The fact that there are so many admins is one of teh key reasons why I think that such a meeting is so important. It is vital for people to get to know one another a little better and see who the active admins are.
At the same time, I also think it is important that the admins be made aware of some things on a Foundation level. What should they be looking out for? How can they resolve problems effectively? What are the exact policities and when (gasp) should these policies be overlooked in the larger interest of the project?
The meeting would take place on IRC as Cimon suggested. I think Fred's ideas are excellent, and we can certainly consider implementing an admin only IRC channel and mailing list. These are things that can be brought up at the meeting.
I realize that the meeting will be clumsy at first because of all the people involved. I would like, however, to suggest that we try it and see how many people actually show up. We can, of course, have additional meetings as necessary, and may realize that one meeting is impractical. As a full-time Wikipedian, I will make a point of being at any meeting suggested.
Suggested time, anyone?
Danny
On 1/22/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
At the same time, I also think it is important that the admins be made aware of some things on a Foundation level. What should they be looking out for? How can they resolve problems effectively? What are the exact policities and when (gasp) should these policies be overlooked in the larger interest of the project?
No all users should be able to find that out not just admins.
The meeting would take place on IRC as Cimon suggested. I think Fred's ideas are excellent, and we can certainly consider implementing an admin only IRC channel and mailing list. These are things that can be brought up at the meeting.
Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and createing cliques.
-- geni
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No all users should be able to find that out not just admins.
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence. Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we have a great many untrustworthy admins.
Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and createing cliques.
Wikipedia is overrun with cliques. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if some of the more powerful ones were formalized; maybe then something good would come out of them.
Kelly
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No all users should be able to find that out not just admins.
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence.
Then they stay at foundation level.
Wikipedia is overrun with cliques. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if some of the more powerful ones were formalized; maybe then something good would come out of them.
Kelly
Insitutionalised cliques are a pain to get rid of when they become a problem.
-- geni
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Insitutionalised cliques are a pain to get rid of when they become a problem.
Uninstitutionalized cliques are even harder to get rid of.
Kelly
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence.
Then they stay at foundation level.
There aren't enough people at "foundation level" to deal with them. They *have* to push them out to the people on the ground or they won't get done.
Apparently, we need some level between "admin" and "steward"/"board member", since our admins are little more than a ragtag bunch of rabble anyway.
Kelly
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence.
Then they stay at foundation level.
There aren't enough people at "foundation level" to deal with them. They *have* to push them out to the people on the ground or they won't get done.
That may not be the case anymore:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
Apparently, we need some level between "admin" and "steward"/"board member", since our admins are little more than a ragtag bunch of rabble anyway.
Kelly
You appear to have serious issue with our admins. For the most part they are good people doing thier best (ok for the most part they are inactive but that is a seperate issue).
-- geni
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have serious issue with our admins. For the most part they are good people doing thier best (ok for the most part they are inactive but that is a seperate issue).
Well, for the most part, yes. But there are enough that are a problem, and enough more after that that are just clueless (in some cases, terminally so) that I refuse to generically trust all admins.
Kelly
There aren't enough people at "foundation level" to deal with them. They *have* to push them out to the people on the ground or they won't get done.
Yes! What I think we need is better communication between the foundation level people and the hard-working editors on the ground. Brief announcements on this mailing list in the form of "Problem X is really getting serious, let's solve it with solution Y" are not enough. We need some mechanism down on the wiki itself for the foundation level people to get important information across to everyone interested.
If you find that you roll out solution Y and it gets pounded with deletion votes within minutes then you're doing something wrong. You have to really make the case to people why problem X is serious and how solution Y will help. Or maybe you just describe the problem clearly and let the people on the ground figure out if solution Y, Z or W is the best one.
When good people have good information available they will act sensibly. Wikipedians are good people. Give us as good information as you can.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/22/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Yes! What I think we need is better communication between the foundation level people and the hard-working editors on the ground. Brief announcements on this mailing list in the form of "Problem X is really getting serious, let's solve it with solution Y" are not enough. We need some mechanism down on the wiki itself for the foundation level people to get important information across to everyone interested.
Obviously what is really required is an embassy between wikien and the Foundation.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence.
Then they stay at foundation level.
There aren't enough people at "foundation level" to deal with them. They *have* to push them out to the people on the ground or they won't get done.
Apparently, we need some level between "admin" and "steward"/"board member", since our admins are little more than a ragtag bunch of rabble anyway.
