Hello all,
I am writing to introduce a number of changes to #wikipedia. The aim of this is to improve the channel's image and to make it more useful for everyone. The changes are being initiated this afternoon (GMT) and I hope to have them done pretty quickly.
1: New contacts The channel will now be managed by Mark_Ryan and Dmcdevit (their IRC nicks, as most of us probably know them). At the moment it's pretty ad hoc and so we (the [[m:IRC Group Contacts]]) that it might be a good idea to put someone and a deputy very clearly with the responsibility so that we don't get "who do I go to for this...?" with the response "not me" from everyone, a common online scenario, or so I've observed.
2: New guidelines/rules Together with some community input (although of course more is welcomed - it's a wiki, so let's take advantage of that) we have written some new guidelines for user and operator conduct at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia. These are a lot more enforcable than the old ones. The key thing is that operators will try and resolve issues with words rather than powers whenever possible.
3: New operators We realised that the op list was becoming a bit messy. Additionally, we're not sure that all operators are in agreement on the above guidelines. We decided that it would be a bit pointless to ask them to enforce guidelines they didn't support and do so using methods they preferred not to use and so we have opted to clear out the access list and start afresh. We welcome new applications from our experienced operators to rejoin the team. On this note we are going to be a little more formal on application for this, as only the contacts named above will have the authority to manage the ops team. The key thing with all these changes is to make #wikimedia-ops more useful, and to ensure that operators use words rather than technological 'force' wherever possible (as a rule of thumb, in the majority of cases where their intervention is required). We aim to keep a list on meta of these ops too to make it easier for people to get in touch with them.
You may be wondering if this applies to places other than #wikipedia: not now, but we are considering rolling it out elsewhere if it proves a success. Stay tuned!
Thank you for your support.
Yours,
Sean Whitton Wikimedia IRC Group Contact http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_Whitton
Thank you Sean, Mark, and Dmcdevit for shepherding these changes. I definitely think they are needed.
Sydney aka FloNight
On 6/16/07, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am writing to introduce a number of changes to #wikipedia. The aim of this is to improve the channel's image and to make it more useful for everyone. The changes are being initiated this afternoon (GMT) and I hope to have them done pretty quickly.
1: New contacts The channel will now be managed by Mark_Ryan and Dmcdevit (their IRC nicks, as most of us probably know them). At the moment it's pretty ad hoc and so we (the [[m:IRC Group Contacts]]) that it might be a good idea to put someone and a deputy very clearly with the responsibility so that we don't get "who do I go to for this...?" with the response "not me" from everyone, a common online scenario, or so I've observed.
2: New guidelines/rules Together with some community input (although of course more is welcomed - it's a wiki, so let's take advantage of that) we have written some new guidelines for user and operator conduct at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia. These are a lot more enforcable than the old ones. The key thing is that operators will try and resolve issues with words rather than powers whenever possible.
3: New operators We realised that the op list was becoming a bit messy. Additionally, we're not sure that all operators are in agreement on the above guidelines. We decided that it would be a bit pointless to ask them to enforce guidelines they didn't support and do so using methods they preferred not to use and so we have opted to clear out the access list and start afresh. We welcome new applications from our experienced operators to rejoin the team. On this note we are going to be a little more formal on application for this, as only the contacts named above will have the authority to manage the ops team. The key thing with all these changes is to make #wikimedia-ops more useful, and to ensure that operators use words rather than technological 'force' wherever possible (as a rule of thumb, in the majority of cases where their intervention is required). We aim to keep a list on meta of these ops too to make it easier for people to get in touch with them.
You may be wondering if this applies to places other than #wikipedia: not now, but we are considering rolling it out elsewhere if it proves a success. Stay tuned!
Thank you for your support.
Yours,
Sean Whitton Wikimedia IRC Group Contact http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_Whitton
-- —Sean Whitton (seanw) sean@silentflame.com http://seanwhitton.com/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Needed? Yeah... like hell they are.
