Ray Saintonge wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Essentially I agree. It all comes down to mature
judgement, and who is
capable of exercising it. We have a lot of people who can too easily
jump to conclusions.
Yes. One question is whether we want every language and project
community to develop its own policy on these matters, or whether this
is an area where it makes sense to have a single policy that is
localized. This goes for checkuser and oversight as well. Perhaps an
in-between solution makes sense, where the WMF requires that local
policies identify and propose a group that consists of the most
trusted users before granting these privileges on a language/project
level.
I can't address the technical requirements for someone with checkuser
capacity, but technical competence is only one side of the coin. Good
judgement, trust and common sense are just as important. The ideal
checkuser is effective in both respects.
Rule making on the wiki tends to be chaotic at best, to the point where
the best way to develop a rule can be to make a rule and hope that
nobody notices. No-one can keep up with the process, or be certain of
the circumstances when a rule was adopted. Proposing changes can be an
intimidating process.
I would llike to propose a Rules Committee on the following bases.
You know that if something never happens, there must be a committee
behind it. Isn't that how the saying goes? :)
<snip>
3. Although membership at this stage would be
relatively open,
</snip>
I have to disagree with the initial openness. We have too many process
wonks who would jump at the chance, and we'll end up only being allowed
to edit every second thursday when it's a prime number of days from the
vernal equinox of Triton...
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP