Partly in reaction to the two recent proposals for the adoption of global user rights, I've started a page on meta containing a proposal for a policy governing the establishment, implementation and use of all global rights on Wikimedia Foundation projects. Before we establish a number of different global rights, with different principles and controls expressed in each policy, it is essential that we create a framework in which to control these new rights. After a period of time of discussion on meta, I'll publicize the proposal on the English Wikipedia and ask that others do the same elsewhere. After the commons view_deleted proposal, I'll ask that the community on meta delay consideration of new rights proposals until a broader umbrella policy can be agreed upon.
Nathan
I should tell you what the page is. Its [[meta:Global rights]].
Nathan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Partly in reaction to the two recent proposals for the adoption of global user rights, I've started a page on meta containing a proposal for a policy governing the establishment, implementation and use of all global rights on Wikimedia Foundation projects. Before we establish a number of different global rights, with different principles and controls expressed in each policy, it is essential that we create a framework in which to control these new rights. After a period of time of discussion on meta, I'll publicize the proposal on the English Wikipedia and ask that others do the same elsewhere. After the commons view_deleted proposal, I'll ask that the community on meta delay consideration of new rights proposals until a broader umbrella policy can be agreed upon.
Nathan
Before any global rights discussions take place, there needs to be a policy in place that any project that wishes to opt-out of said global rights can do so.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I should tell you what the page is. Its [[meta:Global rights]].
Nathan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Partly in reaction to the two recent proposals for the adoption of global user rights, I've started a page on meta containing a proposal for a
policy
governing the establishment, implementation and use of all global rights
on
Wikimedia Foundation projects. Before we establish a number of different global rights, with different principles and controls expressed in each policy, it is essential that we create a framework in which to control
these
new rights. After a period of time of discussion on meta, I'll publicize
the
proposal on the English Wikipedia and ask that others do the same
elsewhere.
After the commons view_deleted proposal, I'll ask that the community on
meta
delay consideration of new rights proposals until a broader umbrella
policy
can be agreed upon.
Nathan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
Before any global rights discussions take place, there needs to be a policy in place that any project that wishes to opt-out of said global rights can do so.
...isn't that what Nathan just proposed?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
Before any global rights discussions take place, there needs to be a policy in place that any project that wishes to opt-out of said global rights can do so.
And what of the possibilities of global changes which are substantially reduced in value if opted out of by some projects?
We can't allow this global crap to make our communities enemies of each other. No good could come from an adversarial environment between projects. We share so much in common and depend on each other more than we realize. We *must* find ways to work together.
"And what of the possibilities of global changes which are substantially reduced in value if opted out of by some projects?"
Then the changes are not worth doing on a global basis.
If folks want to create an anti-vandal role to be used by the projects which want them, that's perfectly fine. However, the failed global sysop straw poll (60% oppose or higher) shows that there's no desire or want for certain big projects for this idea.
There's a difference between "working together" and "letting the tail wag the dog".
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:03 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
If folks want to create an anti-vandal role to be used by the projects which want them, that's perfectly fine. However, the failed global sysop straw poll (60% oppose or higher) shows that there's no desire or want for certain big projects for this idea.
....or it just shows that it was improperly canvassed on a wiki that it would not really affect.
(The English Wikipedia was either the only or one of the only wikis to have a notice... i.e. uneven canvassing; Furthermore, enwiki had already opted out of it so many opposes so it has nothing to do with that wiki.)
Not just En-Wiki, but any large project that has its own set of administrators/Stewards as well.
Again, opt-in, not opt-out. If a community wants this anti-vandal/"global" sysop role, I have no problem with that. But until/unless a community opts in to this, it is an absolute non-starter
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:33 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
Not just En-Wiki, but any large project that has its own set of administrators/Stewards as well.
Again, opt-in, not opt-out. If a community wants this anti-vandal/"global" sysop role, I have no problem with that. But until/unless a community opts in to this, it is an absolute non-starter
This just shows how you do not understand the proposal. This is for small wikis with few to no permanent administrators who *need* this extra help. If a wiki knows enough about Meta to be able to opt-in... chances are it probably doesn't need the help. It is much easier and more efficient to have a *policy* opt-/out/.