By "pretty quickly" they literally meant in the space of a few minutes, with precisely zero consultation with anyone who actually uses the channel. Yes, there was a page of guidelines on Meta, but those guidelines have magically morphed into an unbreakable policy that doesn't actually match what's written on that page at all.
Sean has casually neglected to mention that "off-topic" discussion is no longer permitted in the channel. And by that I literally mean that entering the channel and sending one-line greetings to a couple of users will get you told, in-channel and via a bombardment of PMs, to stop talking off-topic.
Off-topic chat prohibited I could perhaps understand. But it doesn't stop there. Discussion of the individual projects is no longer permitted either; all discussion of the English Wikipedia has to go to #wikipedia-en. You can't even discuss the channel itself - no, that has to go to #wikimedia-irc. So that everyone's complaints can be conveniently ignored.
Mark seemed to want to turn it into a help channel for new users. Ignoring the fact that we already have (or had) two of those, what good is a help channel with nobody in it? In the past, users seeking help have usually recieved a reply - or several - within seconds. I have responded to hundreds of such queries - but it's not the reason I used the channel.
I never did get round to asking what I *could* discuss; I gave up when I realized the instructions barked at me in-channel and through PMs were in complete contradiction with everything Mark said when I spoke to him earlier, which in turn contradicted what Sean said when I spoke to him earlier, which in turn contradicted what I was told in-channel earlier.
A new set of guidlines is fine, but this situation is not. Guidelines should be just that - for guidance purposes - and more importantly, there should not be any pretence that contributors' wishes are being accommodated when they are not.
The English Wikipedia project mailing list long ago became unbearable as a method of communication and discussion. If the new-found rulers of the IRC channels want to kill them off as well, in the name of keeping all conversation on the wiki where it can be watched, then that's fine. But don't try to claim that it is an improvement.
-Gurch
FloNight wrote:
Thank you Sean, Mark, and Dmcdevit for shepherding these changes. I definitely think they are needed.
Sydney aka FloNight
On 6/16/07, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am writing to introduce a number of changes to #wikipedia. The aim of this is to improve the channel's image and to make it more useful for everyone. The changes are being initiated this afternoon (GMT) and I hope to have them done pretty quickly.
1: New contacts The channel will now be managed by Mark_Ryan and Dmcdevit (their IRC nicks, as most of us probably know them). At the moment it's pretty ad hoc and so we (the [[m:IRC Group Contacts]]) that it might be a good idea to put someone and a deputy very clearly with the responsibility so that we don't get "who do I go to for this...?" with the response "not me" from everyone, a common online scenario, or so I've observed.
2: New guidelines/rules Together with some community input (although of course more is welcomed - it's a wiki, so let's take advantage of that) we have written some new guidelines for user and operator conduct at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia. These are a lot more enforcable than the old ones. The key thing is that operators will try and resolve issues with words rather than powers whenever possible.
3: New operators We realised that the op list was becoming a bit messy. Additionally, we're not sure that all operators are in agreement on the above guidelines. We decided that it would be a bit pointless to ask them to enforce guidelines they didn't support and do so using methods they preferred not to use and so we have opted to clear out the access list and start afresh. We welcome new applications from our experienced operators to rejoin the team. On this note we are going to be a little more formal on application for this, as only the contacts named above will have the authority to manage the ops team. The key thing with all these changes is to make #wikimedia-ops more useful, and to ensure that operators use words rather than technological 'force' wherever possible (as a rule of thumb, in the majority of cases where their intervention is required). We aim to keep a list on meta of these ops too to make it easier for people to get in touch with them.
You may be wondering if this applies to places other than #wikipedia: not now, but we are considering rolling it out elsewhere if it proves a success. Stay tuned!
Thank you for your support.
Yours,
Sean Whitton Wikimedia IRC Group Contact http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_Whitton
-- —Sean Whitton (seanw) sean@silentflame.com http://seanwhitton.com/
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
Gurch wrote:
Sean has casually neglected to mention that "off-topic" discussion is no longer permitted in the channel. And by that I literally mean that entering the channel and sending one-line greetings to a couple of users will get you told, in-channel and via a bombardment of PMs, to stop talking off-topic.
