Hello
I want to toss the idea around of having an online meeting of all admins on the English wikipedia. The reasons are simple:
1. A chance to get to know one another. 2. A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what is happening in the "big picture." 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other problems. 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because of the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
Danny
On 22/01/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
- A chance to get to know one another.
- A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what is
happening in the "big picture." 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other problems. 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because of the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
You might be better served having two or three meetings, say eight hours apart on a Sunday - it's an interesting idea, but a lot of people.
(We'll have eight hundred admins within a week!)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
How many you can get together depends on the date and the time. Time zones can be a royal pain in the...
Mgm
On 1/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/01/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
- A chance to get to know one another.
- A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what
is
happening in the "big picture." 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other
problems.
- A chance to discuss some existing policies.
If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because
of
the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
You might be better served having two or three meetings, say eight hours apart on a Sunday - it's an interesting idea, but a lot of people.
(We'll have eight hundred admins within a week!)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ 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, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hello
I want to toss the idea around of having an online meeting of all admins on the English wikipedia. The reasons are simple:
- A chance to get to know one another.
- A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what
is happening in the "big picture." 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other problems. 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because of the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
Danny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I presume by online you mean Internet Relay Chat?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon avaro
How about an admin only IRC channel and mailing list?
Fred
On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:27 AM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hello
I want to toss the idea around of having an online meeting of all admins on the English wikipedia. The reasons are simple:
- A chance to get to know one another.
- A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to
what is happening in the "big picture." 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other problems. 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because of the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
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, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
How about an admin only IRC channel and mailing list?
Fred
No we should try and keep things as open as posible.
-- geni
Puddl Duk wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.
What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
Chris
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Jenkinson
Puddl Duk wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list
archives were public.
What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
Reading and posting are two different activities. Without wishing to stoke outrageous egos, a comparison could be drawn with Hansard reporting of Parliament. There are strict limits on who is eligible to speak, but none whatsoever on who may listen to them, or read the published record.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list
archives were public.
What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
Reading and posting are two different activities. Without wishing to stoke outrageous egos, a comparison could be drawn with Hansard reporting of Parliament. There are strict limits on who is eligible to speak, but none whatsoever on who may listen to them, or read the published record.
That kind of availability is key to transparency and accountability. Nevertheless, I am confident that the reasewrship level would be just as stunningly high as it is for Hansard (or the Congressional Record in the US).
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list
archives were public.
What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
Reading and posting are two different activities. Without wishing to stoke outrageous egos, a comparison could be drawn with Hansard reporting of Parliament. There are strict limits on who is
eligible to
speak, but none whatsoever on who may listen to them, or
read the published record.
That kind of availability is key to transparency and accountability.
That's my point.
Nevertheless, I am confident that the reasewrship level would be just as stunningly high as it is for Hansard (or the Congressional Record in the US).
Oh, I agree fully! Debates on policy can be most nit-pickingly tiresome (to use Fred's word) and I wouldn't expect WP to be any different.
But if we want editors to have an effective and informed vote at ArbCom elections, then transparency is a must. Like Hansard (or the ConRec) this protects not just the voting public, but the legislators themselves. Otherwise, with such a large group, there are bound to be leaks, and some of those leaks might be incorrect, or given out of context. Human nature being what it is.
Is there any good argument for secret discussions?
That's easy, we could have a conversation without a lot of play by play interference but there would still be an opportunity on the part of the community to view it.
Fred
On Jan 22, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Puddl Duk wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.
What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
Chris
-- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra _______________________________________________ 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, Puddl Duk puddlduk@gmail.com wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.
What would be the point, then?
Kelly
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/06, Puddl Duk puddlduk@gmail.com wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.
What would be the point, then?
Kelly
Lower noise, focus on admin topics.
You mentioned earlier "Insitutionalised cliques are a pain to get rid of when they become a problem." Public scrutiny fights these clique problems, secrecy exacerbates them.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Puddl Duk wrote:
How about an admin only IRC channel and mailing list?
Fred
No we should try and keep things as open as posible.
