Anthere wrote:
>Actually, you know what I *really* think deep inside ?
>I think that for some reasons, en.wiki is not keeping you busy enough.
>So, you are looking for other things to do. If you want to play moving
>the dust around, fine. This might be useful. But I hope that you do not
>remove very precious artifacts, as you call them.
That's nice. Are you speaking for the Foundation here? I ask because
of opinions expressed by Aurevilly and Delphine on the Communications
Committee list regarding en: Wikipedia. Fairly problematic ones
considering Wikimedia France is the one local chapter that is actually
legally affiliated with the Foundation. I note that Aurevilly just
blanked his en: Wikipedia user page, coinciding with expressing his
contempt for en:wp openly. Just the thing for a Foundation person to
show their high regard for cross project issues.
What on earth is going in in WMF France? Has en: wikipedia been
declared the enemy?
- d.
>Sure, improve it, but that's no reason to lambaste its
>community, or make false claims about it. (David, you still haven't
>addressed my questioning of how historical pages make Meta unusable).
Because you can't tell what on earth is active and what isn't. e.g. Is
[[Meta:Babel]] active? It's supposed to be the Village Pump of Meta. I
see tumbleweeds blow past. e.g. Is [[m:RFA]] checked at all on any
regular basis? The bureaucrats were notable by their complete absence
until Linuxbeak ran for bureaucrat, which appeared to cause a sudden
flurry of activity and declarations that there were enough bureaucrats
on Meta, even though there was visibly no-one minding the store. That
sort of thing. I've given both these examples before on the wiki,
though not here (my apologies).
Note, by the way, that everyone listed on [[WM:OM]] are individuals -
despite, e.g. Anthere answering one person [1] with a reply to what
someone else said [2]. So, e.g., Linuxbeak's list of things he wants
isn't mine (e.g. an en: only meta).
I will note also that the incumbents have successfully driven out at
least some of the "insurgents" [3]. Are you proud? If not, why?
- d.
(I'm giving references because people are too often claiming not to
know what I'm talking about in this discussion.)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overha…
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overha…
- I do agree this was inappropriate, but it does help not to answer
the wrong person, as if everyone involved is a single entity.
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Me…
Anthere wrote:
>ChitChat with David over whether there is a meta community ... or not...
>is nice, but let's get back to real business for a while :-)
So you don't plan to answer any of the questions I raised about your
accusations directed at me, or explain yourself in any way?
- d.
Lars responded to me:
>The current proposal to "overhaul" meta seems to suggest that the
>Wikispecies page could be simply deleted. Is that correct?
No, it would be to tag it {{historical}} or similar, i.e. not
currently active. If you can show me where I have proposed any such
thing be deleted ...
- d.
geni wrote:
> If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of
> shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the
> interproject comunication takes place anyway.
>
>
> --
> geni
A lot of the interproject communication is taking place on en wikipedia
rather than meta ?
Can you show me some examples please ?
Ant
Anthere wrote:
>I am glad :-)
>You admitted there was a meta community ;-)
>Note : a *meta* community, not a *wiki* community ;-)
>Thanks David
Evidently - those who've been around Wikipedia->Wikimedia so long they
know their way around and react with perplexing accusations [1] to
anyone pointing out that its present organisation is misleading and
confusing. So what then makes Meta a work wiki, if (as you said [2] )
they don't do the actual work on Meta?
- d.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&dif…
(you answering a simple question with a long, long paragraph of
perplexing accusations and not answering the fairly simple question
asked)
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&dif…
(me quoting you from IRC)
Ec wrote:
>David Gerard wrote:
>>Aphaia wrote:
>>>I have been claiming the page which contains the obscene word
>>>mentioned should be deleted because of its obscenity and making
>>>editors who are really working on there displeased.
>>The word "dick"? As those of us who are native speakers of English
>>suggested: how about moving the page to "Don't bowdlerise Meta."
>A euphemism of a euphmism!
>I've always viewed "Don't be a dick," as a >polite way of saying "Don't
>be an asshole." :-)
As the page now points out, the original term was actually "fuckhead",
as per http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fuckhead.html .
- d.
Aphaia wrote:
>I have been claiming the page which contains the obscene word
>mentioned should be deleted because of its obscenity and making
>editors who are really working on there displeased.
The word "dick"? As those of us who are native speakers of English
suggested: how about moving the page to "Don't bowdlerise Meta."
I recall you writing a long paragraph in Japanese explaining why this
page in English should be deleted. Is that an example of the
multilingual side of Meta, advocating deletion in a language the
people you are replying to won't understand?
I also recall you attempting to delete the various test wikipedias
from Meta, after they were told by Jimbo to set up there.
Jimbo said to Linuxbeak to go for it with this attempt to make Meta
actually usable as a work wiki, and cautioned that many had foundered
before. The reason becomes increasingly obvious. So I suggest a meta2
be created as an actual current work wiki, and meta be kept with its
primary function as an archive.
- d.
The Foundation wiki isn't a work wiki because nearly no-one can edit
it, and those who can don't - for most people, it's basically a
read-only website that happens to have Mediawiki behind it.
I propose something called Meta2 which can actually be used as a work wiki.
- d.
Well, besides from being a clean canvas that we can work from, it would
boast some things that Meta currently does not:
A.) It would be heavily based upon most of the policies from en.wikipedia.
Some things can change, but it will be a site designed with the purpose of
being an extention of en.wikipedia instead of an entirely separate project.
Meta2 will exist for Wikipedia instead of being a standalone project.
B.) Seeing that it is being built from the ground up, it will be several
exponential degrees easier to keep things organized in a clear and concise
manner. Read: categorization.
C.) It would be much cleaner and accessible by regular Wikipedians. Meta as
it stands right now frightens many people on en. I know... I've talked to
them.
D.) Old material three years from now would be in a category called
"archive" or something akin.
E.) It would have the potential expandability that Meta boasts, except in a
more defined and controlable setting.
As far as the essays are concerned, I was only using that as an example. I
apologize if that caused any confusion.
Angela, I really hope you don't think that we're trying to completely
destroy Wikimedia. The very reason why we're sticking around is because we
like this project. I've made some fabulous friends here, including yourself,
Anthere, David, Jimbo, and so on and so forth. I know I have a tendency to
create total havoc, but I do so in the attempt to improve, not destroy.
We're only trying to push the envelope a little further. If you can give us
the resources to do such, you will not be disappointed.
--Alex
Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:58:32 +1100
> From: Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <8b722b800603300658s77322f64p256c1b30789c1c53(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I wonder if what you're looking for with Meta2 is actually a meta for
> the English Wikipedia. I'm not saying that as a criticism since it
> might actually be a useful thing, but would certainly be something
> very different to the existing meta which is a
> cross-wiki/project/language area.
>
> How would Meta2 differ from the current meta other than just being
> new? And what happens in 3 years time when the content on that is
> "historical" as well?
>
> How does the existence of an essay prevent whatever "work" you think
> meta should be used for?
>
> Angela.
>