Let me add my support to this: off-topic chat is important and should be allowed. A variety of forums for off-topic chat between Wikipedians should be provided. Wikipedians are humans, not machines, and just like all other humans have a deep-seated need to socialise with their colleagues, and to discuss matters of shared importance.
-- Tim Starling
Definately. That's why we have setup #wikipedia-social (and there is also #wikimedia-social, which is run by some other Wikimedians and they said they didn't want us pointing people there, so we setup #wikipedia-social).
I totally agree that it's very important. My point is that the majority of talk in #wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, not the other way round. Otherwise, why call it #wikipedia? :-)
Sean
On 16/06/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gurch wrote:
Sean has casually neglected to mention that "off-topic" discussion is no longer permitted in the channel. And by that I literally mean that entering the channel and sending one-line greetings to a couple of users will get you told, in-channel and via a bombardment of PMs, to stop talking off-topic.
Let me add my support to this: off-topic chat is important and should be allowed. A variety of forums for off-topic chat between Wikipedians should be provided. Wikipedians are humans, not machines, and just like all other humans have a deep-seated need to socialise with their colleagues, and to discuss matters of shared importance.
-- Tim Starling
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sean Whitton wrote:
Definately. That's why we have setup #wikipedia-social (and there is also #wikimedia-social, which is run by some other Wikimedians and they said they didn't want us pointing people there, so we setup #wikipedia-social).
I totally agree that it's very important. My point is that the majority of talk in #wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, not the other way round. Otherwise, why call it #wikipedia? :-)
Sean
I couldn't agree more. Could you then explain the decision not to permit discussion of individual projects in #wikipedia?
Firstly, thanks for speaking about this in a civilised and constructive way. Obviously, nothing like this is ever set in stone. I would like to point out that the guidelines were open for comment in the topic of #wikipedia for a number of days and as I know that you are a regular in the channel, you did have chance to make your views heard there. We assumed there were no immeadiately pressing issues from those who use the channel every day as there were no real comments on the guidelines's talkpage, and so went ahead. It's good that we can continue to adapt things here.
I would have no complaints if these new rules were enforced as written, and as guidelines.
Today I took the issue up in-channel, and was told to go elsewhere, then with you and Mark individually, and recieved inconsistent responses neither of which matched what I experienced on trying to enter the channel again a few hours later.
I am still concerned that not everybody is on the same wavelength here.
Virtually all of the discussion in #wikipedia is off-topic or related to the English Wikipedia, so prohibiting either type of discussion will leave #wikipedia mostly empty.
Is this really the intention? I ask because I discussed the new "guidelines" (I'm still waiting for an explanation of how these rules became inviolable rather than advisory) with Mark eariler and he assured me that the intent was only to bring #wikipedia more on-topic and improve the quality of discussion there.
I realise that posting of channel logs is not allowable, but I am going to quote Mark on a couple of things, which I think is justified as he was essentially making an announcement that affects everyone.
"We want to make this channel the sort of place we don't hesitate to send newcomers to."
"I think people are under the mistaken impression that this channel is going to be a question-and-answer channel, with no "hellos" allowed even. We are not banning socialisation. We are just shifting the channel's focus back towards Wikipedia itself."
When I raised objection to the new rules, Mark insisted in a private message that I calm down somewhat, reassuring me "they're *guidelines*", and that he had no problem with socialization in #wikipedia, adding "the guidelines are there to steer conversation towards Wikipedia and on-topicness".
This sort of measured approach is fine, probably a good thing, and I don't have an issue with it. Mark later outlined the purpose of the various channels clearly:
"This [#wikipedia] is the general discussion channel for the Wikipedia project as a whole. #wikipedia-en is the general discussion channel for the English Wikipedia. #wikipedia-social is the general discussion channel for things not remotely Wikipedia-related"
Now apart from the separating of off-topic discussion from Wikipedia discussion, which is new, this is largely the way that things have always been. I don't support this change, but I am prepared to tolerate it.
