Hello everyone.
As a few of you may know, about 5 weeks ago some new guidelines were put into place on meta for the IRC channel #wikipedia. At the same time, the operator access list for the channel was emptied and started from scratch.
The changes were quite unpopular, to say the least. A discussion thread was started about them on the foundation-l mailing list, but probably should have been started on wikipedia-l.
Now that I am back from my holiday, I have opened a review discussion about the guidelines on their talk page on meta, which you can access at the follow URL:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia
I would very much appreciate the input there of all people who have an interest in the guidelines, and indeed any users of the Wikipedia-affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
~Mark Ryan
Mark, There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode. Thanks for getting even the basics wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/30/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone.
As a few of you may know, about 5 weeks ago some new guidelines were put into place on meta for the IRC channel #wikipedia. At the same time, the operator access list for the channel was emptied and started from scratch.
The changes were quite unpopular, to say the least. A discussion thread was started about them on the foundation-l mailing list, but probably should have been started on wikipedia-l.
Now that I am back from my holiday, I have opened a review discussion about the guidelines on their talk page on meta, which you can access at the follow URL:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia
I would very much appreciate the input there of all people who have an interest in the guidelines, and indeed any users of the Wikipedia-affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
First, what a horrid thing to say. Second, by Wikipedia-affiliated he meant the #wikipedia-* channels on IRC. That is where Mark's jurisdiction is, and that is what the guidelines are for. I do not see what the problem with his statement was.
Casey Brown Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 1:44 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Cc: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] #wikipedia IRC channel guidelines review
Mark, There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode. Thanks for getting even the basics wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/30/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone.
As a few of you may know, about 5 weeks ago some new guidelines were put into place on meta for the IRC channel #wikipedia. At the same time, the operator access list for the channel was emptied and started from scratch.
The changes were quite unpopular, to say the least. A discussion thread was started about them on the foundation-l mailing list, but probably should have been started on wikipedia-l.
Now that I am back from my holiday, I have opened a review discussion about the guidelines on their talk page on meta, which you can access at the follow URL:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia
I would very much appreciate the input there of all people who have an interest in the guidelines, and indeed any users of the Wikipedia-affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode. Thanks for getting even the basics wrong. Thanks, GerardM
This seems to be a bit nitpicky. I meant to say Wikipedia, and did. I'm sure you know me well enough to realise I know the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia.
I invited people from all Wikipedia (yes, pedia) IRC channels to the discussion, because #wikipedia is the big central channel for all the smaller (language-specific etc) Wikipedia channels, so they too have a legitimate cause for complaint if #wikipedia is not being run well. Would you rather I not invite people to give their opinions there??
~Mark Ryan
Hoi, Well actullly I do not know you well enough and as has been said in this thread before, *many* people make the same mistake and do not think consider it relevant.
As to the politics of all this, you gave the impression that you have jurisdiction on the #wikipedia-*** channels. What I now think you are saying is that as the #wikipedia is the "mother of all" wikipedia channels there is a need for some coordination. It has been sufficiently argued that this was a shambles and you going on a holiday at the moment when this happened made it seem to be only more arbitrary. Then yes, I know how these things go... things creep up on you.
TThanks, GerardM
On 7/31/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode. Thanks for getting even the basics wrong. Thanks, GerardM
This seems to be a bit nitpicky. I meant to say Wikipedia, and did. I'm sure you know me well enough to realise I know the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia.
I invited people from all Wikipedia (yes, pedia) IRC channels to the discussion, because #wikipedia is the big central channel for all the smaller (language-specific etc) Wikipedia channels, so they too have a legitimate cause for complaint if #wikipedia is not being run well. Would you rather I not invite people to give their opinions there??
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
As to the politics of all this, you gave the impression that you have jurisdiction on the #wikipedia-*** channels. What I now think you are saying is that as the #wikipedia is the "mother of all" wikipedia channels there is a need for some coordination. It has been sufficiently argued that this was a shambles and you going on a holiday at the moment when this happened made it seem to be only more arbitrary. Then yes, I know how these things go... things creep up on you.
