Subject-Was: Blocking / Moderation
Okay, so lets properly open the topic.
How would anyone go about getting participants in a dispute to subscribe to
this list or any other?
"Bod Notbod" <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ae0a6ac0907280131k4e867aeer147f5fd65bedd9c4@mail.gmail.com...
Stevertigo:
And of course this violating concept appears to
be indemic wherever
people feel they can neglect transparency - as mandated in their own
mandates, perhaps - making their deliberations in private and giving
people only decrees and motions. Wales, who was for a long time our
most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal
personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this
very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with this
trend.
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list
is actually against the grain of that. I've only recently signed up to
a couple of the mailing lists as I intend to get (and am getting) more
involved with Wikipedia. These lists have a pretty low profile, I'd
say.
That is rectifiable to some degree.
Someone could make a userbox for subscribers that includes both nntp and
e-mail methods of access.
If it propagates anything like the basic grammar boxes, then we might double
subscription in a year.
Whilst these mailing lists are, I believe, open for
everyone to join,
it still strikes me as a bit of a back door: I would have thought it
far more transparent to deal with all dispute resolution on the wiki
itself where people can see what's going on (and people can place
relevant links easily) rather than in an email list which is going to
have a rather different audience.
It does naturally hav a different audience, and I think your perception of
how many people DO see a dispute when there is one just because they CAN see
a dispute is a bit at odds with reality. I know of one that I've pretty much
let rest, because I do not think any of the three participants will remember
it, either.
To put it another way, if I were an editor in dispute
with someone
else and I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list and I become aware
the other person was discussing it there, I think I'd rightly feel
that there was something "going on" in a sort of conspiratorial way
and that a conscious effort had been made to circumvent tackling my
points.
My method of engaging administrators probably should hav included an
invitation to join the list, or a request to see discussion of my case on
unblock-l. Hindsight. I did not like any of their slack research on me,
anyway.
The wiki (en, at least) doesn't seem short of ways
and means to deal
with disputes. I'm somewhat sceptical about the motivation in creating
a new channel for disputes that requires all parties to sign up for an
email service to be fully cognisant of where that dispute is heading.
That goes back to my orijinal question. How would anyone go about getting
participants in a dispute to sign up for wikien-l , unblock-l, or any other?
There are reciprocal links you could make. I used to make bookmarks to
USENET discussions with NNTP URLS and post them to my website. Now, I am
more prone to post search URLS there. *If you can find an article here on
the gmane web server, then you can pull a permalink out of it and post that
to wikipedia*. Everything slick takes a right click.
_______
news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english