Erik Moeller wrote:
Anthere-
The reason of wikimediafoundation site is to present a unified front to outside. It should be clean, with no dispute, and it should be consistent with the Foundation frame of mind. It should also contain a whole bunch of data, which should not be modified too easily by anyone (like financial issues).
This can be done using rights management and page approval. Having a combined wiki helps in collaborating as a community on matters such as press releases and general news.
Right management do not exist, but I think they could be very useful here.
Now, I remember very well your CPOV proposition, which aimed at strongly limiting access to meta, by requesting that people identify themselves by real names to have the right for their edits to be claimed trustworthy, when the edits of non real people were labelled "untrusted or non representative of a so-called community point of view" by default.
Wow. This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. I am frankly flabbergasted. See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_point_of_view
In the *discussion* I suggested that *personal essays which deviate from the CPOV* (such as our favorite troll pages) should be signed, and that unsigned pages could be refactored or removed. This was a compromise proposal towards you to not have to completely exclude such pages. Next time you "remember something very well", you may want to look it up first.
Tatata, we already fought enough on this Erik.
You wrote to me :
But if you want to write a paper or essay on a subject related to Wikipedia, and do not want it to be edited into CPOV form, then you should have the courage and conviction to stand for it with your real name. Alternatively, put it on your user page. -Eloquence 13:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Given the number of editors who accept to edit under their real name, and given the risks associated with using our real name on the net, ***requesting*** from people to sign their comments and participation with their real name in order to have those allowed in the main space is just something bad.
We are allowed to write fabulous article under ip, why would not we be allowed to write what we think of Wikipedia under the same procedure ?
I say, if we request from editors on meta to sign their participation with their real name, then we'll cause dramatic drop down in collaboration.
This CPOV proposition will have to happen over my dead body :-)
Fortunately, Wikimedia is democratically governed.
Regards,
Erik
Oh, yes, thank god, it is democratically governed :-)
------
Btw, how are the new projects building going on ?
ant
Anthere-
Right management do not exist, but I think they could be very useful here.
Wrong. See $wgWhitelistEdit, $wgWhitelistRead and $wgWhitelistAccount in includes/DefaultSettings.php of the current MediaWiki code. I currently run one MediaWiki which uses a whitelist for certain pages.
But if you want to write a paper or essay on a subject related to Wikipedia, and do not want it to be edited into CPOV form, then you should have the courage and conviction to stand for it with your real name. Alternatively, put it on your user page. -Eloquence 13:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Given the number of editors who accept to edit under their real name, and given the risks associated with using our real name on the net, ***requesting*** from people to sign their comments and participation with their real name in order to have those allowed in the main space is just something bad.
You still don't get what I wrote. You are free to include your opinion in a regular CPOV article, e.g. "Some community members feel that .." You're free to comment on talk pages in any matter you want. But if you want to write an essay like
"Why Wikipedia is doomed"
.. *with no counterpoints allowed*, then you should sign it. That is completely different from your representation of my opinion, and I would appreciate it if you could stop distorting my proposal. There are two reasons for requiring this type of page to be signed: 1) reduce trolling, 2) make it clear that the article in question is not official Wikimedia policy.
We are allowed to write fabulous article under ip, why would not we be allowed to write what we think of Wikipedia under the same procedure ?
We are not allowed to write what we think of the latest Hollywood movie on Wikipedia. We are only allowed to do it as NPOV (film critic Roger Ebert said ..). The CPOV proposal *extends* this by allowing 1) community member opinions, i.e. what would be called "original research" or "idiosyncratic" on Wikipedia 2) signed personal essays. Most pages on Meta meet the CPOV requirements *already*.
I say, if we request from editors on meta to sign their participation with their real name, then we'll cause dramatic drop down in collaboration.
Again, stop misrepresenting the actual proposal.
Regards,
Erik
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org