Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange: A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia? B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it A: Who told you to do it B: I can't remember but I'm sure it was someone who thought I should do it. A: So you yourself have no reason to, as an admin, do the action you did? B: Yes I asked on IRC.
This is a true story. Which is why IRC should be shut down. There is no accountability, and no transparency. And yet things which pass on it, are then imposed in-project with no back-trail.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/2/2009 11:43:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Jay Litwyn wrote:
One reason they are not publicly archived is so that discussions are not driven into DCC for want of not being held to word, quoted, or caught displaying a degree of ignorance or a prominent prejudice that you
actually
want to be argued out of. It can be live and off the cuff remarks,
perhaps
even admissions about personal and otherwise private life. There really
is
no telling how your logs will date. I remember one time when it was
newsfeed
about war in Tibet, then noise about magnetic levitation. I find IRC
tiring
to read and follow when it gets active, then boring when it slows down.
Then
there was that ad for carbonated black piss. The trick is to make the
logs
yourself in whatever group you want, and pretty much keep it to yourself.
I prefer having nothing to do with IRC, but I am often left with the impression that its participants come to some agreements which they treat as decisive elsewhere. That subverts acountaability.
Ec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http... =JulystepsfooterNO115)
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange: A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia? B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it A: Who told you to do it B: I can't remember but I'm sure it was someone who thought I should do it. A: So you yourself have no reason to, as an admin, do the action you did? B: Yes I asked on IRC.
This is a true story. Which is why IRC should be shut down. There is no accountability, and no transparency. And yet things which pass on it, are then imposed in-project with no back-trail.
Will Johnson
The problem here is not the existence of IRC. The problem here is the admin doing something without good reason to and using what someone said off-wiki as an excuse. Admins is suppose to take responsibility for their action, heck all editors are supposed to take responsibility for their edits. If an admin take admin action just because someone told them to, then the problem is that that particular person shouldn't be an admin.
Are you honestly telling us you think shutting down semi-official IRC channels would stop a big online community such as Wikimedia's contributors to stop using non-wikis method of communication? The most likely result is the same group of people who would be using IRC's to just carrying on where they are unofficially. The next most likely result is they would move elsewhere in terms of either location or technology. The least likely result is they would stop altogether.
KTC
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Kwan Ting Chanktc@ktchan.info wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Yes I'm reminded of that lack of accountability in this exchange: A: Why did you, as an admin, do action X within Wikipedia? B: Well I asked on IRC and they told me to do it A: Who told you to do it B: I can't remember but I'm sure it was someone who thought I should do it. A: So you yourself have no reason to, as an admin, do the action you did? B: Yes I asked on IRC. This is a true story. Which is why IRC should be shut down. There is no accountability, and no transparency. And yet things which pass on it, are then imposed in-project with no back-trail. Will Johnson
The problem here is not the existence of IRC. The problem here is the admin doing something without good reason to and using what someone said off-wiki as an excuse. Admins is suppose to take responsibility for their action, heck all editors are supposed to take responsibility for their edits. If an admin take admin action just because someone told them to, then the problem is that that particular person shouldn't be an admin.
The problem seems to be that IRC is treated with more officialness than it should be. If everyone treated it the same as meeting up with your wiki*dian mates in the pub, there'd be no need for public logs and no concerns about accountability etc.
Are you honestly telling us you think shutting down semi-official IRC channels would stop a big online community such as Wikimedia's contributors to stop using non-wikis method of communication? The most likely result is the same group of people who would be using IRC's to just carrying on where they are unofficially. The next most likely result is they would move elsewhere in terms of either location or technology. The least likely result is they would stop altogether.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l