new is under the sun", are among the most humbling of a
preacher's words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you
uploaded
to your website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then clicked on "properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags,
all
within your control:
R W P e r e a i r d t m e i tOwner: X X O Group: O O O Everyone: X O O
Those would be appropriate settings for your user page, which is the
only
one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all
pages
in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply
with
one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin
would
permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a
volunteer
could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the
author
of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of
that.
group permission is a special feature of protected file systems.
Windows
does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect
shared
objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop
would
let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member
of
the required group.
In a series of occurances, here is how a biography might become
authorized and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the biography.
Someone write's a biography about someone else on their user page. They let it out among their collaborators. Two of those collaborators want to fix it, so the starter permits
everyone to write to it.
An edit war breaks out, so the sysop (sysops always hav power to
permit,
as well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all permission, except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to that group and solicits their attention to an article in progress.
No blocks are issued. No significant flaws are in the wording or the evidence. The page is permitted for reading by all and writing by none. Occasionally, on the talk page, someone raises {{editprotected}}. The questions typically get an answer that could hav been found by
reading three months of history.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- 1001010 1001000110000111011001101100
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l