The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
Additionnaly, this person might have a sort of "overview" over the way the checkuser system works and may give us suggestions of suitable modifications of policies. Or recommandations of software changes.
We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care of this").
Any volunteers ?
PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting, with an OTRS file.
I would be interested in assisting in this area if there were to be two people doing the job. Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
Anthere wrote:
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
Additionnaly, this person might have a sort of "overview" over the way the checkuser system works and may give us suggestions of suitable modifications of policies. Or recommandations of software changes.
We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care of this").
Any volunteers ?
PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting, with an OTRS file.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan Carter wrote:
I would be interested in assisting in this area if there were to be two people doing the job. Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread to all wikis?
Might cc this thread to the various Wikipedia lists and the Wiki Ambassaders or other language chapters looking for partners.
Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.
Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there is or is not a problem. Three way spread with complicated opinions probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is really going on or a simple no conclusion.
regards, lazyquasar
On 6/16/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@verizon.net wrote:
Nathan Carter wrote:
I would be interested in assisting in this area if there were to be two people doing the job. Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread to all wikis?
CheckUser is available on all Wikimedia projects.
Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.
Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there is or is not a problem. Three way spread with complicated opinions probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is really going on or a simple no conclusion.
My personal recommendation is for a commission of five, one of whom should be a Board member. Without a Board member, the commission can only be advisory.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/16/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@verizon.net wrote:
Nathan Carter wrote:
I would be interested in assisting in this area if there were to be two people doing the job.
Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread to all wikis?
CheckUser is available on all Wikimedia projects.
Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.
Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there is or is not a problem. Three way spread with complicated opinions probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is really going on or a simple no conclusion.
My personal recommendation is for a commission of five, one of whom should be a Board member. Without a Board member, the commission can only be advisory.
If you have a commission (or committee) doing this sort of thing it will really be nothing but a second Arbcom. Anthere's suggestion really brings us back to having another form of mediator. The role requires a person with good people skills who can investigate a situation and make recommendations, preferably a person who is not in the habit of getting involved in disputes.. Whether there should be more than one depends on the volume of work since each such person working independently of the other(s) on different cases. Most of the discussion should be confidential and offlist to avoid any compulsion by admins to show support of each other. Each case would be judged on its own merits. The perception by a newbie that nobody will pay attention to position needs to be overcome. Admins who are too quick to find punitive solutions to problems give a totally misleading impression of the nature of a wiki.
Ec
On 6/17/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you have a commission (or committee) doing this sort of thing it wil really be nothing but a second Arbcom.
No, there's no reason to believe that's what would happen.
Part of the role suggested by this group is to formulate policy as well as to resolve individual complaints. I'm certainly not recommended that the complaint resolution be handled in the broken manner that the English ArbCom operates (that is, slowly, reactively, largely ineffectually). Rather, I view the purpose of this group as to monitor the use of CheckUser proactively as well as reactively and, when it appears appropriate, to recommend changes to the privacy and checkuser policies to the Board, as well as to provide recommendations to either the Board or to individual member projects as to how to resolve particular conflicts. In any case, it should be viewed as a delegation of the Board's authority and should be treated as a Foundation function.
Kelly
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread to all wikis?
It is used on all wikis. I know it has been used on Wikinews quite a bit lately.
Might cc this thread to the various Wikipedia lists and the Wiki Ambassaders or other language chapters looking for partners.
Great idea.
Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.
Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there is or is not a problem. Three way spread with complicated opinions probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is really going on or a simple no conclusion.
regards, lazyquasar
Generally the idea of an ombudsperson is to work independently, that way things can be resolved quickly, although having a group of people may work if the issue is still in dispute. Cheers, Nathan
Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com writes:
...
We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care of this").
Any volunteers ?
Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help, but in the second, I may run out of time.
And .. global checkuser oversight needs trust on a pretty high level. Are you sure it would not be better to "appoint" a couple of stewards?
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com writes:
...
We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care of this").
Any volunteers ?
Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help, but in the second, I may run out of time.
oh, goodness. A few cases a month at best ! (well, at least for now).
And .. global checkuser oversight needs trust on a pretty high level. Are you sure it would not be better to "appoint" a couple of stewards?