Large wikis are already opted out in the proposed policy and have their chance to create a local policy regarding their own regulations of the tools (which a few have done). Again, it's not possible to have "opt-in, not opt-out"... it would defeat the purpose of this proposal.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:33 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
Not just En-Wiki, but any large project that has its own set of administrators/Stewards as well.
Again, opt-in, not opt-out. If a community wants this anti-vandal/"global" sysop role, I have no problem with that. But until/unless a community opts in to this, it is an absolute non-starter
Opt-in is patently absurd. I can see the value in moving this forward by allowing large communities to decide they dont want to be part of it, but most small wikis will have no knowledge of this, and language barriers to conquer before they could opt into this.
Most wikimedia projects *trust* stewards, and commons admins with a little reservation. Only big wiki projects think that they are an island unto themselves.
-- John
If a community is so small that they cannot generate "consensus" to opt-in, then I don't think it's saveable, even with "global" sysops.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:14 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
If a community is so small that they cannot generate "consensus" to opt-in, then I don't think it's saveable, even with "global" sysops.
On smaller wikis, the content is much more important than the community - when the RC feed is slow enough, the community can be tightly knit without even talking to each other, because they can all review each others changes, and quietly approve.
If a wiki has unique free content, it is savable.
-- John
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:03 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
"And what of the possibilities of global changes which are substantially reduced in value if opted out of by some projects?"
Then the changes are not worth doing on a global basis.
If folks want to create an anti-vandal role to be used by the projects which want them, that's perfectly fine. However, the failed global sysop straw poll (60% oppose or higher) shows that there's no desire or want for certain big projects for this idea.
This is my straw man. Doesn't he burn nicely? ;)
There's a difference between "working together" and "letting the tail wag the dog".
Just because what has been proposed so far is "not worth doing on a global basis" that doesn't mean there might not be things that will at a later time.
Consistency has value. If you really see no value in consistency, allow me to be the first to remind you of your ability to Fork. ;)
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
Before any global rights discussions take place, there needs to be a
policy
in place that any project that wishes to opt-out of said global rights
can
do so.
And what of the possibilities of global changes which are substantially reduced in value if opted out of by some projects?
Which are these?
SJ
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:51 PM, David Yellope sirfozzie@gmail.com wrote:
Before any global rights discussions take place, there needs to be a policy in place that any project that wishes to opt-out of said global rights can do so.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I should tell you what the page is. Its [[meta:Global rights]].
Nathan
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Partly in reaction to the two recent proposals for the adoption of global user rights, I've started a page on meta containing a proposal for a
policy
governing the establishment, implementation and use of all global rights
on
Wikimedia Foundation projects. Before we establish a number of different global rights, with different principles and controls expressed in each policy, it is essential that we create a framework in which to control
these
new rights. After a period of time of discussion on meta, I'll publicize
the
proposal on the English Wikipedia and ask that others do the same
elsewhere.
After the commons view_deleted proposal, I'll ask that the community on
meta
delay consideration of new rights proposals until a broader umbrella
policy
can be agreed upon.
Nathan
Not a policy, a technical means. If a technical means existed that prevented "global sysops" from using their powers on Wikis that have either opted in or not opted out, this would probably pass. "Promised" means translate to "Promised" support.
As for a policy forbidding it? Policy is what comes out of the north end of a south facing bull. English Wikipedia even has a policy to that effect. More politely, policy can and does change, one would be a fool to rely on it.
WilyD
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Partly in reaction to the two recent proposals for the adoption of global user rights, I've started a page on meta containing a proposal for a policy governing the establishment, implementation and use of all global rights on Wikimedia Foundation projects. Before we establish a number of different global rights, with different principles and controls expressed in each policy, it is essential that we create a framework in which to control these new rights. After a period of time of discussion on meta, I'll publicize the proposal on the English Wikipedia and ask that others do the same elsewhere. After the commons view_deleted proposal, I'll ask that the community on meta delay consideration of new rights proposals until a broader umbrella policy can be agreed upon.
Yes, this is a good idea and it is at the next generalization level. And I'll comment it at the talk page.
However, we have one more step above which we didn't solve: Every global policy has to be discussed at the local projects *before* the final discussion at Meta.
This may be achieved by making supporting documents for every proposer: Where to announce it at local projects. Also, every proposal should have a summary which may be quickly translated to other languages. Every local project should summarize their input in English.
Every proposal (including this one) should have some time frame. Let's say, 15 days for the initial discussion, 5 days for announcing it at local projects, 15 days for discussion at local projects, 5 days for summarizing discussions at local projects and giving comments back to the Meta, 15 days for further discussion and 15 days for voting. Of course, according to specific circumstances, some of those numbers may be changed.
This is 70 days for every proposal. It may look like a long period and even like a bureaucratic procedure, but I really don't see any other solution for getting the input from every project. Wikimedia community is a complex one ("something more" than this list and Meta) and we have to find a way how to deal with that. Dealing with people at one project is much different than dealing with people at 700+ projects. If we want to have a functional global community, we have to work more organized and with longer time frames. And we have to learn how to communicate with each other.
If anyone has a better idea, I would like to hear it.
BTW, I was thinking about making a group which would deal with global policies and which should have, ideally, all projects represented. However, I think that a group, which would work only from time to time, wouldn't be efficient; it is very possible that such group would function only during the first months of its existence.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Partly in reaction to the two recent proposals for the adoption of global user rights, I've started a page on meta containing a proposal for a policy governing the establishment, implementation and use of all global rights on Wikimedia Foundation projects. Before we establish a number of different global rights, with different principles and controls expressed in each policy, it is essential that we create a framework in which to control these new rights. After a period of time of discussion on meta, I'll publicize the proposal on the English Wikipedia and ask that others do the same elsewhere. After the commons view_deleted proposal, I'll ask that the community on meta delay consideration of new rights proposals until a broader umbrella policy can be agreed upon.
Yes, this is a good idea and it is at the next generalization level. And I'll comment it at the talk page.
However, we have one more step above which we didn't solve: Every global policy has to be discussed at the local projects *before* the final discussion at Meta.
This may be achieved by making supporting documents for every proposer: Where to announce it at local projects. Also, every proposal should have a summary which may be quickly translated to other languages. Every local project should summarize their input in English.
One project, one vote.
That sounds great.
The local 'crats should be responsible for putting forward the view of their project in the meta "vote", and they should be allowed to do so in any language, but of course English would be preferred.
Discussion on the meta talk page would naturally be open for anyone.
Every proposal (including this one) should have some time frame. Let's say, 15 days for the initial discussion, 5 days for announcing it at local projects, 15 days for discussion at local projects, 5 days for summarizing discussions at local projects and giving comments back to the Meta, 15 days for further discussion and 15 days for voting. Of course, according to specific circumstances, some of those numbers may be changed.
This is 70 days for every proposal. It may look like a long period and even like a bureaucratic procedure, but I really don't see any other solution for getting the input from every project. Wikimedia community is a complex one ("something more" than this list and Meta) and we have to find a way how to deal with that. Dealing with people at one project is much different than dealing with people at 700+ projects. If we want to have a functional global community, we have to work more organized and with longer time frames. And we have to learn how to communicate with each other.
If anyone has a better idea, I would like to hear it.
A fixed timeframe is probably necessary, however 70 days is _way_ too long.
7 days to discuss on the meta talk page and and formulate the proposal; 7 days for local projects to develop a response; 7 days for the responses to be collated onto meta. 21 days max.
A steward should probably to responsible for flicking the switch to say that a proposal is live after the first seven days, and again a steward should probably be the one to flick the switch and decide the outcome. They judgment should be trusted rather than requiring that the process is run by stopwatches.
In reality, most projects will have started discussing a proposal long before the proposal page can even be created on meta (they are primed, and bursting with ideas, having heard about it on the grapevine) and most projects will continue to discuss it to death until the eleventh hour of the 21st day. Projects that don't get motivated quickly probably don't care enough to be involved, or are unlikely to be affected.
If the proposals are listed at a common location on meta, 'crats of all projects can watchlist the page, and tick "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed" in their prefs on meta. The 'crats should be responsible for ensuring that the project makes up its collaborative mind, in its own project space, in its own way. Local members will no doubt 'assist' the 'crats at every turn.
As each local discussion gets underway, a link to it could be added to the meta proposal page to indicate that the ball is rolling on the local project.
By restricting the voting stage to only 'crats, the good folk who facilitate on meta will more readily be able to identify which projects haven't submitted a response, in order that they can reach out and attempt to solicit a response from those communities.
-- John
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
One project, one vote.
That sounds great.
While some kind of positive discrimination for smaller-than-en.wp projects is necessary, one project -- one vote seems as a very unfair toward people from en.wp and other large projects.
The local 'crats should be responsible for putting forward the view of their project in the meta "vote", and they should be allowed to do so in any language, but of course English would be preferred.
Yes, it is a good idea to give that responsibility to local bureaucrats.
A fixed timeframe is probably necessary, however 70 days is _way_ too long.
7 days to discuss on the meta talk page and and formulate the proposal; 7 days for local projects to develop a response; 7 days for the responses to be collated onto meta. 21 days max.
Talking 7 days about one issue may be too short for a lot of the projects. Also, there is no need for hurrying about global policies, as well as it is possible to run at the same time two or three global policies if it is really necessary.
A steward should probably to responsible for flicking the switch to say that a proposal is live after the first seven days, and again a steward should probably be the one to flick the switch and decide the outcome. They judgment should be trusted rather than requiring that the process is run by stopwatches.
It is better to have some kind of procedure: Proposer has to announce short version of the proposal it at all projects with communities ("a project with community" should be defined and listed) after the initial discussion. From that point, proposer should do the jobs described in the policy related to the global permissions (or in the howto which describes the procedure of making a global policy). If a proposer fails to fit to the timeline and the procedure, it is not so hard to find a consensus that the proposal is dead.
In reality, most projects will have started discussing a proposal long before the proposal page can even be created on meta (they are primed, and bursting with ideas, having heard about it on the grapevine) and most projects will continue to discuss it to death until the eleventh hour of the 21st day. Projects that don't get motivated quickly probably don't care enough to be involved, or are unlikely to be affected.
Actually, no. From the experience of a couple of previous policies and calls for discussion, contributors are informed about a policy proposal only when the time for voting comes. So, "the policy about making global policies" has to find a way how to deal with that. Simply, it has to be slow; otherwise, it wouldn't function: when contributors are not informed well about a policy proposal, they tend to vote against. And even the majority is in favor of some policy, the level of agreement about the new policy has to be very high (80%).
By restricting the voting stage to only 'crats, the good folk who facilitate on meta will more readily be able to identify which projects haven't submitted a response, in order that they can reach out and attempt to solicit a response from those communities.
Hmm... Voting only by active admins (not bureaucrats): It may be a good idea.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:46:24 +0200 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The local 'crats should be responsible for putting forward the view of their project in the meta "vote", and they should be allowed to do so in any language, but of course English would be preferred.
Yes, it is a good idea to give that responsibility to local bureaucrats.
Except that, in my view, that's changing an internal technical role into an external representative, akin to an ambassador (no, that's not supposed to be an idea for a new level of bureaucracy).
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Kaare Olsen kaare@nightcall.dk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:46:24 +0200 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The local 'crats should be responsible for putting forward the view of their project in the meta "vote", and they should be allowed to do so in any language, but of course English would be preferred.
Yes, it is a good idea to give that responsibility to local bureaucrats.
Except that, in my view, that's changing an internal technical role into an external representative, akin to an ambassador
The practise is that the 'crat is a person with a long history with the project; on smaller wikis they are usually the person who pushed for it to exist in the first place.
Also, the technical role is one that requires the ability to comprehend the consensus of the community.
(no, that's not supposed to be an idea for a new level of bureaucracy).
"Ambassador" has a nice ring to it :-)
-- John
I am moving this discussion to Meta:
- Defining opting-in and opting-out policy [1] - Time frame [2] - Responsibilities [3]
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_rights#Defining_opting-in_and_opt... [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_rights#Time_frame [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_rights#Responsibilities
There is the new issue to be discussed: How to vote about policy proposals? [1]
According to the present discussion, there are two possible approaches for voting about global policies, with variants. It should be discussed separately, too: --~~~~ * Person-based: --~~~~ ** Every Wikimedian has right to vote (under some conditions, of course: total number of edits, recent number of edits and similar). --~~~~ ** Only admins (bureaucrats, checkusers, oversights, stewards) has right to vote. --~~~~ * Project based: --~~~~ ** One project one vote. --~~~~ ** Some way of positive discrimination of smaller projects, but not "one project one vote" principle. It was discussed earlier that it may be some kind logarithmic scale related to the number of very active contributors or similar. --~~~~
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_rights#How_to_vote.3F
Hoi, If I were to have some global kind of administrative reach, the last place where any administrative action I would be likely to undertake would be on the wikis with a lot of active bureaucrats or admins. I am more interested in the small projects, the languages whose projects are marginal.
I do not want to be a steward with the notion of compulsory service. I want to be able to do something when I come across a need. When I cannot, I will not. When all the big projects opt out, it makes no difference to me. What does make a difference is when there is endless talk without any result.. Actually endless talk does not make a difference, it only makes a difference when there *is* a result.. Until this time, it is business as usual. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
There is the new issue to be discussed: How to vote about policy proposals? [1]
According to the present discussion, there are two possible approaches for voting about global policies, with variants. It should be discussed separately, too: --~~~~
- Person-based: --~~~~
** Every Wikimedian has right to vote (under some conditions, of course: total number of edits, recent number of edits and similar). --~~~~ ** Only admins (bureaucrats, checkusers, oversights, stewards) has right to vote. --~~~~
- Project based: --~~~~
** One project one vote. --~~~~ ** Some way of positive discrimination of smaller projects, but not "one project one vote" principle. It was discussed earlier that it may be some kind logarithmic scale related to the number of very active contributors or similar. --~~~~
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_rights#How_to_vote.3F
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If I were to have some global kind of administrative reach, the last place where any administrative action I would be likely to undertake would be on the wikis with a lot of active bureaucrats or admins. I am more interested in the small projects, the languages whose projects are marginal.
There are a couple of options for this issue: * Making a policy which would be sanctioned by the community (or, if you prefer, Wikimedians). This is the current process. * Stewards decides to introduce the role which would cover small projects. My position is that it is possible because stewards are taking care about small wikis. However, my position is not the position of all stewards and I am not sure that stewards would be able to make such decision. * WMF Board or ED or whoever from WMF decides so. This is the option, too; so Board members (or whoever from WMF) may do that.
I do not want to be a steward with the notion of compulsory service. I want to be able to do something when I come across a need. When I cannot, I will not. When all the big projects opt out, it makes no difference to me. What does make a difference is when there is endless talk without any result.. Actually endless talk does not make a difference, it only makes a difference when there *is* a result.. Until this time, it is business as usual.
It would be good to hear from you how to make the result.
This is wrong. It looks nastily to me like another example of en getting a desperately raw deal, and a backdoor attempt to railroad through a bad idea, not accepted by the community, the need for which has not been proven anyway. The phrase "the community" has also been understood to mean that, if you are a member of a the community, your vote's as good as anyone else's. Wikimedians should not be penalised for the sin of not belonging to a minority.
CM
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:55:24 +0200> From: millosh@gmail.com> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global rights proposal> > There is the new issue to be discussed: How to vote about policy proposals? [1]> > According to the present discussion, there are two possible approaches> for voting about global policies, with variants. It should be> discussed separately, too: --~~~~> * Person-based: --~~~~> ** Every Wikimedian has right to vote (under some conditions, of> course: total number of edits, recent number of edits and similar).> --~~~~> ** Only admins (bureaucrats, checkusers, oversights, stewards) has> right to vote. --~~~~> * Project based: --~~~~> ** One project one vote. --~~~~> ** Some way of positive discrimination of smaller projects, but not> "one project one vote" principle. It was discussed earlier that it may> be some kind logarithmic scale related to the number of very active> contributors or similar. --~~~~> > [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_rights#How_to_vote.3F%3E > _______________________________________________> foundation-l mailing list> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
This is wrong. It looks nastily to me like another example of en getting a desperately raw deal, and a backdoor attempt to railroad through a bad idea, not accepted by the community, the need for which has not been proven anyway. The phrase "the community" has also been understood to mean that, if you are a member of a the community, your vote's as good as anyone else's. Wikimedians should not be penalised for the sin of not belonging to a minority.