Things seem to have gone some way beyond what Mark wanted, however. Some time later, users whom I shall not name insisted to me that the new rules were rigid and inflexible - that not only were even a few lines of off-topic discussion not permitted, but, crucially, nor was any discussion that might be considered relevant to only one project. English Wikipedia discussion, I was told, HAD to go in #wikipedia-en. Not just "that's probably the most appropriate place for it", as we have had in the past.
As I say, I am prepared to tolerate the percieved need to reduce "off-topic" discussion. However, I cannot reconcile on the one hand, a reassurance that nothing much has changed and these are only guidelines, and on the other hand, the imposition of inflexible rules that not only change things but render the channel completely unusable.
Yes, we can move to #wikipedia-social or #wikipedia-en as appropriate, but Mark is adamant that newcomers should be sent to #wikipedia for help. Until now such help has reliably been delievered within seconds by experienced and knowledgable users. But they're not there to help people; they're there to discuss the project (usually the English-language edition) and socialize. No help will be forthcoming if the channel is empty. (Why wouldn't I just idle there? The same reason I don't idle in #wikimedia-admin or read the English Wikipedia mailing list: nothing useful ever happens).
Sean, I suggest you and Mark come to a definite agreement on how rigid these "guidelines" are going to be, and what you really want #wikipedia to do, before imposing unrealistic restrictions on the rest of the channel's users.
If you want everyone to use #wikipedia-social instead, just get on and say it, then /clear the channel. These new rules definitely do not permit socializing while aiming to reduce the amount of off-topic chat, which is what Mark seems to want.
Remember that in declaring and enforcing these changes, you and Mark are unilaterally exercising your new powers as the sole channel operators. Please understand that you have this power because you are trusted with it, not because the rest of us want to be shunted around and told what we can and cannot talk about.
Personally, I doubt I'll be using it or any of the other Wikipedia channels again if the current state of affairs persists.
Thanks,
-Gurch
I'm glad you've brought this up so clearly because, from my position, it isn't as obvious. I can see exactly what you mean about the issue with continuity between us. On one hand, I would simply say that this kind of thing will iron itself out with time, and that wounds will heal etc. However, on the other hand, users like yourself have no idea which rules to follow, and so things start to go downhill again.
So, I'll try to give the position that we were aiming at in e-mail discussions here. I think Mark and I were trying to present it fairly, and I think that the reason it was confusing was because we were going for something /comparatively/ stricter as compared with what we had before, but guidelines in the sense of we are not going to stick to the letter and that a lot of it falls down to common sense.
The position is that we are requesting that the channel remains reasonably on-topic, has a clean/presentable public face, and that if this is not being achieved users will be willing to listen to the operators to perhaps change things.
The guidelines/rules/whatever are not the key thing: being a catalyst it.
If this is horribly unclear, please let me know!
Sean
On 16/06/07, Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Sean Whitton wrote:
Definately. That's why we have setup #wikipedia-social (and there is also #wikimedia-social, which is run by some other Wikimedians and they said they didn't want us pointing people there, so we setup #wikipedia-social).
I totally agree that it's very important. My point is that the majority of talk in #wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, not the other way round. Otherwise, why call it #wikipedia? :-)
Sean
I couldn't agree more. Could you then explain the decision not to permit discussion of individual projects in #wikipedia?
Firstly, thanks for speaking about this in a civilised and constructive way. Obviously, nothing like this is ever set in stone. I would like to point out that the guidelines were open for comment in the topic of #wikipedia for a number of days and as I know that you are a regular in the channel, you did have chance to make your views heard there. We assumed there were no immeadiately pressing issues from those who use the channel every day as there were no real comments on the guidelines's talkpage, and so went ahead. It's good that we can continue to adapt things here.
I would have no complaints if these new rules were enforced as written, and as guidelines.
Today I took the issue up in-channel, and was told to go elsewhere, then with you and Mark individually, and recieved inconsistent responses neither of which matched what I experienced on trying to enter the channel again a few hours later.
I am still concerned that not everybody is on the same wavelength here.
