Kevin,
I didn't think you were using "oversight" in the MediaWiki jargon sense. But I do think the concept of oversight -- as distinct from consideration, discussion, deliberation, or consensus-building -- is very disconnected from the present reality. What authority would be claimed in conducting this oversight, and what set of rules would be enforced?
Pete
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright. I meant oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we do to especially nasty content instead of revdel. (I would consider any process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.)
Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence UC Berkeley
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that
all
other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page selected by pretty much one person with no
I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean:
oversight.
???
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe