Nicholas Knight wrote:
"Perhaps you didn't get the point from my previous email. I can create a new email address in the time it takes me to type it out. I can also easily whip up a script that would let me automatically catch confirmation emails and respond appropriately without me ever seeing them. The entire process of creating an account on Wikipedia can be automated so that a new user could be created in a few seconds, email confirmation or not."
Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not computers. I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing scripts is way above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I wonder if the typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to realize what you are bringing up above.
-172
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Abe Sokolov (abesokolov@hotmail.com) [041225 18:36]:
Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not computers. I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing scripts is way above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I wonder if the typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to realize what you are bringing up above.
If they aren't, they'll have friends who are. It's the same reason Digital Rights Management and copy-protection on CDs doesn't work - if one person breaks it, it's broken for all.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Abe Sokolov (abesokolov@hotmail.com) [041225 18:36]:
Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not computers. I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing scripts is way above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I wonder if the typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to realize what you are bringing up above.
If they aren't, they'll have friends who are. It's the same reason Digital Rights Management and copy-protection on CDs doesn't work - if one person breaks it, it's broken for all.
The average vandal is probably more likely to be interested in computers than history. History is may be too boring for him, but he may have some experience with computer games. His online presence is just another way to have "fun".
Copy protection on CDs is treated as one more challenging puzzle. It's another "boss" at a deeper level of the game. The people who produce copy protection systems want you to believe that they will work for the obvious reason that their income depends on it.
Ec
Please dont mix up trolls and vandals with hackers and crackers. Sure some members of those four gropus are members of others, but just cause someone breaks the copyright on a CD does not mean they are at all anti-social, just anti-corporate.
paz y amor, [[User:The bellman]]
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If they aren't, they'll have friends who are. It's the same reason Digital Rights Management and copy-protection on CDs doesn't work - if one person breaks it, it's broken for all.
The average vandal is probably more likely to be interested in computers than history. History is may be too boring for him, but he may have some experience with computer games. His online presence is just another way to have "fun".
Copy protection on CDs is treated as one more challenging puzzle. It's another "boss" at a deeper level of the game. The people who produce copy protection systems want you to believe that they will work for the obvious reason that their income depends on it.
Abe Sokolov wrote:
Thank you for the explanation. My field's history, definitely not computers. I've only been using the internet for a few years. Writing scripts is way above my pay grade. So I'll take your word for it; but I wonder if the typical trouble-maker we encounter is sophisticated enough to realize what you are bringing up above.
I think we are making progress here. If we grant that a registration system isn't the *right* measure to deal with the typical trouble-maker, we can instead focus on what *is* the right measure?
Again, let me say that I'm fully with you on the core issue, even though I have not been a fan of your technical proposal.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I think we are making progress here. If we grant that a registration system isn't the *right* measure to deal with the typical trouble-maker, we can instead focus on what *is* the right measure?
From my position on the relative sidelines (I've never had direct dealings with ArbCom nor do I follow its activities much beyond what gets discussed on this list), the problem(s) are not with the technology or the policies, but are solely with ArbCom, and I see five possibilities as to what they are:
1) ArbCom is toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.
I don't think this is the case. If it is, it needs to be fixed quickly.
2) ArbCom thinks it's toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.
If this is the case, I think *YOU* (Jimbo) can and should fix it by making it clear to them they're not.
3) ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly with clear abuses.
I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I also think it could be worked through simply by biting the bullet and coming down hard and fast on a few exceptional problem cases, making Wikipedians get used to the fact that "due process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it harder to ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did everything you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator presiding over a medium-sized project is markedly different from a pseudo-democratic body presiding over one of the largest "open source" projects in the world with one of the lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people have grasped that.)
4) ArbCom is woefully understaffed.
I think staffing levels are a factor regardless of the truth of any of these other points. From the sound of things, the recent elections have helped. Depending on how the next few weeks and months go, I think serious consideration should be given to expanding ArbCom further.
5) ArbCom is "lazy".