Virtually all of the discussion in #wikipedia is off-topic or related to the English Wikipedia, so prohibiting either type of discussion will leave #wikipedia mostly empty.
Is this really the intention? I ask because I discussed the new "guidelines" (I'm still waiting for an explanation of how these rules became inviolable rather than advisory) with Mark eariler and he assured me that the intent was only to bring #wikipedia more on-topic and improve the quality of discussion there.
I realise that posting of channel logs is not allowable, but I am going to quote Mark on a couple of things, which I think is justified as he was essentially making an announcement that affects everyone.
"We want to make this channel the sort of place we don't hesitate to send newcomers to."
"I think people are under the mistaken impression that this channel is going to be a question-and-answer channel, with no "hellos" allowed even. We are not banning socialisation. We are just shifting the channel's focus back towards Wikipedia itself."
When I raised objection to the new rules, Mark insisted in a private message that I calm down somewhat, reassuring me "they're *guidelines*", and that he had no problem with socialization in #wikipedia, adding "the guidelines are there to steer conversation towards Wikipedia and on-topicness".
This sort of measured approach is fine, probably a good thing, and I don't have an issue with it. Mark later outlined the purpose of the various channels clearly:
"This [#wikipedia] is the general discussion channel for the Wikipedia project as a whole. #wikipedia-en is the general discussion channel for the English Wikipedia. #wikipedia-social is the general discussion channel for things not remotely Wikipedia-related"
Now apart from the separating of off-topic discussion from Wikipedia discussion, which is new, this is largely the way that things have always been. I don't support this change, but I am prepared to tolerate it.
Things seem to have gone some way beyond what Mark wanted, however. Some time later, users whom I shall not name insisted to me that the new rules were rigid and inflexible - that not only were even a few lines of off-topic discussion not permitted, but, crucially, nor was any discussion that might be considered relevant to only one project. English Wikipedia discussion, I was told, HAD to go in #wikipedia-en. Not just "that's probably the most appropriate place for it", as we have had in the past.
As I say, I am prepared to tolerate the percieved need to reduce "off-topic" discussion. However, I cannot reconcile on the one hand, a reassurance that nothing much has changed and these are only guidelines, and on the other hand, the imposition of inflexible rules that not only change things but render the channel completely unusable.
Yes, we can move to #wikipedia-social or #wikipedia-en as appropriate, but Mark is adamant that newcomers should be sent to #wikipedia for help. Until now such help has reliably been delievered within seconds by experienced and knowledgable users. But they're not there to help people; they're there to discuss the project (usually the English-language edition) and socialize. No help will be forthcoming if the channel is empty. (Why wouldn't I just idle there? The same reason I don't idle in #wikimedia-admin or read the English Wikipedia mailing list: nothing useful ever happens).
Sean, I suggest you and Mark come to a definite agreement on how rigid these "guidelines" are going to be, and what you really want #wikipedia to do, before imposing unrealistic restrictions on the rest of the channel's users.
If you want everyone to use #wikipedia-social instead, just get on and say it, then /clear the channel. These new rules definitely do not permit socializing while aiming to reduce the amount of off-topic chat, which is what Mark seems to want.
Remember that in declaring and enforcing these changes, you and Mark are unilaterally exercising your new powers as the sole channel operators. Please understand that you have this power because you are trusted with it, not because the rest of us want to be shunted around and told what we can and cannot talk about.
Personally, I doubt I'll be using it or any of the other Wikipedia channels again if the current state of affairs persists.
Thanks,
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sean Whitton wrote:
I'm glad you've brought this up so clearly because, from my position, it isn't as obvious. I can see exactly what you mean about the issue with continuity between us. On one hand, I would simply say that this kind of thing will iron itself out with time, and that wounds will heal etc. However, on the other hand, users like yourself have no idea which rules to follow, and so things start to go downhill again.
So, I'll try to give the position that we were aiming at in e-mail discussions here. I think Mark and I were trying to present it fairly, and I think that the reason it was confusing was because we were going for something /comparatively/ stricter as compared with what we had before, but guidelines in the sense of we are not going to stick to the letter and that a lot of it falls down to common sense.
