On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 18:00, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:

If we are serious about having a right to fork we need to make it easy for editors to keep their account, and possibly even userrights in both forks, otherwise whichever fork you have to create a new account for is at a huge disadvantage. But for privacy/security reasons I don't think that WMF should give the fork a copy of the databases that includes the userids and their logins. Perhaps this could be finessed by having the WMF create a bridge to allow wikimedians to activate their existing account at the forked wiki, and the forked wiki would presumably not allow editors to otherwise create accounts using names that had edits imported from Wikimedia.

Simple: make it so you can use Wikimedia logins as OpenIDs (or even just as OpenID delegates, so you can point your Wikimedia profile to an existing OpenID provider).

On 08/15/11 10:00 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:

A successful fork needs more than just the content, software and sufficient hardware, it also needs a community.

Indeed, but the right to fork also includes the right to fail. If I chose to start a fork I'm sure that I would have enough technical incompetence to bring about failure. If one or more persons choose to exercise their right to fork they will be in charge of administrative and editorial decisions regarding the new site. They will decide on the nature of the community, including the decision to be a community of one. If such decisions are disastrous to their own intent that's their problem.

If we are serious about having a right to fork we need to make it easy for editors to keep their account, and possibly even userrights in both forks, otherwise whichever fork you have to create a new account for is at a huge disadvantage. But for privacy/security reasons I don't think that WMF should give the fork a copy of the databases that includes the userids and their logins. Perhaps this could be finessed by having the WMF create a bridge to allow wikimedians to activate their existing account at the forked wiki, and the forked wiki would presumably not allow editors to otherwise create accounts using names that had edits imported from Wikimedia.

I think you make it more complicated than it should be. A fork would presumably exist on some other server where users could use whatever name they choose, including ones identical to their current names in Wikimedia. It would be an autonomous entity. There is no question in my mind of exporting private data. Beyond the potential mischief for small segments of that data, I suspect that most new administrators would find most of it unmanageable.

If a new fork imports selected Wikipedia articles, that carries certain CC obligations and rights. Notably it has an obligation to credit its source linking back to the chosen Wikipedia version, and it has the right to edit that article to take it in a chosen direction, which, for example, could include more relaxed rules on reliable sources or NPOV.

BTW I'm not advocating a fork at this juncture. The only scenario I can see in the short term that might lead to a fork is the clash between the Foundation's policy on openness and the contrary decisions taken by certain parts of the community, - for example EN wiki deciding to restrict new article creation to Autoconfirmed users. Presumably the Foundation will get the devs to code the change requested by EN wiki even if it does make us less open. But it could quite legitimately say "That clashes with our core values so we won't do that here, but if some of you want to create a more deletionist wiki you do of course have the right to fork."

I don't even presume to read the minds of these forkers.

Managing a pure deletionist wiki should be trivial. ;-)

Ray