TThanks, GerardM
People keep talking about this "jurisdiction" thing. As I hope I've made clear, I certainly don't subscribe to any such concept in relation to #wikipedia, let alone other IRC channels. I was simply hoping to get the users of #wikipedia talking about this, because the introduction of the guidelines etc. was too unilateral from the start, which doesn't wash well in a situation where no one really has much authority to begin with.
On 31/07/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
I genuinely do not wish to be rude, but frankly, you are delusional if you think *any* of the #wikipedia-* channel regulars considers #wikipedia their central channel.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Why do you think they fail to see #wikipedia as a central place? Is it too English Wikipedia-focused? Not welcoming enough to speakers of languages other than English? Too off-topic or lewd?
~Mark Ryan
Why do you think they fail to see #wikipedia as a central place? Is it too English Wikipedia-focused? Not welcoming enough to speakers of languages other than English? Too off-topic or lewd?
~Mark Ryan
The way I see it, and I suspect most others do, there simply is no need *for* a central place. Pure irrelevance IOW. The great strength of wiki has always been the fact that not everyone has to be involved with everything. Though there is great interleaving, and connection all around, with nexus after nexus, no nexus has ever been priviledged.
Even when the Village Pump was still not a firehose, nor split into topical sections, tehre were other places like the mailing list and VFD, which, while central to their own ambit, needed no "ring to bind them all".
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Jul 31, 2007, at 1:55 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Why do you think they fail to see #wikipedia as a central place? Is it too English Wikipedia-focused? Not welcoming enough to speakers of languages other than English? Too off-topic or lewd?
~Mark Ryan
The way I see it, and I suspect most others do, there simply is no need *for* a central place. Pure irrelevance IOW. The great strength of wiki has always been the fact that not everyone has to be involved with everything. Though there is great interleaving, and connection all around, with nexus after nexus, no nexus has ever been priviledged.
Even when the Village Pump was still not a firehose, nor split into topical sections, tehre were other places like the mailing list and VFD, which, while central to their own ambit, needed no "ring to bind them all".
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Judging from the comments on the meta page, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that the concept (or perhaps application) of "catalyzing" is ridiculous.
-Dan Rosenthal
On 7/31/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode. Thanks for getting even the basics wrong. Thanks, GerardM
This seems to be a bit nitpicky. I meant to say Wikipedia, and did. I'm sure you know me well enough to realise I know the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia.
I invited people from all Wikipedia (yes, pedia) IRC channels to the discussion, because #wikipedia is the big central channel for all the smaller (language-specific etc) Wikipedia channels, so they too have a legitimate cause for complaint if #wikipedia is not being run well. Would you rather I not invite people to give their opinions there??
I genuinely do not wish to be rude, but frankly, you are delusional if you think *any* of the #wikipedia-* channel regulars considers #wikipedia their central channel.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/31/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Mark, There are Wikimedia affiliated IRC channels on Freenode. Thanks for getting even the basics wrong. Thanks, GerardM
This seems to be a bit nitpicky. I meant to say Wikipedia, and did. I'm sure you know me well enough to realise I know the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia.
I invited people from all Wikipedia (yes, pedia) IRC channels to the discussion, because #wikipedia is the big central channel for all the smaller (language-specific etc) Wikipedia channels, so they too have a legitimate cause for complaint if #wikipedia is not being run well. Would you rather I not invite people to give their opinions there??
Please answer my previous question: you are really in the position of ruling all wikipedia-xx channels? I mean, wikipedia-de, wikipedia-fr or wikipedia-ja ...... in my observation most of those channels have sane community, even not all, and I am afraid your claim for your right of jurisdiction for wikipedia-* (it is a very strong assertion) is too megalomaniac.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31/07/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Please answer my previous question: you are really in the position of ruling all wikipedia-xx channels?
I thought I did answer that question, here:
On 31/07/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
People keep talking about this "jurisdiction" thing. As I hope I've made clear, I certainly don't subscribe to any such concept in relation to #wikipedia, let alone other IRC channels.
In case that wasn't clear enough, I apologise. Let me put it this way: I'm not in a position to "rule" any channels, especially ones like #wikipedia-de which I so rarely visit. You might be confusing me with JamesF and Seanw who are the Wikimedia contacts for Freenode, who do broader stuff like you describe.