I agree with you. I just listed possible option. The only one about which I am *thinking* as a *possible* good option is an introduction of voting only by admins. The reason is obvious: admins should be the most introduced Wikimedians in Wikimedia issues. However, as I said, I am just thinking about that.
Admins rarely are. Certainly not at en. Familiarity with Wikimedia-wide issues is not asked about at RFA: nor is it even thought desirable. It is simply an ignored quality. I'm sure there are tons of non-admins who know far more about this sort of stuff than I do, and I've been an admin at en for over a year and a contributor since early 06. I cannot see a good reason for restricting suffrage to people with +sysop.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:31:16 +0200 From: millosh@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global rights proposal
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
This is wrong. It looks nastily to me like another example of en getting a desperately raw deal, and a backdoor attempt to railroad through a bad idea, not accepted by the community, the need for which has not been proven anyway. The phrase "the community" has also been understood to mean that, if you are a member of a the community, your vote's as good as anyone else's. Wikimedians should not be penalised for the sin of not belonging to a minority.
I agree with you. I just listed possible option. The only one about which I am *thinking* as a *possible* good option is an introduction of voting only by admins. The reason is obvious: admins should be the most introduced Wikimedians in Wikimedia issues. However, as I said, I am just thinking about that.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000007ukm/direct/01/
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Admins rarely are. Certainly not at en. Familiarity with Wikimedia-wide issues is not asked about at RFA: nor is it even thought desirable. It is simply an ignored quality. I'm sure there are tons of non-admins who know far more about this sort of stuff than I do, and I've been an admin at en for over a year and a contributor since early 06. I cannot see a good reason for restricting suffrage to people with +sysop.
This is true. My thoughts are the next: Admin has to be involved into the project for a longer time (usually) -> it is possible to suppose that they are more familiar with Wikimedia-wide issues. And I am sure that this line of thinking has some sense if it is applied statistically.
But, as I said, it is true that there are a lot of admins who are not familiar with Wikimedia-wide issues, as well as there are a lot of non-admins which are familiar with Wikimedia-wide issues.
Some way for resolving the problem related to a lot of noise should be find: Maybe to make stricter requirements for voting for global policies? Something like: at least 1000 edits and at least 1 year of participation at any WM project? Any other idea?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk top-posted and garbled the quoted passage:
There is the new issue to be discussed: How to vote about policy proposals? [1]
According to the present discussion, there are two possible approaches for voting about global policies, with variants. It should be discussed separately, too: --~~~~
- Person-based: --~~~~
** Every Wikimedian has right to vote (under some conditions, of course: total number of edits, recent number of edits and similar). --~~~~ ** Only admins (bureaucrats, checkusers, oversights, stewards) has right to vote. --~~~~
- Project based: --~~~~
** One project one vote. --~~~~ ** Some way of positive discrimination of smaller projects, but not "one project one vote" principle. It was discussed earlier that it may be some kind logarithmic scale related to the number of very active contributors or similar. --~~~~
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_rights#How_to_vote.3F
This is wrong. ....
Which aspect of this list of options is "wrong" ?
It looks nastily to me like another example of en getting a desperately raw deal, and a backdoor attempt to railroad through a bad idea, not accepted by the community, the need for which has not been proven anyway. The phrase "the community" has also been understood to mean that, if you are a member of a the community, your vote's as good as anyone else's.
Are you referring to global rights in general ? en.WP will likely be completely unaffected, as they will likely want to be excluded from global rights by either policy or practise. Nobody would complain, as globals rights is primarily not about en.WP.
If you are referring to a "project based voting system" being a means of railroading, I cant see how it could be any worse than the recent railroading that occurred by English Wikipedians when "one person one vote" was used.
Wikimedians should not be penalised for the sin of not belonging to a minority.