Technically, the person would need to be given checkuser access on all projects/language to have access to logs.
I would consider a requirement that the person gives his/her real name (at the minimum to the board, publicly would be much better).
I think people can candidate, and the board could appoint. Editors are naturally invited to mention their support or oppose on candidates (if one candidate looks inappropriate to you, please mention it).
Stewards are naturally invited to volunteer, but I would not necessarily limit the choice to them.
Note that this does not result in a board decision prior-hand. This comes from the fact I usually find myself doing it, and failing to do it well due in great part to a lack of time. Angela does not want to get involved in checkuser matters. Hence my tentative delegation ;-)
ant
Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com writes:
Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com writes:
...
We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care of this").
Any volunteers ?
Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help, but in the second, I may run out of time.
oh, goodness. A few cases a month at best ! (well, at least for now).
In that case, I'd be happy to help. If a formal presentation is needed, please ask. For people who have no idea who I am, I can tell that I'm admin on dawik and bureaucrat on dawiktionary. Username Wegge in both cases.
...
On 6/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
Additionnaly, this person might have a sort of "overview" over the way the checkuser system works and may give us suggestions of suitable modifications of policies. Or recommandations of software changes.
We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care of this").
Any volunteers ?
Given that we've talked about this in the past, yes, I would be willing to serve in this capacity.
Kelly
2006/6/16, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com:
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
I would be willing to do this; however, before getting into such a function, I would want to be get some more instruction/discussion/whatever you call it on what the rules are and when lines are being overstepped, so that I have the capability to make an autonomous decision in at least most of the cases; without that, I don't think anything is really won.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
More or less than complaints about abuse of admin powers?
PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting, with an OTRS file.
A general abuse-l@wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful. There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints, checkuser or no.
SJ
Samuel Klein wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
More or less than complaints about abuse of admin powers?
PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting, with an OTRS file.
A general abuse-l@wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful. There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints, checkuser or no.
SJ
I second this sentiment. There is no reason why checkuser complaints ought to be singled out as something unique and special compared to other admin abuses.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
A general abuse-l@wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful. There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints, checkuser or no.
SJ
I second this sentiment. There is no reason why checkuser complaints ought to be singled out as something unique and special compared to other admin abuses.
I disagree.
CheckUser (with Oversight now) is the only action which may be done with no possibility to revert.
If an admin blocks someone, you can unblock. If a bureaucrate wrongly sysop someone, you may remove status etc...
When once a checkuser has messed, you may not remove information from people memories.
Outing certain information may lead to a lawsuit. Blocking someone probably not.
The tool is special because it could involve the Foundation and because it is non reversible.
Ant
I'll help. I'd need some training on it, though.
Erica en.wikipedia User:Fang Aili
On 6/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
Hi,
I think there is need for a brief explanation how Checkuser's interface is like (after looking at some posts): * CheckUser ability status is granted to an account either via CheckUser rights in local projects or via global Steward status (any steward can give himself local CheckUser rights). * So checking a user works only in the project you have the right to do so. * However the CheckUser log file is globally visible to *all* CheckUser people in any project. For example I am CheckUser in Wikimedia Commons only but I can see for example all Checkuser request of en.wikipedia as well (timestamp, wiki, executing person and target person are stored).
The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be sure that one day there will not be a problem.
Well by far the most CheckUser requests are done in en.wikipedia (> 50% of all project). The total number is ~100 requests daily just in order to give non-CheckUsers an impression of the general usage. de.wikipedia has the most conservative CheckUser use of all large Wikipedia projects (most IP sock puppets are so obvious that there's no point making a CheckUser) and thus has only perfomed a few Checkuser requests. de.wikipedia even doesn't have an own CheckUser person.
So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
As the logfile is visible to all Checkusers there is already some review of each other and I was more than once talking in private communication that I personally do not feel comfortable with the regular use of Checkuser in en.wikipedia (although I admit that have zero insight in the single cases).
Don't get me wrong: For example regarding the nl.wikipedia-checkuser-abuse-thread I would say this was a perfect valid application doing a Checkuser there.
So I think there's need not to have so many policies with strict automatic application (and I think this is the main reason why en.wikipedia has so many CheckUser requests) but just some trust that an admin blocking somebody as sock puppet did the right thing (TM) and that people go ahead writing an encyclopedia and not creating a wiki-nation.
So data security is very important and it should be made clear to all ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more avoidable meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia article). IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be adressed there locally in the main line.
Arnomane
Daniel Arnold wrote:
So data security is very important and it should be made clear to all ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more avoidable meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia article). IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be adressed there locally in the main line.
Arnomane
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrented fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or practice?
I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply looking up the IP address of a user.
On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrente fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or practice?
I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply looking up the IP address of a user.
I have yet to see a bona fide case of CheckUser abuse. However, this does not mean that we should fail to be vigilant for abuses. Trust, yet verify.
Having a group of people who are positioned to advise the Board in making policy in this area is a good idea in any case.
Kelly
<light-hearted response> Indeed. Perhaps Jimmy Wales can be declared the WikiGod, and when he catches someone abusing status like CheckUser, he'll smite them. </light-hearted response>
On 6/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrente fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or practice?
I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply looking up the IP address of a user.
I have yet to see a bona fide case of CheckUser abuse. However, this does not mean that we should fail to be vigilant for abuses. Trust, yet verify.
Having a group of people who are positioned to advise the Board in making policy in this area is a good idea in any case.
Kelly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrente fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or practice?
I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply looking up the IP address of a user.
I have yet to see a bona fide case of CheckUser abuse. However, this does not mean that we should fail to be vigilant for abuses. Trust, yet verify.
Having a group of people who are positioned to advise the Board in making policy in this area is a good idea in any case.
Kelly
If the abuse hasn't happened, where is the move to create such a position in the first place? A quest for political power?
Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."
Also politics. :D
On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrente fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or practice?
I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply looking up the IP address of a user.
I have yet to see a bona fide case of CheckUser abuse. However, this does not mean that we should fail to be vigilant for abuses. Trust, yet verify.
Having a group of people who are positioned to advise the Board in making policy in this area is a good idea in any case.
Kelly
If the abuse hasn't happened, where is the move to create such a position in the first place? A quest for political power?
-- Robert Scott Horning
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/21/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."
Also politics. :D
Also Anthere trying to offload work (currently she investigates all allegations of checkuser abuse herself).
Kelly
Spanish is worldwide a big language. Would it be an idea to start a "simple Spanish" wiki: sencillo.wikipedia.org? I would be prepared to contribute to it.
Greetings,
Johan Bos (Jcb)
Simple Spanish Wikipedia is a great idea, since we have Simple English. However, I heard that Simple English is an actual, established subset of the English language. Can we say the same about Simple Spanish?
--James Hare
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Spanish is worldwide a big language. Would it be an idea to start a "simple Spanish" wiki: sencillo.wikipedia.org? I would be prepared to contribute to it.
Greetings,
Johan Bos (Jcb) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not as far as I know. I just meant articles in simple Spanish words. Readable for people who just understand for example 1500 words.
Greetings,
Johan Bos
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
Simple Spanish Wikipedia is a great idea, since we have Simple English. However, I heard that Simple English is an actual, established subset of the English language. Can we say the same about Simple Spanish?
--James Hare
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Spanish is worldwide a big language. Would it be an idea to start a "simple Spanish" wiki: sencillo.wikipedia.org? I would be prepared to contribute to it.
Greetings,
Johan Bos (Jcb) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, try bringing it up on the Incubator: http://incubator.wikimedia.org
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Not as far as I know. I just meant articles in simple Spanish words. Readable for people who just understand for example 1500 words.
Greetings,
Johan Bos
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
Simple Spanish Wikipedia is a great idea, since we have Simple English. However, I heard that Simple English is an actual, established subset of the English language. Can we say the same about Simple Spanish?
--James Hare
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Spanish is worldwide a big language. Would it be an idea to start a "simple Spanish" wiki: sencillo.wikipedia.org? I would be prepared to
contribute
to it.
Greetings,
Johan Bos (Jcb) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I started a test at incubator:
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sencillo
Everybody able to write a simplified form of Spanish is invited to write an article for the test.
I also placed a proposal at Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Proposal_for_simpl...
So we will see...
