This is gotten really long so I going to attempt summaries:
--- Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Birgitte SB wrote:
However, in general the people who are trusted
from a
Foundation perspective take little interest in the running of the smaller projects.
I would not say this at all. Trust does not come from being a participant in a *big* project, or on a major language. Trust comes from the frequent interaction we have with some editors and from sharing certain tasks, which allow to get to know each other.
How does that happen ?
{{Explanation of getting noticed by Foundation
people}}
I completely understand how someone from a project big or small becomes trusted and agree that it can only happen by getting to know a person. What I meant was in the other direction; that the trusted people don't check in on the small projects. Before the copyright issue I always assumed the Foundation knew generally what happened at Wikisource. I certainly thought some one was reading our policy pages and approved of them. That someone made sure we had an active bueraucrat and responsible admistrators. However in reality the Foundation knows very little of how smaller projects are run and makes no effort that I know of to check-in. The only attention such projects recieve is if they come to a Foundation level people with a problem. That is not good. I really believe if a big Wikimedia scandal occurs it will be in one of these small non-English, non-German, non-Japanese, non-French projects. Right now there could be policies in place that expose the Foundation to as much liability as abuse of Checkuser. Who knows?
Do you have kids ?
No.
{{My exeperience needing checkuser an blocking
dicomfort}}
nod.
{{There are small project divested from the
Foundation in all but name}}
nod. Recently, some chinese editors also joined. We need a common ground where to meet each others.
:I believe there
are other problems we haven't yet imagined already out there. Things need to be handled differently. Perhaps new projects are approved to easily.
Waitaminutehere. The last approved project... was...wikinews. It was quite a while ago !
Perhaps project was the wrong word. I mean new community. New languages that don't have adminstrators in place
{{Numerous ideas for better intergration}}
{{Numerous previous attempts at intergration and
stories
of past horrors}}
If you have ideas, please, by all means, provide
them. Or better,
IMPLEMENT them.
{{How Wikisource and other small projects are
different
from Wikipedia}}
Which strongly suggest me that we should rather try
to have
inter-projects checkusers. Let me see... Karynn for example, is apparently a
motivated checkuser,
with the full tech knowledge necessary. She may not
be an arbitrator, I
think she is trusted as a checkuser. Why not having
her checkuser on
several english speaking projects ?
Would not it be wiser than some inactive editors
becoming checkuser on
wikibooks just because *there ought to be* a
checkuser ? If the user
has done less than 50 edits in the past 3 months, it
makes no sense that he
becomes checkuser really.
In any cases, I fully understand the different nature
of editorship.
Inter-project checkusers would be fine. Actually I think that having stewards do checkuser is fine. Except that it doesn't happen. I don't have problem with the denial of local checkusers, so much as the denial of the checkuser information completely. The current system would be fine if it only worked :)
Also as Robert Horning said, we attract vandals of a sophisticaton
WP
never even imagined when there were only 12 administrators. I feel that if projects like Wikisource and Wikibooks are continually regarded
by
the Foundation the way they are now, they will
become
like difficult step-childrem.
How are they regarded ?
As far as I am concerned, Wikibooks at least has a
life on its own. It
knows very well how to keep joke books, remove
Wikiversity or wikimania
proceedings. And it has a few vocal representatives
on its list :-)
Admittedly, I know much less of Wikisource. But you
are here now, no ?
:-)
They are regarded in this way. They are left alone without guidelines or advice and told to make thier own community; govern themselves. Then when everything seems to be going fine some one steps in and says "Oh you guys are doing *that*. That is no good, you have get rid of that. And you must make up your own rules with the details of what goes and what can stay. Sorry I can't really give advice" And then they make new policies and no one is willing say the new policy actually kosher. So they hold their breath and hope the whole thing doesn't repeat again.
It is not that I don't think we are valued so much as I feel we don't really know where we stand. It as if we want to build something wonderful and strong and proper; then it rains and we find out it was just a sandcastle. And when we ask for new materials we are just given more sand. I know eveyone only wants the best for us, and I do not think there is any lack of respect. I just see these situations repeating and people becoming frustrated if nothing changes. And that is why I am here. Why I joined this list, because maybe that way Wikisource can be better informed in policy decisions. But I am more worried about the other communities that are not currently represented here. I want to speak up for them and say Wikisource was once not plugged into the Foudation and we were unaware of major problems. Some other community is out there is with no idea they will have to destroy their own work when it comes to light. This is not so much about Wikisource as them
{{Intergration and Trust are needed}}
Speaking of trust. One suggestion made last summer
was that those given
checkuser access should provide their real names.
What is your opinion
about this ? If the Foundation trusts those with checkusers to use
it according to
policy, would checkusers trust the Foundation enough
to provide their
real names ?
I am surprised that this is not already required. I think you mean the Board would have access to the real names and not the people who are being checked, right?
{{Old copyright policy problems}}
No. It is worse than this... The Foundation board did not discuss this issue, even
less took a
decision about copyrights on wikisource. I presume it
came from a
discussion between Jimbo and legal bodies. I am
intentionally vague on
your UN resolutions and Crown legislation deletions
because I am not
aware of it. Sorry.
That is worse. Really the discussion happened on this list. We never got any real official ruling just vague comments that GFDL is good everything else is bad. This really not good enough for many reasons I will not get into. It is not simple but I do not want to force answers from people who are not knowledgable, because that is what caused the deletion of UN and Crown in my opinion.
{{Being cautious with copyright waiting for the
other shoe to drop}}
This is a problem. Have you talked to JImbo for
clarification ? You are
lucky, you share a language... Imagine japanese
editors...
See above. Yes I think some other languages are going to have rude shock about these kind of issues in the future. It will be worse because they will be much further along than we were when this happened. Thats why I am bringing this up. I want to find a solution before there is another 6 months of work put into these projects that will have to be deleted. I am thinking of those people most of all.
{{ either too gun-shy to keep contributing, or
decide to just ignore
the rules they feel are arbitrary.}}
I am a proponent of ignore all rules...
Well yes, but we don't want people to go too far out of bounds.
PS : do you like mint tea ?
I really do like all kinds of tea. But I never make it at home I only order it at rrestaurants.
BirgitteSB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com