Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection

-- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # ####################################################################### ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:18:14 -0400 From: Jimmy Wales Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection To: English Wikipedia Message-ID: 4475F4E6.9030805@wikia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Matt Brown wrote: > We could screw it up one of two ways. One is like Usenet's endless > September. The influx of new people could swamp the culture of the > place, drive off long-time contributors, and lower standards until > nothing useful was being done anymore. > > The other would be to react to popularity by over-reacting, pulling up > the drawbridge and shutting ourselves off from the world at large. > Becoming less welcoming, less friendly, more elitist. > > IMO, we have to be very careful not to do things that send us too far > in one direction or other. :) Yes, I agree absolutely. It has always been a balancing act, and always will be. -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # ####################################################################### ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:20:27 -0400 From: Jimmy Wales Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Death of Wikipedia To: English Wikipedia Message-ID: 4475F56B.7000402@wikia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The Cunctator wrote: >> No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton, as >> well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing >> restrictions. >> > > How early on? I remember blocking an ip number within the first few days. Speedy deleted stuff, too. We did not call it speedy deletion back then, of course, it was just deletion. As for locking pages, hmmm.... I do not remember well. We had the ability, and we used it temporarily. --Jimbo ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:21:01 -0400 From: "The Cunctator" Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy To: "English Wikipedia" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > The Cunctator wrote: > > Nicholas Carr's criticism, while hyperbolic, is more right than wrong. > > Actually, I think it is completely wrong. It completely misapprehends > what is being discussed here. > > > Hiding information from users is not good. > > Right, but no one is proposing to hide information, merely to present > the most useful information at the most useful time. The template > plastered at the top of the article has been a convenient approach > because we were able to do it ourselves, without asking Brion to change > anything. > > What we want to do is to be as welcoming of diverse participation as > possible, while at the same time controlling for vandalism. As we learn > and think, we find better ways to do this. > > First, we forever had article protection and bans. These are valuable > tools, but we don't like article protection because it keeps people from > editing *at all*. And because it keeps people from editing *at all* we > have to be very very sparing with the use. > > So, we thought about it long and hard, had a big discussion and a vote, > and decided to *soften* article protection. With semi-protection. This > has, in general, been a great success. It is a softer tool, so it can > be used a bit more broadly. More people can edit more articles more > often, and less drive by vandalism results. So far, so good. > > Now, we are thinking again: how can we extend this? How can we be more > welcoming to editing? > > Well, one thing we know is that the big scary message at the top of > articles discourages people from participation. It makes it seem like > we have locked articles when we have not locked articles. > > So the idea is to make the user interface better, to give people the > information they need and want, when they need and want it, rather than > thrusting on them something that they find confusing and misleading. > > Hence, the proposal: don't do the notification with a template, change > the UI so that people are more encouraged to join the project and start > editing... > > As with the softening of protection -> semi-protection, the concept here > is to encourage more people to edit, while controlling for problems when > they need to be controlled. > > Calling this sort of thoughtful tweak to policy "the death of Wikipedia" > is more than hyberbolic, it is just factually wrong. Your language is strikingly emotional. You describe the actions you support as: "thoughtful" "tweak" "softening" "need and want" "more welcoming" "soften" "softer" "bit more" "great success" "better ways" "thought long and hard" "most useful" The alternatives and alternative viewpoints are presented as: "factually wrong" "confusing and misleading" "plastered" "big scary" "discourages" It would be interesting to try to edit down your argument into something that was not so transparently biased. I'm not sure what would be left. But it would be a start for having an honest discussion about this, rather than an exercise in emotional pleading. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 14:24:40 -0400 From: "The Cunctator" Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Death of Wikipedia To: "English Wikipedia" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 5/25/06, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > The Cunctator wrote: > >> No, we locked some troll pages very early on. Speedy deleted a ton, as > >> well. And blocked ip numbers regularly. All of those are editing > >> restrictions. > >> > > > > How early on? > > I remember blocking an ip number within the first few days. Speedy > deleted stuff, too. We did not call it speedy deletion back then, of > course, it was just deletion. As for locking pages, hmmm.... I do not > remember well. We had the ability, and we used it temporarily. Deleting vandalism is very different from locking pages from editing. Maybe it's inappropriate to make such strong claims about features always being used --in an attack on someone else -- if you don't actually remember. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 20:36:33 +0200 From: "Steve Bennett" Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Usernames (was: Re: welch and consensus) To: "English Wikipedia" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 5/25/06, Nick Boalch wrote: > We do need to be a bit careful about this, I think, or we do run the > risk of thoughtlessly impose Anglo-US values on an international project. Hmm, there must be examples of names that aren't particularly offensive in "Anglo-US" culture but that are overseas? > For instance, the username policy forbids using the 'names of religious > figures', but in many parts of the world it's common for people to be > named after such figures: off the top of my head, I know several > Spaniards called Jes?s. And Mohammed as well. Establish a list of acceptable exceptions? > 'Offensive names are offensive names' is either categorically untrue or > essentially empty of meaning. (Either it means that there is some > absolute standard for what is offensive, which there isn't, or it means > that any name that could be found offensive by anyone, anywhere in the > world should not be permitted, which, given the apparent ability of > people to get worked up about nothing, would probably lead to all of us > getting socked with indefinite username bans). See whether anyone gets worked up about the name within the first two weeks, if not, it's ok? Steve ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:21:02 -0600 From: Fred Bauder Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Death of Wikipedia To: English Wikipedia Cc: Fred Bauder Message-ID: 22442BB2-CECF-4438-982B-862DF1722BFE@ctelco.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed True, but much preferable to endless wack a mole. Fred On May 25, 2006, at 8:56 AM, The Cunctator wrote: > Redvers and Jimbo made the claim that "Restrictions on editing - > specifically the ability to prevent an article from being edited - > have > always existed and have always been used. Semi-protection actually > *increased* the number of people able to edit, by doing away with > the need > to completely lock many articles." > > So far as I remember, during the UseModWiki days there were no > restrictions > on editing for a good while. Only after extended debate did Larry > lock the > front page. > > I believe it is false to claim that restrictions on editing have > always been > used. > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 15:36:03 -0400 From: Fastfission Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] for slimline and the reference to harold shipman To: "English Wikipedia" Message-ID: 98dd099a0605251236x764c2a03vbb153010f99d3461@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 5/24/06, abu hamza wrote: > It was then removed repeatedly. Which should tell you something. When multiple editors end up reverting you about 8 times, you should probably stop trying to re-insert the information and instead discuss it on the talk page, seeking consensus. > Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an > indefinate ban??? > > The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones > obsession with taking it out. Um, actually the former is really what is an issue here. It was not one person who kept removing it, but many. The issue here IS your attempt to insert something which only you seemed to support, and as such it is up to you to seek consensus to add it, not the other way around. There is plenty of precedent for banning people who continue to attempt to insert POV into articles against the will of other editors. The time to debate the content-aspect of the issue was before you keep re-inserting it. At this point, as a behavior issue, it is pretty clear to me that you were in the wrong. FF ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 274 ***************************************** --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.