From: Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:46:56 -0800
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>> From: Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:54:50 -0800
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)
>>
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>
>>> Back to some basics of my argument, or proposal, or whatever it has
become:
>>> I am not talking about
'experts'. If I see an edit has been made to
an
>>> Article in WP I would like to be able
go to that Article's History
Page and
>>> see the 'source' (person) of
that edit, with a User Name in Blue.
Then, if
>>> I
>>> choose, I can go to that corresponding User Page and learn something
about
>>> that editor - it really is that
simple!
>>>
>>>
>> Well, if you just want a "it would be nice if", we already encourage
>> people to create accounts and to tell us a little about themselves. So
>> now I don't know why you're even bringing this up.
>>
>> Stan
>>
>
> Stan,
>
> I didn't & don't use the phrase "it would be nice if".
"Encourage"
should
become
"insist" - that's why I brought it up.
OK then, you want to "insist" that they supply information about
themselves - that means you're talking policy that we enforce, not just
a guideline or a general recommendation. How much information? Can a
person be banned because of a user page that doesn't list every degree
earned? If not, then how do you enforce your insistence that they share
their personal details? What if the information is not true? How is
anybody going to tell anyway? There are a lot of "John Smith"s in the
world - you'd need a government ID to reliably determine which ones
actually graduated from MIT in 1982, and I don't think the Foundation
really wants to be in the business of user authentication, not least
because many countries have strict privacy laws that would require a
major rewrite of the wiki software in order to meet the legal
requirements.
WP oldtimers really have thought all this through already.
Stan
Stan,
Every single thing you've said here is a reason not to act. Are you
content
with the way things are now as pertains to User Pages?
Marc
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am not totally content, personally, but I see this as a question of the
type of organization we want to be.
Sure, in an ideal world, everyone's real name, and verifyable credentials,
are hanging out there for review and confirmation.
But it wouldn't be Wikipedia if we forced people to do that, and wouldn't
have nearly as much content.
Nupedia and Citizendum are experiments with other tradeoff optimizations
along these lines. Nupedia pretty much failed, in the sense of delivering
enough content to be useful. Citizendum is an open question. Wikipedia has
grown like mad because it chose to be very open; the question of where truly
optimial "grown like mad" versus "somewhat better content" tradeoffs
leave
us is not answered yet.
All of these are volunteer organizations. Everyone brings to a volunteer
organization who and what they are, and the time that they can contribute.
How many people you will get to volunteer depends on the nature of the
restrictions and percieved benefits.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com