The position is that we are requesting that the channel remains reasonably on-topic, has a clean/presentable public face, and that if this is not being achieved users will be willing to listen to the operators to perhaps change things.
The guidelines/rules/whatever are not the key thing: being a catalyst it.
If this is horribly unclear, please let me know!
Sean
No, that sounds absolutely fine. But you've stayed pretty vague there. What I want to know is, if I enter #wikipedia and say "hi" to someone, or ask a question about a page that incidentally happens to be on the English Wikipedia, will the response be "you're not allowed to talk about that in here. It's policy now. You must talk about that in #nameofchannel"? Or can I expect a helpful answer?
More importantly, is there actually anything left which *can* be talked about in that channel? And how on earth is discussion of a particular Wikipedia not "on-topic" in a channel called "#wikipedia"?
-Gurch
In the situation you describe I would hope no-one shoots you down in flames. That would not be helpful to *anyone*.
However, if for example a big debate on a new resolution was being discussed, you'd probably be asked to nudge over to -en.
On 16/06/07, Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Sean Whitton wrote:
I'm glad you've brought this up so clearly because, from my position, it isn't as obvious. I can see exactly what you mean about the issue with continuity between us. On one hand, I would simply say that this kind of thing will iron itself out with time, and that wounds will heal etc. However, on the other hand, users like yourself have no idea which rules to follow, and so things start to go downhill again.
So, I'll try to give the position that we were aiming at in e-mail discussions here. I think Mark and I were trying to present it fairly, and I think that the reason it was confusing was because we were going for something /comparatively/ stricter as compared with what we had before, but guidelines in the sense of we are not going to stick to the letter and that a lot of it falls down to common sense.
The position is that we are requesting that the channel remains reasonably on-topic, has a clean/presentable public face, and that if this is not being achieved users will be willing to listen to the operators to perhaps change things.
The guidelines/rules/whatever are not the key thing: being a catalyst it.
If this is horribly unclear, please let me know!
Sean
No, that sounds absolutely fine. But you've stayed pretty vague there. What I want to know is, if I enter #wikipedia and say "hi" to someone, or ask a question about a page that incidentally happens to be on the English Wikipedia, will the response be "you're not allowed to talk about that in here. It's policy now. You must talk about that in #nameofchannel"? Or can I expect a helpful answer?
More importantly, is there actually anything left which *can* be talked about in that channel? And how on earth is discussion of a particular Wikipedia not "on-topic" in a channel called "#wikipedia"?
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sean Whitton wrote:
Definately. That's why we have setup #wikipedia-social (and there is also #wikimedia-social, which is run by some other Wikimedians and they said they didn't want us pointing people there, so we setup #wikipedia-social).
I totally agree that it's very important. My point is that the majority of talk in #wikipedia should be on Wikipedia, not the other way round. Otherwise, why call it #wikipedia? :-)
I don't see where normal people compartmentalize their lives that way. Seperate "social" sites would likely get very little participation. Social interaction derives from a context. Conversations do drift, and that's perfectly normal. We're only talking about a chat line, not a formal meeting.
Ec
Firstly, thanks for speaking about this in a civilised and constructive way. Obviously, nothing like this is ever set in stone. I would like to point out that the guidelines were open for comment in the topic of #wikipedia for a number of days and as I know that you are a regular in the channel, you did have chance to make your views heard there. We assumed there were no immeadiately pressing issues from those who use the channel every day as there were no real comments on the guidelines's talkpage, and so went ahead. It's good that we can continue to adapt things here.
Off-topic chat prohibited I could perhaps understand. But it doesn't stop there. Discussion of the individual projects is no longer permitted either; all discussion of the English Wikipedia has to go to #wikipedia-en. You can't even discuss the channel itself - no, that has to go to #wikimedia-irc. So that everyone's complaints can be conveniently ignored.
I can understand how this was confusing. I temporarily asked all chat about the changes to be moved there so the channel could get back to normal. This isn't anything permenant; I merely aimed to cool things a bit.