On 31/07/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, wikipedia-de, wikipedia-fr or wikipedia-ja ...... in my observation most of those channels have sane community, even not all, and I am afraid your claim for your right of jurisdiction for wikipedia-* (it is a very strong assertion) is too megalomaniac.
All we're talking about here is the single IRC channel #wikipedia, nothing else. I simply invited (in my own kinda-human capacity) all users of the #wikipedia-de etc. channels to talk about #wikipedia because, in my view, it is a channel for all Wikipedias and all languages, despite what some people would have. It's a big leap from there to accusing me of megalomania and a bloodthirsty desire to enslave the people of the French Wikipedia channel with new guidelines.
~Mark Ryan
What I said by jurisdiction (and I meant jurisdiction) was not necessarily the muli-lingual ones, but #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-social, #wikipedia-overflow, etc. All those mainly English channels that feed off of #wikipedia.
Mark has no interest in "ruling" anything, but what he needs to do is fix the guidelines that the contacts set up for #wikipedia (and the ones I mentioned). Now we believe the guidelines weren't working before and are asking for more *community* help in developing new ones and altering the old ones.
Casey Brown Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mark Ryan Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:35 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] #wikipedia IRC channel guidelines review
On 31/07/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Please answer my previous question: you are really in the position of ruling all wikipedia-xx channels?
I thought I did answer that question, here:
On 31/07/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
People keep talking about this "jurisdiction" thing. As I hope I've made clear, I certainly don't subscribe to any such concept in relation to #wikipedia, let alone other IRC channels.
In case that wasn't clear enough, I apologise. Let me put it this way: I'm not in a position to "rule" any channels, especially ones like #wikipedia-de which I so rarely visit. You might be confusing me with JamesF and Seanw who are the Wikimedia contacts for Freenode, who do broader stuff like you describe.
On 31/07/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
I mean, wikipedia-de, wikipedia-fr or wikipedia-ja ...... in my observation most of those channels have sane community, even not all, and I am afraid your claim for your right of jurisdiction for wikipedia-* (it is a very strong assertion) is too megalomaniac.
All we're talking about here is the single IRC channel #wikipedia, nothing else. I simply invited (in my own kinda-human capacity) all users of the #wikipedia-de etc. channels to talk about #wikipedia because, in my view, it is a channel for all Wikipedias and all languages, despite what some people would have. It's a big leap from there to accusing me of megalomania and a bloodthirsty desire to enslave the people of the French Wikipedia channel with new guidelines.
~Mark Ryan
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/30/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone.
As a few of you may know, about 5 weeks ago some new guidelines were put into place on meta for the IRC channel #wikipedia. At the same time, the operator access list for the channel was emptied and started from scratch.
I think it is worth pointing out that there were not merely these two acts; *asserting* (I would disdain the phrase "put into place" because clearly they didn't stay put) new guidelines and starting from scratch, but there was a third and quite pointedly the most significant element - requiring all newly accepted or re-accepted ops to "pledge allegiance" to the "new model channel-op guidelines", thus trying to stave off *any* effort to ameliorate the effects of the new guidelines.
That is to say, if you disagreed with the guidelines, you were not an op yourself, and any criticism of the guidelines was in practise considered trolling. Contrariwise, if you were an op, you had pledged not to disagree with the guidelines. Whether one did or did not disagree with the new guidelines, many fairminded people found this odious.
The changes were quite unpopular, to say the least. A discussion thread was started about them on the foundation-l mailing list, but probably should have been started on wikipedia-l.
I think your phrasing may mislead peoples understanding somewhat.
There is a separate question of whether the changes to the guidelines were poorly thought out. Not nearly all, who objected to the *actions* taken, disagreed with the new guidelines as such.
Had the self-same *changes* been made, but in a completely different fashion, fairminded people would have to concede that the changes very well might have been immensely popular.
Now that I am back from my holiday, I have opened a review discussion about the guidelines on their talk page on meta, which you can access at the follow URL:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia
I would very much appreciate the input there of all people who have an interest in the guidelines, and indeed any users of the Wikipedia-affiliated IRC channels on Freenode.
I would re-emphasize that focusing on the guidelines will not get to the heart of the problem, the perception of the actions taken, and the still lingering effects that have nothing at all to do with the guidelines as such.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org