Kelly
Bureaucrat? Adminship is no big deal, but bureaucratship sure is, and I have no doubt that every single one of the bureaucrats on en is trustworthy. The only problem is that most of them (with the *possible* exceptions of Raul, Linuxbeak and Ilyanep) are rather isolated from those in the trenches. (At least Raul deals with our featured article issues, Linuxbeak is active on ANI and other similar fora, and Ilyanep...well, I've seen him around so he can't be that high up in the ivory tower yet.)
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 1/23/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Bureaucrat? Adminship is no big deal, but bureaucratship sure is, and I have no doubt that every single one of the bureaucrats on en is trustworthy. The only problem is that most of them (with the *possible* exceptions of Raul, Linuxbeak and Ilyanep) are rather isolated from those in the trenches. (At least Raul deals with our featured article issues, Linuxbeak is active on ANI and other similar fora, and Ilyanep...well, I've seen him around so he can't be that high up in the ivory tower yet.)
We must have separation of powers to avoid the tumbling blocks of hell falling on our big toenails.
-- Sam
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence. Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we have a great many untrustworthy admins.
Trustworthy or not there are hundreds of active admins. Anything discussed in an Internet forum with hundreds of people is very close to being public information.
Most of the regulars on wikien-l are old hands anyhow. I'm not sure if you'd get a substantially different forum by creating an admin-only list.
In any case it would mean a substantial change in what it means to be an administrator. This should be well advertised and discussed before it happens.
Regards, Haukur
We have a number of folks posting on wikien-l that are not only not administrators but quite tiresome. An admin-l list offers more opportunity of a genuine dialogue.
Fred
On Jan 22, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence. Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we have a great many untrustworthy admins.
Trustworthy or not there are hundreds of active admins. Anything discussed in an Internet forum with hundreds of people is very close to being public information.
Most of the regulars on wikien-l are old hands anyhow. I'm not sure if you'd get a substantially different forum by creating an admin-only list.
In any case it would mean a substantial change in what it means to be an administrator. This should be well advertised and discussed before it happens.
Regards, Haukur
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No all users should be able to find that out not just admins.
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence. Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we have a great many untrustworthy admins.
Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and createing cliques.
Wikipedia is overrun with cliques. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if some of the more powerful ones were formalized; maybe then something good would come out of them.
If there were to be an admin-only mailing list, I wonder how many people would be left for this one. :-)
Ec
Confidential information at the Foundation level doesn't have to be disclosed; it can be imagined.
nobs
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree of confidence. Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we have a great many untrustworthy admins.
Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example implementation that governs public and private assembly.
Sincerely, Jonathan
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The fact that there are so many admins is one of teh key reasons why I think that such a meeting is so important. It is vital for people to get to know one another a little better and see who the active admins are.
At the same time, I also think it is important that the admins be made aware of some things on a Foundation level. What should they be looking out for? How can they resolve problems effectively? What are the exact policities and when (gasp) should these policies be overlooked in the larger interest of the project?
The meeting would take place on IRC as Cimon suggested. I think Fred's ideas are excellent, and we can certainly consider implementing an admin only IRC channel and mailing list. These are things that can be brought up at the meeting.
I realize that the meeting will be clumsy at first because of all the people involved. I would like, however, to suggest that we try it and see how many people actually show up. We can, of course, have additional meetings as necessary, and may realize that one meeting is impractical. As a full-time Wikipedian, I will make a point of being at any meeting suggested.
Suggested time, anyone?
Danny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/22/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example implementation that governs public and private assembly.
Sincerely, Jonathan
The Brown Act is a government sunshine act and only applies to the meetings of governmental organizations (and more specifically, those of agencies of the California government). To suggest that such laws apply to a meeting of volunteers working on behalf of a private nonprofit entity borders on trolling.
Kelly
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example implementation that governs public and private assembly.
It's only a website. Get a grip, man.
Pete, thinking that might be the problem
On 1/22/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example implementation that governs public and private assembly.
Sincerely, Jonathan
Then ofcourse there's that pesky [[Freedom of assembly]] basic democratic right. If people don't have that, then they have way bigger problems than userbox-disputes and foundation-issues.
I agree with Kelly, what you are saying is borderline trolling.
--Oskar Sigvardsson
A gathering of Wikipedia administrators would not be a local governing body operating under the law of California or any other US state.
Fred
On Jan 22, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Jonathan wrote:
Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example implementation that governs public and private assembly.
Sincerely, Jonathan
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The fact that there are so many admins is one of teh key reasons why I think that such a meeting is so important. It is vital for people to get to know one another a little better and see who the active admins are. At the same time, I also think it is important that the admins be made aware of some things on a Foundation level. What should they be looking out for? How can they resolve problems effectively? What are the exact policities and when (gasp) should these policies be overlooked in the larger interest of the project? The meeting would take place on IRC as Cimon suggested. I think Fred's ideas are excellent, and we can certainly consider implementing an admin only IRC channel and mailing list. These are things that can be brought up at the meeting. I realize that the meeting will be clumsy at first because of all the people involved. I would like, however, to suggest that we try it and see how many people actually show up. We can, of course, have additional meetings as necessary, and may realize that one meeting is impractical. As a full-time Wikipedian, I will make a point of being at any meeting suggested. Suggested time, anyone? Danny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jonathan wrote:
Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example implementation that governs public and private assembly.
I guess I was mistaken to believe that in the U.S. the right to peacefully assemble was governed by the first amendment. ;-)
Ec
Danny wrote:
Suggested time, anyone?
I suggest 10pm UTC. This is 9am in Melbourne, 11pm in Europe, 5pm US east coast, 2pm US west coast. It's not ideal for Asia, but it's always going to be 3am for someone. Perhaps we could rotate the meeting time so the next one was more suitable for different people.
Geni wrote:
Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and createing cliques.
Why can't you get on IRC? Would it help if I added the en.admins channel to the IRC web gateway at http://irc.wikicities.com/wp/? Currently it is just used for the Arabic and Croatian channels.
Kelly Martin wrote:
Obviously what is really required is an embassy between wikien and the Foundation.
This sounds like the Wikicouncil idea, but that received little support: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikicouncil
Angela
"Angela" beesley@gmail.com wrote in message news:8b722b800601221417v72bb1252i93dda612bafd4832@mail.gmail.com...
Danny wrote:
Suggested time, anyone?
I suggest 10pm UTC. This is 9am in Melbourne, 11pm in Europe, 5pm US east coast, 2pm US west coast. It's not ideal for Asia, but it's always going to be 3am for someone. Perhaps we could rotate the meeting time so the next one was more suitable for different people.
I currently don't have internet access at weekends: Monday - Friday, 0730-1800 BST
So what about people like me?
Geni wrote:
Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and createing cliques.
Why can't you get on IRC? Would it help if I added the en.admins channel to the IRC web gateway at http://irc.wikicities.com/wp/? Currently it is just used for the Arabic and Croatian channels.
That looks like a handy tool. Could it be used for *all* of the Wikipedia channels?
I can't get to IRC because it's blocked by our firewall, so an HTTP solution would be great.
That looks like a handy tool. Could it be used for *all* of the Wikipedia channels?
I can't get to IRC because it's blocked by our firewall, so an HTTP solution would be great.
It could be used for all channels if it was hosted somewhere more reliable. I wouldn't want to risk having a large channel like #wikipedia on it right now since it's sharing a server with our mailing lists.
Angela.
"Angela" beesley@gmail.com wrote in message news:8b722b800601231915x5fa3fbf6pbc33423d675608ff@mail.gmail.com...
That looks like a handy tool. Could it be used for *all* of the Wikipedia channels? I can't get to IRC because it's blocked by our firewall, so an HTTP solution would be great.
It could be used for all channels if it was hosted somewhere more reliable. I wouldn't want to risk having a large channel like #wikipedia on it right now since it's sharing a server with our mailing lists.
How much power does this particular tool require?
Maybe it could be hosted on the tool-server, or maybe there's an older machine, retired from regular grunt-work, which could be given this task in its old age :-)
Phil Boswell wrote:
"Angela" beesley@gmail.com wrote in message news:8b722b800601231915x5fa3fbf6pbc33423d675608ff@mail.gmail.com...
That looks like a handy tool. Could it be used for *all* of the Wikipedia channels? I can't get to IRC because it's blocked by our firewall, so an HTTP solution would be great.
It could be used for all channels if it was hosted somewhere more reliable. I wouldn't want to risk having a large channel like #wikipedia on it right now since it's sharing a server with our mailing lists.
How much power does this particular tool require?
Maybe it could be hosted on the tool-server, or maybe there's an older machine, retired from regular grunt-work, which could be given this task in its old age :-)
Given the load the machines receive, I'd be surprised if any of the old ones even worked anymore.
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The fact that there are so many admins is one of teh key reasons why I think that such a meeting is so important. It is vital for people to get to know one another a little better and see who the active admins are.
Perhaps you should be encouraging more people to show up at Wikimania. O:-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The fact that there are so many admins is one of teh key reasons why I think that such a meeting is so important. It is vital for people to get to know one another a little better and see who the active admins are.
Perhaps you should be encouraging more people to show up at Wikimania. O:-)
Ec
Not all of us have the money or time to spend 12 hours flying to a foreign land. :-p
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])