Following up with my post to the election discussion pages:
I think the 150 mainspace edits requirement was poorly discussed and is an ill-advised change to the requirements in prior elections. It disenfranchises relatively new (but not brand-new) editors who make large edits to articles and make most of their edits by numbers to talk pages. According to the discussion the rule is aimed at preventing the participation of sockpuppets. I think that the actual effect of this rule has been to deny suffrage to more than a dozen editors whose total edit counts and edit history make it clear that they are not sockpuppets. I and others have spent a fair amount of time reading and following along with the growth and change of the Wikipedia community for some time without always actively participating and in some cases prior to registering a username. This does not mean that we are unqualified to vote or have no interests in Wikipedia that we would like to protect/advance through voting.
There ought to have been a fuller discussion about this restriction, particularly considering the mainspace edit count rule has not been well received in any forum where it was aired in a limited fashion. Additionally, the decision should have been made by consensus in the community - not be an election volunteer 'officer' - however hard working.
If I have misunderstood the process that led to the restriction, I apologise, but my objection to the restriction itself remains.
Avruch
On 06/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Following up with my post to the election discussion pages:
I think the 150 mainspace edits requirement was poorly discussed and is an ill-advised change to the requirements in prior elections. It disenfranchises relatively new (but not brand-new) editors who make large edits to articles and make most of their edits by numbers to talk pages. According to the discussion the rule is aimed at preventing the participation of sockpuppets. I think that the actual effect of this rule has been to deny suffrage to more than a dozen editors whose total edit counts and edit history make it clear that they are not sockpuppets. I and others have spent a fair amount of time reading and following along with the growth and change of the Wikipedia community for some time without always actively participating and in some cases prior to registering a username. This does not mean that we are unqualified to vote or have no interests in Wikipedia that we would like to protect/advance through voting.
There ought to have been a fuller discussion about this restriction, particularly considering the mainspace edit count rule has not been well received in any forum where it was aired in a limited fashion. Additionally, the decision should have been made by consensus in the community - not be an election volunteer 'officer' - however hard working.
If I have misunderstood the process that led to the restriction, I apologise, but my objection to the restriction itself remains.
Avruch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It wasn't a change though - it's always been 150 edits (mainspace or otherwise). What precautions would you put in to stop sockpuppets?
--Redrocketboy
On Dec 6, 2007 10:08 PM, Red Rocket redrocketboy@googlemail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Following up with my post to the election discussion pages:
I think the 150 mainspace edits requirement was poorly discussed and is an ill-advised change to the requirements in prior elections. It disenfranchises relatively new (but not brand-new) editors who make large edits to articles and make most of their edits by numbers to talk pages. According to the discussion the rule is aimed at preventing the participation of sockpuppets. I think that the actual effect of this rule has been to deny suffrage to more than a dozen editors whose total edit counts and edit history make it clear that they are not sockpuppets. I and others have spent a fair amount of time reading and following along with the growth and change of the Wikipedia community for some time without always actively participating and in some cases prior to registering a username. This does not mean that we are unqualified to vote or have no interests in Wikipedia that we would like to protect/advance through voting.
There ought to have been a fuller discussion about this restriction, particularly considering the mainspace edit count rule has not been well received in any forum where it was aired in a limited fashion. Additionally, the decision should have been made by consensus in the community - not be an election volunteer 'officer' - however hard working.
If I have misunderstood the process that led to the restriction, I apologise, but my objection to the restriction itself remains.
Avruch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It wasn't a change though - it's always been 150 edits (mainspace or otherwise). What precautions would you put in to stop sockpuppets?
--Redrocketboy
Yes, that is what I recall as well. (Standard faulty memory disclaimer applies.) In any event, there will always be some collateral damage from whatever restrictions we impose. 150 edits is an arbitrary but nonetheless reasonable cut-off point.
Johnleemk
It was 150 edits, which is different than 150 mainspace edits (considerably, IMHO). What do we normally do to stop sockpuppets? On a page with a much higher level of administrator attention (and official officers watching) why should there be an even higher level of protection against sockpuppets than elsewhere? Alternatively, why not 150 edits total? Or 500 edits total? As others have pointed out, using edit counts to protect against sockpuppets isn't that effective given the ability to make many edits very quickly. At any rate, as I've said on the election voting talk page, I'll keep an eye out in the next round of elections to try to convince folks then that a more considered process of determining these restrictions is in order. Consensus was mainly determined in this case by the lack of continued dispute after it was first proposed.