Greetings,
Johan
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
Well, try bringing it up on the Incubator: http://incubator.wikimedia.org
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Not as far as I know. I just meant articles in simple Spanish words. Readable for people who just understand for example 1500 words.
Greetings,
Johan Bos
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
Simple Spanish Wikipedia is a great idea, since we have Simple English. However, I heard that Simple English is an actual, established subset of the English language. Can we say the same about Simple Spanish?
--James Hare
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Spanish is worldwide a big language. Would it be an idea to start a "simple Spanish" wiki: sencillo.wikipedia.org? I would be prepared to
contribute
to it.
Greetings,
Johan Bos (Jcb) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And I moved it to where it's supposed to be: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Simple_Spanish_Wik...
Good luck on your project. Unfortunately, I won't be able to contribute.
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
I started a test at incubator:
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sencillo
Everybody able to write a simplified form of Spanish is invited to write an article for the test.
I also placed a proposal at Meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Proposal_for_simpl...
So we will see...
Greetings,
Johan
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
Well, try bringing it up on the Incubator:
http://incubator.wikimedia.org
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Not as far as I know. I just meant articles in simple Spanish words. Readable for people who just understand for example 1500 words.
Greetings,
Johan Bos
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
Simple Spanish Wikipedia is a great idea, since we have Simple
English.
However, I heard that Simple English is an actual, established subset of the English language. Can we say the same about Simple Spanish?
--James Hare
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Spanish is worldwide a big language. Would it be an idea to start a "simple Spanish" wiki: sencillo.wikipedia.org? I would be prepared to
contribute
to it.
Greetings,
Johan Bos (Jcb) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Not as far as I know. I just meant articles in simple Spanish words. Readable for people who just understand for example 1500 words.
English is the most widely spoken second language on the planet, the lingua franca of international communication; it's also really hard. The argument for the "simple English" editions is that with more non-native speakers than native ones, a special effort should be made to cater to those who haven't quite mastered this undoubtedly difficult tongue. While I don't agree, I do recognize the validity of that point of view.
While Spanish may have more native speakers, it doesn't enjoy the same ubiquity, and its mostly regular syntax means it doesn't pose the same difficulty to novices. You seem to acknowledge the second point yourself when you talk about "sencillo" as nothing more than a limited-vocabulary edition of the Spanish Wikipedia.
We're only just starting to recover from the damage done by the infamous Enciclopedia Libre fork, and I can't see anyone supporting any division of those efforts right now.
Austin
I agree that Spanish is not too difficult, but it will take a lot of effort to learn sufficient Spanish to be able to read a Spanish article without using a dictionary. A "sencillo" article will be readable without a dictionary for anyone with a basic knowlegde of Spanish.
Another advantage is that probable most Italian and Portugese people will be able to read "sencillo", without even knowing any Spanish.
Greetings,
Johan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Austin Hair" adhair@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Not as far as I know. I just meant articles in simple Spanish words. Readable for people who just understand for example 1500 words.
English is the most widely spoken second language on the planet, the lingua franca of international communication; it's also really hard. The argument for the "simple English" editions is that with more non-native speakers than native ones, a special effort should be made to cater to those who haven't quite mastered this undoubtedly difficult tongue. While I don't agree, I do recognize the validity of that point of view.
While Spanish may have more native speakers, it doesn't enjoy the same ubiquity, and its mostly regular syntax means it doesn't pose the same difficulty to novices. You seem to acknowledge the second point yourself when you talk about "sencillo" as nothing more than a limited-vocabulary edition of the Spanish Wikipedia.
We're only just starting to recover from the damage done by the infamous Enciclopedia Libre fork, and I can't see anyone supporting any division of those efforts right now.
Austin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Indeed.
Also, the typical reasoning to allow dead language Wikipedias like Old English and Latin is for using as learning tools. Surely Wikipedia Sencillo can function the same way?
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
I agree that Spanish is not too difficult, but it will take a lot of effort to learn sufficient Spanish to be able to read a Spanish article without using a dictionary. A "sencillo" article will be readable without a dictionary for anyone with a basic knowlegde of Spanish.
Another advantage is that probable most Italian and Portugese people will be able to read "sencillo", without even knowing any Spanish.
Greetings,
Johan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Austin Hair" adhair@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple Spanish?
