Hi,
I want to register domain wikipedia.cz to Wikipedia foundation, and wondering who to ask for permission (permission to use Wikipedia foundation as registrant).
I'm willing to to do all the technical stuff and pay for registration, and set wikipedia.cz as forward to cs.wikipedia.org, just dont like idea of registering domain without registrants consent or using me as registrant.
Issue is quite urgent, as Czech wikipedia get some attention in media, and if it wont be registred for Wikipedia, I'm sure it will be soon registered by some speculant (as e.g. google.cz), which would certianly damage Czech project.
Jan Kulveit
--- Jan Kulveit jk-wikifound@ks.cz wrote:
Hi,
I want to register domain wikipedia.cz to Wikipedia foundation, and wondering who to ask for permission (permission to use Wikipedia foundation as registrant).
I'm willing to to do all the technical stuff and pay for registration, and set wikipedia.cz as forward to cs.wikipedia.org, just dont like idea of registering domain without registrants consent or using me as registrant.
Issue is quite urgent, as Czech wikipedia get some attention in media, and if it wont be registred for Wikipedia, I'm sure it will be soon registered by some speculant (as e.g. google.cz), which would certianly damage Czech project.
Sounds like a good idea. You will need to contact Jason Richey at jasonr@bomis.com to set that up.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The thought about editors got me thinking about User rights while still maintaining a wiki. So here is my proposal, for all to bash:
Key Rights: Anons will always be able to edit existing article, period
User name rights: Users can always edit pages After (a period of time, I choose an arbitrary one say 1 week), users can move pages and create new pages
Thus Anons cannot move or create new pages, which from my New Page watch would probably be a good thing.
Now, yes we are restricting anon access, which is very unwiki, but they can still edit articles, just some of the more destructive things they could do couldn't happen.
Just my thoughts,
Corey Burger aka Burgundavia --
On 6/17/04 6:20 PM, "Corey Burger" cburger@victoria.tc.ca wrote:
The thought about editors got me thinking about User rights while still maintaining a wiki. So here is my proposal, for all to bash:
Key Rights: Anons will always be able to edit existing article, period
User name rights: Users can always edit pages After (a period of time, I choose an arbitrary one say 1 week), users can move pages and create new pages
Thus Anons cannot move or create new pages, which from my New Page watch would probably be a good thing.
Anons should always be able to create pages.
Corey Burger (cburger@victoria.tc.ca) [040618 08:21]:
The thought about editors got me thinking about User rights while still maintaining a wiki. So here is my proposal, for all to bash: Key Rights: Anons will always be able to edit existing article, period User name rights: Users can always edit pages After (a period of time, I choose an arbitrary one say 1 week), users can move pages and create new pages Thus Anons cannot move or create new pages, which from my New Page watch would probably be a good thing.
I know a few users who started by creating a page, because they knew something about something that didn't have an article. Generally as an anon user. Why should they bother waiting a week? What's in it for them?
- d.
The cutoff point is one that can be debated separately, the main issue to create a barrier so that new users can get to know the system before they start new pages. It is far easier to revert edits made the existing article, as they are on peoples watchlists.
Corey
On 06/18/04 at 09:31 AM, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au said:
I know a few users who started by creating a page, because they knew something about something that didn't have an article. Generally as an anon user. Why should they bother waiting a week? What's in it for them?
I would turn the question around: what is in it for us?
Maybe three years ago, when the project was just starting and it was important to build momentum, we needed every contributor and contribution we could get. But now we have ~300k articles, many of which still need lots of work, thousands of regular users, and a database which is unable to keep up with the demand, no matter how much hardware we throw at it. Maybe we should start thinking in terms of quality rather than sheer quantity.
V.
Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl wrote: On 06/18/04 at 09:31 AM, David Gerard said:
I know a few users who started by creating a page, because they knew something about something that didn't have an article. Generally as an anon user. Why should they bother waiting a week? What's in it for them?
I would turn the question around: what is in it for us?
