My suggestions are: * since #wikimedia* channels are highly operational oriented ones, managements criteria for them and community channels have not to be necessarily same, and the management of the former would be better to those who set the channels. (I don't find any reason the Wikimedia community oversee #wikimedia-meeting, for example) * A certain IRC policy are supposedly effective and feasible not to apply "all wikimedia channels" but channels in the same language such policy is discussed and determind in maximum. As well particular Wikimedia projects, each irc channel community are self-determinative and strongly based on cultural background of the society their language is used. And I don't think #wikipedia channel policy as proper topic here on foundation-l. Wikipedia-l is supposedly better to fit? On 10/11/06, Sean Whitton <sean(a)silentflame.com> wrote: -- Kizu Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * Nessuna poesia prima di noi *

Why would the foundation want to be the controlling organization? I question that WMF would ever want to assume responsibilty for these IRC channels. However even if there is some good reason to do so in the future, why would this be a good idea to do so now? What sort of infastructure is in place for handling this new-found responsibility? Is there a list somewhere of exactly which channels we are talking about? Birgitte SB --- David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I really do think your suggestion that that "the people who run the channels organise themselves to agree on the rules for the benefit of all, and enforce them according to the parts of the rules that detail that" is a good one. However I do not know that the people who run the channels subscribe to this list, if anyone runs them at all. Before you do anything to start organize the writing of these rules, you first need to identify who are "the people who run the channels" or aleast identify all the channels. Regarding the list of IRC channels on en.WP the correct title is [[en:Wikipedia:IRC channels]] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_Channel I do not believe this nomenclature is standardized enough that you can guess where all the channels are based off of that list and langauge codes. And the list may be considered good by wikipedia users but I find it very limited as far as other projects. Here is what I think you need to do to accomplish your broadest goals. Make an inclusive list of channels you wish to cover with clear guidelines as to why such a X channel is included and other channels are not. Visit every channel and annouce the project to work out these guidelines by adding it to the header. Make sure you add this annoucement in the proper language. Then develop these guidelines on Meta with as full participation as you can manage to get. If everyone is able to participate in the development of the guidelines and consensus is reached then they will be invested in following them. Then there should be no need to enforce them at any level. As far as Jimmy denouncing #wikipedia. If this is your main concern, you should probably follow Aphaia's suggestion and take this to wikipedia-l. But to take Jimmy's opinion of that one channel and make that a foundation for rules for the whole spectrum of IRC is mistake IMHO. And in any case this is only on-topic here if, as david said, WMF is going to be the controling organization per Freenode. From your answer to me I do not believe this is your intention. Birgitte SB --- Sean Whitton <sean(a)silentflame.com> wrote: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 10/12/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote: try this instead: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_channels -- "Maybe you knew early on that your track went from point A to B, but unlike you I wasn't given a map at birth!" Alyssa, "Chasing Amy"

That meta page is probably the list I had in mind, thank you for pointing it out. As you say, it is thin on the ground with other projects, so I'd appreciate people who know these channels adding them in. Birgitte, you're right about spreading it to channel topics. I think some organisation of translation of something like "Help develop the new Wikimedia IRC channel guidelines at [[m:IRC guidelines]]" is necessary. I assume it won't be too hard for me to dig around meta and find translators; it's not something I've had to do before. Jimmy Wales wrote: Okay, I can understand that I may have phrased that a bit harshly. I didn't actually see it myself and was going on the comments made by David Gerard above. I'm interested in your thoughts on IRC taking care of itself - I agree that to a certain extent it does, but I think we can make it /better/ by developing material through other mediums. I think we can make this work. S On 12/10/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning(a)netzero.net> wrote: -- —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty sean(a)silentflame.com | xyrael.net

Maybe it would be a good idea to set up an international semi-official help-channel? That way channels don't have to be split up, and there is a larger chance there will hbe someone. In that channel there could be stricter guidelines (I think those are better as rules) and only on-topic help-talk. Pages could direct there, with the notice, that if there is nobody in a preferred language available, you copuld check the " unofficial" channel #wikipedia-es , #wikipedia-nl etc. Greetz, lodewijk 2006/10/13, Damian Finol <damian(a)igluve.org>rg>:

On 13/10/06, Damian Finol <damian(a)igluve.org> wrote: If you think you can stop profanity on #wikipedia, or on IRC, feel free to try ... - d.

On 13/10/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: It took a while for #wikipedia to get a civility rule. Even then it takes a bit of work to apply. Also, it's a favourite troll target. So don't expect it to be kept fit for general consumption without ridiculous effort. - d.

On 10/13/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: #wikipedia-bootcamp would probably come closest. -- geni