On 6/21/06, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
Not as far as I know. I just meant articles in simple Spanish words. Readable for people who just understand for example 1500 words.
English is the most widely spoken second language on the planet, the lingua franca of international communication; it's also really hard. The argument for the "simple English" editions is that with more non-native speakers than native ones, a special effort should be made to cater to those who haven't quite mastered this undoubtedly difficult tongue. While I don't agree, I do recognize the validity of that point of view.
While Spanish may have more native speakers, it doesn't enjoy the same ubiquity, and its mostly regular syntax means it doesn't pose the same difficulty to novices. You seem to acknowledge the second point yourself when you talk about "sencillo" as nothing more than a limited-vocabulary edition of the Spanish Wikipedia.
We're only just starting to recover from the damage done by the infamous Enciclopedia Libre fork, and I can't see anyone supporting any division of those efforts right now.
Austin _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dejavu? This is not the first attempt to start a simple.es wikipedia. Check this link
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Denied#Simple_Span...
On 6/21/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."
Arnomane criticized
So data security is very important and it should be made clear to all ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more
avoidable
meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia article). IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be adressed there locally in the main line.
Arnomane
And Robert also questionned If the abuse hasn't happened, where is the move to create such a position in the first place? A quest for political power?
-- Robert Scott Horning
Will that create more meta work ? No. It will delegate meta work or move meta work to another person. I am currently doing the job.
Is it a quest for political power ? No. Given that *I* suggested this position, I can clarify that I am not seeking more power.
Is it a quest to be ready in case it actually happens ? It is not a quest. I sure hope abuse will *never* happen. But better to be ready when it actually happens. And better that I drop doing the job rather than doing it poorly.
Last point. I asked the board his opinion about the whole issue. Angela suggested that we could update the privacy policy, which was pretty old stuff since it did not take into account the checkuser tool ;-) A new version was still pending. It is now adopted.
ant
Also Anthere trying to offload work (currently she investigates all allegations of checkuser abuse herself).
Kelly
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 23:31 schrieb Anthere:
Will that create more meta work ?
No. It will delegate meta work or move meta work to another person. I am currently doing the job.
Yes and I was suggesting that you and everbody else just drop the job entirely and that maybe there are other solutions without the need for such a hard work.
I think that it is important for Wikimedia to think about solutions how to avoid some "meta-work".
You're all doing voluntarily an incredible hard job every day and my main concern is that you will end up with too much time consuming work which doesn't improve Wikimedia projects directly (Better content, better software, better server maintenance, better PR...).
Arnomane
On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
If the abuse hasn't happened, where is the move to create such a position in the first place? A quest for political power?
There are occasional accusations (I was once accused, for example), but as far as I know none of them has panned out. Nonetheless, we cannot blithely ignore the accusations.
Kelly
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 16:07 schrieb Robert Scott Horning:
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrented fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or practice?
I did never take the time investigating the background of any checkuser of others. I just noticed some statistics:
en.wikipedia (and some other smaller projects as well) have overproportional heavy use of CheckUser. de.wikipedia (the second largest one, which has like en.wikipedia many trolls but probably has different approaches keeping them down, which naturally also have their specific positive and negative side effects) has no checkuser trace in the logfiles (a developer can make a Checkuser directly at the servers without Checkuser logfile traces but nonetheless it were only a few in case of de.wikipedia).
I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply looking up the IP address of a user.
My concerns are as follows: A Checkuser of an IP from let us say China or Saudi Arabia can have *serious* impact if these informations come into the wrong hands although the probability of a worst case scenario is quite low.
So if en.wp makes heavy regular use of checkuser why shouldn't zh.wp and ar.wp do the same as well (and logfile data of a palestinian on he.wp is also a potentially serious matter for example)? It is a question of caution and role model function of en.wp.
So I don't suggest to en.wp stop checkuser but use it more seriously. Just block an IP or recently created vandal account unilaterally if you think it's a sock puppet without investigating deeper (hey you're admin you have to *be bold* sometimes) and only perform a checkuser afterwards in case there was a real demand from several third persons.
That way you also avoid creating a large bueraucracy on blocking of small fishes like IPs and short lived accounts and have more time for far more important matters.