Oh, but English-only speaking Wikipedians who haven't participated in other projects are in a minority; by their own choice!
If you only know English, there are other smaller English projects besides Wikipedia that you could join, or you could quite easily participate in Wikisource transcription projects in other languages - all you need is have vision and a little familiarity with typography. For example, the French project would love assistance on these projects:
http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Livre:La_Fontaine_1_Fables.djvu http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Livre:Le_Koran_%28traduction_de_Kazimirski%29....
-- John Mark Vandenberg
I think the one project one vote principle (or any deviation from one person one vote) is unacceptable for a number of reasons. I'll list a few:
1) It grants undue weight to the opinion of individuals from small wikis 2) Its difficult to determine - who is from what project, what if they contribute to multiple projects, what if someone has en.wp as a home wiki but has contributed more to es.wp than some other voters considered to be from es.wp community? 3) It requires a much more difficult process for determining consensus - a single proposal on meta, with appropriate notification at all communities, and held over a sufficient period of time is relatively easy to judge. On the other hand if we're required to determine consensus at hundreds of local projects (in all their attendant languages) just to compile the interwiki vote... That will take forever and be subject to hordes of complaints and objections.
The idea you're aiming at is that we should counteract the effect of the largest projects on meta proposals by excluding or limiting the people from these projects in some way. I don't know if you're bitter about the global sysop proposal, or willing to violate basic principles of fairness and community in order to make sure future proposals pass... But this notion is unacceptable on its face. When we make decisions for the wider community, we make them as members of *that* community. Excluding en.wp voters because they disagree with you by disenfranchising them in the Wikimedia community is simply wrong.
Nathan
Oh, but English-only speaking Wikipedians who haven't participated in other projects are in a minority; by their own choice!
John, that's sheer sophistry. Fact: English-Wikipedia-only people constitute, I am sure, if not the majority of Wikimedians then at least the biggest minority. Quite apart from the fact that en is what the world actually reads. It's just stupid to give the Albanian Wikispecies the same clout as en. The en community deserves its voting block: there is no good reason to limit the powers of said block.
CM
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Oh, but English-only speaking Wikipedians who haven't participated in other projects are in a minority; by their own choice!
John, that's sheer sophistry.
Thank you, I think. At least my straw men are well built.
Fact: English-Wikipedia-only people constitute, I am sure, if not the majority of Wikimedians then at least the biggest minority.
"English-Wikipedia-only people" is a difficult cohort to convert to a stat; has anyone done it?
English Wikipedia has 7.4 million users. The next 20 Wikipedias have 4.2 millions users between them. [1] Two factors that need to be factored in: most non-English Wikipedians have an acount on en.WP; most English-Wikipedia-only people have accounts on the other Wikipedia. SUL will help to arrive at numbers.
Anyway, determining that the "English-Wikipedia-only people" block is a majority or biggest minority doesnt help, even if it is true. Everyone knows that en.WP is the biggest, has the best encyclopedia articles...
Quite apart from the fact that en is what the world actually reads.
... but ... Fact: the majority of the world does not have English as their primary language.
... and ... Fact: there are a _lot_ of Wikimedians who believe that the Wikimedia Foundation is not about creating a brilliant encyclopedia in English.
It's just stupid to give the Albanian Wikispecies the same clout as en.
There is no such thing.[2]
The en community deserves its voting block: there is no good reason to limit the powers of said block.
The last vote was conducted as "one person one vote" and it was an appalling displaying of uninformed English Wikipedians riding rough shot over the rest of the community. Brute force.
1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_000.2B_articles 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix
-- John
There is no such thing.[2]
No Albanian Wikispecies? Aww. I'm sure there will be soon. Can't wait.
The en community deserves its voting block: there is no good reason to limit the powers of said block.
The last vote was conducted as "one person one vote" and it was an appalling displaying of uninformed English Wikipedians riding rough shot over the rest of the community. Brute force.
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_000.2B_articles
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix
-- John
An "appalling display". John, you sound horribly like the corrupt Brussels Eurocrats wailing and gnashing their teeth over the "uninformed Irish peasants" who have wrecked their beautiful constitutional treaty. Stop it now! You can't just choose to negate the voice of the biggest chunk of the Wikimedian community simply because you don't like what that chunk says. That's morally wrong and contrary to fundamental Wikimedia principles (such as consensus).
