On 3/13/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think I explicitly said that the office shouldn't be involved at all in this.
and
The main issue here is verifying identity, but that could be handled by trusted people who have access to the respective OTRS queue.
So its not an *office action, but a system of *trusted action, for "very basic, undisputed fact corrections" which people do themselves anyway?
I'm not concerned about a slippery slope here. Wikipedians tend to be pretty paranoid the moment anyone vaguely connected to an article says anything (and rightly so).
This general claim about how Wikipedias tend to act needs a citation. A "reliable" source, preferably.
What I propose is not sinister, it is reasonable.
Hmmm.
IMHO it would be perfectly fine for Wikipedia to accept such statements & corrections directly, and to refer to them as <ref>correction/statement submitted by XX, ticket ID #123, received ...</ref>. I agree that it is silly to <ref> diffs and talk pages, but having a specific tracking system (which we incidentally are using already anyway) be put to use for this strikes me as completely sound.
What tracking system is this? But we dont have a system set up to document first hand claims. How would these be documented in a public way? Otherwise how would this action be different from an unwiki office action?
This is better than just letting subjects edit directly (because we can trace it, because humans act as COI filters, and because we can implement peer-to-peer methods of verification), and it certainly seems a lot more reasonable to me than current practices.
People already do this. What's the issue?
-Stevertigo