Maybe three years ago, when the project was just starting and it was important to build momentum, we needed every contributor and contribution we could get. But now we have ~300k articles, many of which still need lots of work, thousands of regular users, and a database which is unable to keep up with the demand, no matter how much hardware we throw at it. Maybe we should start thinking in terms of quality rather than sheer quantity.
V.
Since this is the foundation-l mailing list, just a thought.
This comment may be true for the english wikipedia. Perhaps beginning to be true for the german one. It is not for all the other projects.
I also think new users are synonym of potential quality, as they are synonym of more diversity. And there are few things as magic for a new comer, than to click on a red link and start a new page. This is very precious. Moving a page, however, is not something most newbies start with. And it does not hold the same magic. And it implies more work to fix.
Still, current problematic issues are due to a user who is absolutely not a new user, but who in particular use some weaknesses (perhaps) of our log-in system.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
We need more than speculation before we discard a fundamental working of the wiki concept.
Firstly, there is [[Special:Newpages]], so it's easy to find track all new pages created. The volume of new pages created by anons is of negligible load on our servers. A quick glance of the last 24 hour period -- 666 new pages, with 216 by anons. Not a great volume, even if you take into account deleted nonsense.
I offer that the benefits of being inclusive of anons far outweigh any downsides. Any vandalism by anons in new articles is usually so simplistic it's trivial to catch. Everyone was a newbie at one time.
If you look at our "New Wikipedians" graph in the stats, we need to be more inclusive. http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
-Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:36:47 +0300, Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl wrote:
On 06/18/04 at 09:31 AM, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au said:
I know a few users who started by creating a page, because they knew something about something that didn't have an article. Generally as an anon user. Why should they bother waiting a week? What's in it for them?
I would turn the question around: what is in it for us?
Maybe three years ago, when the project was just starting and it was important to build momentum, we needed every contributor and contribution we could get. But now we have ~300k articles, many of which still need lots of work, thousands of regular users, and a database which is unable to keep up with the demand, no matter how much hardware we throw at it. Maybe we should start thinking in terms of quality rather than sheer quantity.
V.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/18/04 4:36 AM, "Viajero" viajero@quilombo.nl wrote:
On 06/18/04 at 09:31 AM, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au said:
I know a few users who started by creating a page, because they knew something about something that didn't have an article. Generally as an anon user. Why should they bother waiting a week? What's in it for them?
I would turn the question around: what is in it for us?
Maybe three years ago, when the project was just starting and it was important to build momentum, we needed every contributor and contribution we could get. But now we have ~300k articles, many of which still need lots of work, thousands of regular users, and a database which is unable to keep up with the demand, no matter how much hardware we throw at it. Maybe we should start thinking in terms of quality rather than sheer quantity.
This argument was made when we have 20k articles, & 100k...and will be made when we have 1 million articles....
Wikipedia is not something which needs to be protected from the outside. The only genuinely weak point is the database infrastructure, but considerations on that behalf shouldn't be confused with policy decisions on mission purpose.
--- Corey Burger cburger@victoria.tc.ca wrote:
Key Rights: Anons will always be able to edit existing article, period
User name rights: Users can always edit pages After (a period of time, I choose an arbitrary one say 1 week), users can move pages and create new pages
Thus Anons cannot move or create new pages, which from my New Page watch would probably be a good thing.
We may have to eventually do this. But we absolutely need to make sure we only do it if/when it is needed - just as we had to do when we protected the Main Page on the English Wikipedia. I would like to see some statistics on the number of junk and copyvio pages anons and new users create each day to see if we have reached that point yet. Some measure of how long it takes for almost all of that to get fixed would also be needed in order to run some cost/benefit analysis.
Wiki is a means to an end, not an end in itself. But we should nevertheless try to preserve as much openness as is useful for as long as it is practical.
We cannot assume that our current way of doing things will scale indefinitely - there is only a small percentage of the world's population who would ever care to become Wikimedians. After we have reached a significant percentage of them it will become increasingly difficult to keep up with those who would rather vandalize or contribute crap. In the meantime we should put the onus of proof on those who want to lock things down. If what they say is true, then they should be able to prove it fairly easily.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org