For one reason or another, some arbitrators apparently aren't active. I'd rather not see anyone forcibly removed, but I'd certainly urge any inactive arbitrators to resign so that others with more time may take their place.
In relation to the last two possibilities, I've had a thought. Some people are clearly afraid of making a long-term commitment to ArbCom, but might not be adverse to short-term stints. I'm thinking perhaps a monthly list of volunteers that ArbCom could select from to form temporary committees to review a particular case and recommend action with ArbCom making the final call. How well this would work in practice I can't say.
Nicholas Knight (nknight@runawaynet.com) [050102 04:02]:
: [various ideas on the arbcom]
Please give us a chance to get up to speed :-) We're already working on progressing a few cases, have just close one and are close to closing on others.
(That quite a few of the arbcom are IRC users is helping a lot in quick discussion of things, though we are taking care to put stuff ont he arbcom mailing list so that IRC isn't a requirement.)
- d.
We have 11 arbitrators, the new ones are quite active. We are ok for a bit. Regarding reviewing a case, if anyone wants to do it on the talk page of the proposed decision, please go ahead. If we like it we will just put it in the proposed decision and vote on it. No permission needed.
Fred
From: Nicholas Knight nknight@runawaynet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:02:12 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks
In relation to the last two possibilities, I've had a thought. Some people are clearly afraid of making a long-term commitment to ArbCom, but might not be adverse to short-term stints. I'm thinking perhaps a monthly list of volunteers that ArbCom could select from to form temporary committees to review a particular case and recommend action with ArbCom making the final call. How well this would work in practice I can't say.
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We have 11 arbitrators, the new ones are quite active. We are ok for a bit. Regarding reviewing a case, if anyone wants to do it on the talk page of the proposed decision, please go ahead. If we like it we will just put it in the proposed decision and vote on it. No permission needed.
Yes - help formulating proposed principles, findings of fact, remedies and enforcement would help expedite the whole process since that is the major bottleneck (getting other ArbCom members to vote on things is much easier). That part of the process does not need official ArbCom members - only voting does.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Nicholas Knight wrote:
ArbCom thinks it's toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.
If this is the case, I think *YOU* (Jimbo) can and should fix it by
making it clear to them they're not.
I think we're good at this point. The ArbCom is empowered to deal rapidly with clear abuses, and I think they know it.
- ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly with clear abuses.
I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I also think it could be worked through simply by biting the bullet and coming down hard and fast on a few exceptional problem cases, making Wikipedians get used to the fact that "due process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it harder to ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did everything you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator presiding over a medium-sized project is markedly different from a pseudo-democratic body presiding over one of the largest "open source" projects in the world with one of the lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people have grasped that.)
I think this is basically accurate. I do recommend, though, that the "coming down hard and fast" be really limited to a few exceptional problem cases, as opposed to being random.
ArbCom is woefully understaffed.
I think staffing levels are a factor regardless of the truth of any of these other points. From the sound of things, the recent elections have
helped. Depending on how the next few weeks and months go, I think serious consideration should be given to expanding ArbCom further.
Yes. I think we should keep an eye on it and increase the size as needed.
I liked your idea of some form of temporary volunteer help for the ArbCom as well, although I hate to see more and more people bogged down with this stuff. Perhaps it is better to just streamline the process to a degree.
--Jimbo
The faster (and harder) you go the easier it is to make serious mistakes (and do real damage to the community). Things just aren't always what they seem at first impression.
Fred
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 03:07:30 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks
- ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly with clear abuses.
I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I also think it could be worked through simply by biting the bullet and coming down hard and fast on a few exceptional problem cases, making Wikipedians get used to the fact that "due process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it harder to ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did everything you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator presiding over a medium-sized project is markedly different from a pseudo-democratic body presiding over one of the largest "open source" projects in the world with one of the lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people have grasped that.)
I think this is basically accurate. I do recommend, though, that the "coming down hard and fast" be really limited to a few exceptional problem cases, as opposed to being random.