CM
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
2008/6/25 John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
English Wikipedia has 7.4 million users. The next 20 Wikipedias have 4.2 millions users between them. [1] Two factors that need to be factored in: most non-English Wikipedians have an acount on en.WP; most English-Wikipedia-only people have accounts on the other Wikipedia. SUL will help to arrive at numbers.
Other vast problem: most of the enwp accounts aren't people. They're alternate accounts, bot-generated vandalism accounts, etc.
I have no idea how we can reasonably estimate the size of enwiki's user base (or any other project), but number of user accounts is basically meaningless.
Everyone knows that en.WP is the biggest, has the best encyclopedia articles...
I wouldn't put too much money on the last one without carefully defining a metric first!
2008/6/26 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
Other vast problem: most of the enwp accounts aren't people. They're alternate accounts, bot-generated vandalism accounts, etc. I have no idea how we can reasonably estimate the size of enwiki's user base (or any other project), but number of user accounts is basically meaningless.
Brianna Laugher made a start on this, by counting number of editors with more than a certain number of unreverted edits.
- d.
2008/6/26 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/6/26 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
Other vast problem: most of the enwp accounts aren't people. They're alternate accounts, bot-generated vandalism accounts, etc. I have no idea how we can reasonably estimate the size of enwiki's user base (or any other project), but number of user accounts is basically meaningless.
Brianna Laugher made a start on this, by counting number of editors with more than a certain number of unreverted edits.
This sounds a pretty good metric. Do you know what the results were?
I also suspect we could use raw number of edits committed over [some arbitrary period] as a rough proxy for number of users (a wiki ten times busier is probably on the order of ten times more populated), if we have those statistics.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Kaare Olsen kaare@nightcall.dk wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:46:24 +0200 "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com wrote:
The local 'crats should be responsible for putting forward the view of their project in the meta "vote", and they should be allowed to do so in any language, but of course English would be preferred.
Yes, it is a good idea to give that responsibility to local bureaucrats.
Except that, in my view, that's changing an internal technical role into an external representative, akin to an ambassador (no, that's not supposed to be an idea for a new level of bureaucracy).
Bureaucrats are highly trusting contributors at the local level. Optionally, community should be able to choose a responsible person (or a group of persons). However, we need some defaults. Also, admins should be representatives at communities without bureaucrats (but, with admins). (And I am not sure that projects without admins have communities at all.)
--- On Tue, 6/24/08, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
<snip bureaucratic methodolgy for straight voting>
Where is the room for consensus? Where the concerns of dissenting opinions are addressed with modifications to the proposal and the goal is to find a compromise solution where objections are weakened.
Birgitte SB
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 6/24/08, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
<snip bureaucratic methodolgy for straight voting>
Where is the room for consensus? Where the concerns of dissenting opinions are addressed with modifications to the proposal and the goal is to find a compromise solution where objections are weakened.
Consensus can be built on the mailing lists before hand, and the talk pages, etc. If it cant be reached the first time around, a subsequent refined proposal would do well to incorporate reflect consensus, and the simplified "vote" process set in motion again.
An iterative straight voting approach, where each round takes 21 days, could run three times before it is approaching the 70 day duration proposed earlier.
-- John
BTW, I was thinking about making a group which would deal with global policies and which should have, ideally, all projects represented. However, I think that a group, which would work only from time to time, wouldn't be efficient; it is very possible that such group would function only during the first months of its existence.
Wasn't it one of the tasks for the proposed pvc/wikicouncil? It is clearly about inter-project cooperation.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
BTW, I was thinking about making a group which would deal with global policies and which should have, ideally, all projects represented. However, I think that a group, which would work only from time to time, wouldn't be efficient; it is very possible that such group would function only during the first months of its existence.
Wasn't it one of the tasks for the proposed pvc/wikicouncil? It is clearly about inter-project cooperation.
A group which *only* task would be global policies. Not a general group, like pvc/wikicouncil should be.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org