Thanks,
Sean
On 16/06/07, Gurch matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
Needed? Yeah... like hell they are.
By "pretty quickly" they literally meant in the space of a few minutes, with precisely zero consultation with anyone who actually uses the channel. Yes, there was a page of guidelines on Meta, but those guidelines have magically morphed into an unbreakable policy that doesn't actually match what's written on that page at all.
Sean has casually neglected to mention that "off-topic" discussion is no longer permitted in the channel. And by that I literally mean that entering the channel and sending one-line greetings to a couple of users will get you told, in-channel and via a bombardment of PMs, to stop talking off-topic.
Off-topic chat prohibited I could perhaps understand. But it doesn't stop there. Discussion of the individual projects is no longer permitted either; all discussion of the English Wikipedia has to go to #wikipedia-en. You can't even discuss the channel itself - no, that has to go to #wikimedia-irc. So that everyone's complaints can be conveniently ignored.
Mark seemed to want to turn it into a help channel for new users. Ignoring the fact that we already have (or had) two of those, what good is a help channel with nobody in it? In the past, users seeking help have usually recieved a reply - or several - within seconds. I have responded to hundreds of such queries - but it's not the reason I used the channel.
I never did get round to asking what I *could* discuss; I gave up when I realized the instructions barked at me in-channel and through PMs were in complete contradiction with everything Mark said when I spoke to him earlier, which in turn contradicted what Sean said when I spoke to him earlier, which in turn contradicted what I was told in-channel earlier.
A new set of guidlines is fine, but this situation is not. Guidelines should be just that - for guidance purposes - and more importantly, there should not be any pretence that contributors' wishes are being accommodated when they are not.
The English Wikipedia project mailing list long ago became unbearable as a method of communication and discussion. If the new-found rulers of the IRC channels want to kill them off as well, in the name of keeping all conversation on the wiki where it can be watched, then that's fine. But don't try to claim that it is an improvement.
-Gurch
FloNight wrote:
Thank you Sean, Mark, and Dmcdevit for shepherding these changes. I definitely think they are needed.
Sydney aka FloNight
On 6/16/07, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Hello all,
I am writing to introduce a number of changes to #wikipedia. The aim of this is to improve the channel's image and to make it more useful for everyone. The changes are being initiated this afternoon (GMT) and I hope to have them done pretty quickly.
1: New contacts The channel will now be managed by Mark_Ryan and Dmcdevit (their IRC nicks, as most of us probably know them). At the moment it's pretty ad hoc and so we (the [[m:IRC Group Contacts]]) that it might be a good idea to put someone and a deputy very clearly with the responsibility so that we don't get "who do I go to for this...?" with the response "not me" from everyone, a common online scenario, or so I've observed.
2: New guidelines/rules Together with some community input (although of course more is welcomed - it's a wiki, so let's take advantage of that) we have written some new guidelines for user and operator conduct at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia. These are a lot more enforcable than the old ones. The key thing is that operators will try and resolve issues with words rather than powers whenever possible.
3: New operators We realised that the op list was becoming a bit messy. Additionally, we're not sure that all operators are in agreement on the above guidelines. We decided that it would be a bit pointless to ask them to enforce guidelines they didn't support and do so using methods they preferred not to use and so we have opted to clear out the access list and start afresh. We welcome new applications from our experienced operators to rejoin the team. On this note we are going to be a little more formal on application for this, as only the contacts named above will have the authority to manage the ops team. The key thing with all these changes is to make #wikimedia-ops more useful, and to ensure that operators use words rather than technological 'force' wherever possible (as a rule of thumb, in the majority of cases where their intervention is required). We aim to keep a list on meta of these ops too to make it easier for people to get in touch with them.
You may be wondering if this applies to places other than #wikipedia: not now, but we are considering rolling it out elsewhere if it proves a success. Stay tuned!
Thank you for your support.
Yours,
Sean Whitton Wikimedia IRC Group Contact http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sean_Whitton
-- —Sean Whitton (seanw) sean@silentflame.com http://seanwhitton.com/
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org