-- geni
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.
Two good reasons such a mailling list should be kept private:
1. Admin A posts to the list "User X is being disruptive. What do I do?" 2. ADmin B posts to the list "I need a sanity check. User Y has done this, & I plan on acting thusly. Comments please."
Reasons:
* No one wants to admit in public that they're clueless. * People are more likely to admit that they'rewrong in private. * Sometimes a person just needs a vote of confidence to handle a troublemaker.
I don't see any of this happening if such a list were archived in public.
As for the worry that an admin list might be abused to form a cabal to gain control of Wikipedia for its own nefarous ends -- I dunno what those would be, maybe enforce a political litmus test on articles or replace all uses of BC/AD with CE/BCE -- this could be accomplished right now with an offline, private mailing list.
And if this hasn't been attempted yet, then I'm wrong in thinking that there are some people out there smarter than me.
Geoff
On 1/22/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
Two good reasons such a mailling list should be kept private:
- Admin A posts to the list "User X is being disruptive. What do I do?"
- ADmin B posts to the list "I need a sanity check. User Y has done
this, & I plan on acting thusly. Comments please."
Reasons:
- No one wants to admit in public that they're clueless.
- People are more likely to admit that they'rewrong in private.
- Sometimes a person just needs a vote of confidence to handle a
troublemaker.
I don't see any of this happening if such a list were archived in public.
We see those kind of posts all the time on AN/I
As for the worry that an admin list might be abused to form a cabal to gain control of Wikipedia for its own nefarous ends -- I dunno what those would be, maybe enforce a political litmus test on articles or replace all uses of BC/AD with CE/BCE -- this could be accomplished right now with an offline, private mailing list.
And if this hasn't been attempted yet, then I'm wrong in thinking that there are some people out there smarter than me.
Geoff
Oh it's been tried. However sooner or latter someone finds out about it and informs the community. Once that happens it can be isolated and nutrilised. A bit harder to do with a formaly sanctioned list. The contense of such a list could not be kept secret anyway so it would be a misstake even to try.
-- geni
On 1/22/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Puddl Duk wrote:
How about an admin only IRC channel and mailing list?
Fred
No we should try and keep things as open as posible.
-- geni
I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were
public.
Two good reasons such a mailling list should be kept private:
- Admin A posts to the list "User X is being disruptive. What do I do?"
- ADmin B posts to the list "I need a sanity check. User Y has done
this, & I plan on acting thusly. Comments please."
Reasons:
- No one wants to admit in public that they're clueless.
- People are more likely to admit that they'rewrong in private.
- Sometimes a person just needs a vote of confidence to handle a
troublemaker.
I don't see any of this happening if such a list were archived in public.
#wikipedia and #wikipedia-en technically serves that function, but I've found that #wikipedia's more interested in what's on television (nothing wrong with off-topic chat, but sometimes it'd be nice to get a quick answer in there) and #wikipedia-en is kind of a barren deadzone. #wikipedia-en-vandalism has been my most reliable source of help recently, but very few regulars in there appear to be regulars in the other channels... Just a thought.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 1/22/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hello
I want to toss the idea around of having an online meeting of all admins on the English wikipedia. The reasons are simple:
- A chance to get to know one another.
- A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what is
happening in the "big picture." 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other problems. 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because of the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
Keep in mind that there are nearly 800 admins on en. It's going to be hard to hold a meeting with so many people.
Kelly
On 1/22/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Hello
I want to toss the idea around of having an online meeting of all admins on the English wikipedia.
No. Administrators should not act as a clique.
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
Then ban them. Does anybody remember nupedia? It sounds like your trying to re-create that, except w/o the experts...
Disenfranchising the majority is not going to make the wiki a better place, nor is hiding yourselves away in an ivory tower. The role of admiship is needs to be changed or removed, its a part of the problem, not a solution. The wikipedia is supposedly built upon consensus, rather than oligarchic values, altho I must say this institutionalisation of cliques Kelly Martin lauds is really quite ominous.
Sam Spade