Hello,
The third Wikimedia Quarto is fully available in english (though not yet moved to Foundation website :-)). You may find it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WQ/3/En/1. Please do not hesitate to fix typos you might meet :-)
You will find the usual essays, Jimbo's letter, reports of the Foundation, conference summaries, and updates from the developing projects. As always, we are open to your suggestions and submissions; please send letters to newsletter-at-wikimedia.org, or leave comments on the meta-wiki.
Special thanks to the translators who continue to make this effort such a far-reaching success, and to the designers who have helped produce the current clean look.
Anthere
particularly as these changes do not seem to be at all for the purpose of making a better encyclopedia.
Exactly, these suggestions are obviously for the sole purpose of allowing a certain clique to perpetually stay in power. These ideas aren't just bad, they're ridiculous and clearly don't represent the best interest of Wikipedia in the slightest. I'd say any admin who actually thinks these ideas are good should have their admin status removed, since it is quite obvious that they are only interested in perpetuating their power status. Sadly, apologists will defend this to the end despite the motives behind it being patently obvious.
It also ignores history too, under what historical context has something like this ever been a good idea?
Assuming both channels are English language channels, in which channel are you more likely to get kicked/banned from? That's right - the one with 10 administrators!
Exactly true and the proponents of this absurd idea don't have the slightest understanding of internet sociology, this definitely falls under the "too many cooks" category. I have yet to encounter a medium-large sized channel with a dispropotionately large number of ops that wasn't full of power tripping morons.
In any case, this policy is a bit too outlandish even by WikiHerd standards, so it won't ever get voted in. The only thing I'm worried about is that the admins will act on it as policy even though it's never been voted in, acting under their own personally appointed authority. Sadly, that's a likely possibility considering they already interpret real policies and imaginary policies as they see fit and freely get involved in content disputes. All it really would accomplish is making Wikipedia a laughing stock since, as I've said, the idea isn't just wrong, it's clearly insane.
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------
On 7/1/05, Nathan J. Yoder njyoder@energon.org wrote:
Exactly, these suggestions are obviously for the sole purpose of allowing a certain clique to perpetually stay in power.
You act like the admins have any real power.. They don't. The abilities of an admin are fairly limited in scope, and none are permanent. Most admins do not derive great joy from the enhanced access, because every use of it is a chance to be called out and need to answer to your actions. The community can see how an admin uses their abilities. People have been deadmined. There are over 500 admins. Any can undo the action of any other. It would be ludicrous to claim there was a single large group of this size that conspired against someone.
In short, adminship *is* no big deal.. even though we make a big deal of it sometimes. As a result, don't expect anyone to get to worked up over your rant. If you've spotted something broken that only an admin can fix (such as a mistaken administrative action), assume good faith.. point it out.. and we'll all work together to make things run better.
Hi!
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:09:23 -0400, Nathan J. Yoder wrote:
Exactly, these suggestions are obviously for the sole purpose of allowing a certain clique to perpetually stay in power. These ideas aren't just bad, they're ridiculous and clearly don't represent the best interest of Wikipedia in the slightest.
Of course, some people would argue that a certain Mr. Yoder is one of those shining examples of people who, and I assume the vast majority here agrees with me, should not be able to get access to any admin features, unless there is a significant change in his attitude. (And I'm not exactly holding my breath for that.)
SCNR Alex
We also have a killer PDF version of the third Quarto; if you want to be the first to see a copy of it, sign up at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-news-l . You can thank LockeShocke for this.
Translations are underway in 15 languages; French is the front-runner for the second complete edition. If you want to see the Quarto in another language, you will probably have help.
Meanwhile... the *next* Quarto is coming out hot on the heels of #3, in July.
Reports, essays, and telling photographs (and sound or video clips) from the second quarter -- March through June -- can be submitted to newsletter@wikimedia.org , or added directly to [[m:WQ/Draft]] .
++SJ
Hello,
The third Wikimedia Quarto is fully available in english (though not yet moved to Foundation website :-)). You may find it at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WQ/3/En/1. Please do not hesitate to fix typos you might meet :-)
You will find the usual essays, Jimbo's letter, reports of the Foundation, conference summaries, and updates from the developing projects. As always, we are open to your suggestions and submissions; please send letters to newsletter-at-wikimedia.org, or leave comments on the meta-wiki.
Special thanks to the translators who continue to make this effort such a far-reaching success, and to the designers who have helped produce the current clean look.
Anthere