On Dec 6, 2007 10:08 PM, Red Rocket redrocketboy@googlemail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Following up with my post to the election discussion pages:
I think the 150 mainspace edits requirement was poorly discussed and is an ill-advised change to the requirements in prior elections. It disenfranchises relatively new (but not brand-new) editors who make large edits to articles and make most of their edits by numbers to talk pages. According to the discussion the rule is aimed at preventing the participation of sockpuppets. I think that the actual effect of this rule has been to deny suffrage to more than a dozen editors whose total edit counts and edit history make it clear that they are not sockpuppets. I and others have spent a fair amount of time reading and following along with the growth and change of the Wikipedia community for some time without always actively participating and in some cases prior to registering a username. This does not mean that we are unqualified to vote or have no interests in Wikipedia that we would like to protect/advance through voting.
There ought to have been a fuller discussion about this restriction, particularly considering the mainspace edit count rule has not been well received in any forum where it was aired in a limited fashion. Additionally, the decision should have been made by consensus in the community - not be an election volunteer 'officer' - however hard working.
If I have misunderstood the process that led to the restriction, I apologise, but my objection to the restriction itself remains.
Avruch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It wasn't a change though - it's always been 150 edits (mainspace or otherwise). What precautions would you put in to stop sockpuppets?
--Redrocketboy _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 6, 2007 11:09 PM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
(snip) Consensus was mainly determined in this case by the lack of continued dispute after it was first proposed.
That's usually how Wikipedia consensus is determined. (This is a positive, not normative, statement.)
Johnleemk
On 07/12/2007, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 11:09 PM, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
(snip) Consensus was mainly determined in this case by the lack of continued dispute after it was first proposed.
That's usually how Wikipedia consensus is determined. (This is a positive, not normative, statement.)
I'd say that's the definition of consensus. A consensus exists if and only if no-one objects.
On 12/8/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's usually how Wikipedia consensus is determined. (This is a positive, not normative, statement.)
I'd say that's the definition of consensus. A consensus exists if and only if no-one objects.
Usually "meaningful consensus" means some attempt to canvas a range of views. Getting no objection from the 10 trekkies who respond on a Star Trek talk page is one thing. Getting no objection when you've posted at the village pump, wikien-l and mentioned it on the IRC channel is another thing.
Steve
On 07/12/2007, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/8/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's usually how Wikipedia consensus is determined. (This is a positive, not normative, statement.)
I'd say that's the definition of consensus. A consensus exists if and only if no-one objects.
Usually "meaningful consensus" means some attempt to canvas a range of views. Getting no objection from the 10 trekkies who respond on a Star Trek talk page is one thing. Getting no objection when you've posted at the village pump, wikien-l and mentioned it on the IRC channel is another thing.
Of course. A consensus is always of a particular group. A consensus of trekkies is still a consensus, it's just not the one we want - we want a consensus of the community.
On 12/6/07, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
According to the discussion the rule is aimed at preventing the participation of sockpuppets.
Obviously someone decided that "preventing the participation of sockpuppets" isn't a realistic goal, but "preventing the participation of sockpuppets who haven't helped build the encyclopedia" is the Next Best Thing.
(A hair-splitting distinction, I know)
—C.W.
On Dec 7, 2007 10:33 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/6/07, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
According to the discussion the rule is aimed at preventing the participation of sockpuppets.
Obviously someone decided that "preventing the participation of sockpuppets" isn't a realistic goal, but "preventing the participation of sockpuppets who haven't helped build the encyclopedia" is the Next Best Thing.
Along those lines, maybe everyone should get one vote for every 150 mainspace contributions...</joke>
Seriously, though, as the vote is non-binding who cares about suffrage OR sockpuppetry?
On 12/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Along those lines, maybe everyone should get one vote for every 150 mainspace contributions...</joke>
Does that mean OrphanBot gets 3869 votes? :-)
On 13/12/2007, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Along those lines, maybe everyone should get one vote for every 150 mainspace contributions...</joke>
Does that mean OrphanBot gets 3869 votes? :-)
Yes, but it has to go through Requests for Bot Approval to be allowed to perform the extra task of voting.