Checkuser should mainly be a weapon against sock puppets of people that are involved deeper in the project (let's say several accounts of a single person that abuses them for quite some time in a sophisticated way with a mixture out of valid and POV edits).
Just my 2 cents...
Arnomane
On 6/21/06, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
en.wikipedia (and some other smaller projects as well) have overproportional heavy use of CheckUser.
I disagree. en.wikipedia receives far more traffic than any other wiki. en.wikipedia receives more edits than any other wiki. I expect it would follow that en.wikipedia receives a similarly high proportion of trolling and sockpuppetry.
You quoted "> 50%" of checkuser uses are on en.wikipedia. Looking at traffic figures (Alexa), this seems about right.
Perhaps it is more de.wikipedia using CheckUser proportionally very little rather than en.wikipedia using it proportionally very much.
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 21:50 schrieb Sam Korn:
You quoted "> 50%" of checkuser uses are on en.wikipedia. Looking at traffic figures (Alexa), this seems about right.
Perhaps it is more de.wikipedia using CheckUser proportionally very little rather than en.wikipedia using it proportionally very much.
Well I didn't suggest that en.wp did abuse Checkuser and I also think that en.wp people didn't abuse it. I am very confident that every single Checkuser can be justified afterwards.
But what I was suggesting was an alternate aproach which has it pros and cons as well. I don't think in black-white categories.
I am learning as well. The reason why de.wp does not really use Checkuser is probably a cultural phenomena which can be understood best by the way how computer technology is being percieved in Germany/Austria/Switzerland. Every new technology gets anxiously reviewed by society but later after people deliberated about the technology they use it very extensive with a clear roadmap what they want to to with it; perhapes this explains why German is so overproportionally represented online but why in contrast new ideas in the internet mainly come from the US where people just play around with cool new stuff - take these comments with a grain of salt this is just a non-scientific personal observation.
Arnomane
Sam Korn wrote:
On 6/21/06, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
en.wikipedia (and some other smaller projects as well) have overproportional heavy use of CheckUser.
I disagree. en.wikipedia receives far more traffic than any other wiki. en.wikipedia receives more edits than any other wiki. I expect it would follow that en.wikipedia receives a similarly high proportion of trolling and sockpuppetry.
You quoted "> 50%" of checkuser uses are on en.wikipedia. Looking at traffic figures (Alexa), this seems about right.
Already mentionned, but worth repeating.
According to Alexa, the french language wikipedia represent 2% of the traffic. Given that it is right now the third biggest language on Wikipedia, I can't help consider that Alexa's international data should be taken with a pinch of salt.
ant
Perhaps it is more de.wikipedia using CheckUser proportionally very little rather than en.wikipedia using it proportionally very much.
On 6/21/06, Daniel Arnold arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
So I don't suggest to en.wp stop checkuser but use it more seriously. Just block an IP or recently created vandal account unilaterally if you think it's a sock puppet without investigating deeper (hey you're admin you have to *be bold* sometimes) and only perform a checkuser afterwards in case there was a real demand from several third persons.
That way you also avoid creating a large bueraucracy on blocking of small fishes like IPs and short lived accounts and have more time for far more important matters.
I really think you should refrain from commenting on how checkuser should be used on en.wp when you clearly don't have any real information about how we currently use it or even our own policies on the matter. You're not even subscribed to the checkuser list.
Kelly
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 21:52 schrieb Kelly Martin:
I really think you should refrain from commenting on how checkuser should be used on en.wp when you clearly don't have any real information about how we currently use it or even our own policies on the matter. You're not even subscribed to the checkuser list.
I don't need to be subscribed to any list in order to make some good suggests and given the fact that I was the *only one* that gave some exact numbers I think that my comments where necessary.
Arnomane
Daniel Arnold wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 16:07 schrieb Robert Scott Horning:
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrented fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or practice?
I did never take the time investigating the background of any checkuser of others. I just noticed some statistics:
en.wikipedia (and some other smaller projects as well) have overproportional heavy use of CheckUser. de.wikipedia (the second largest one, which has like en.wikipedia many trolls but probably has different approaches keeping them down, which naturally also have their specific positive and negative side effects) has no checkuser trace in the logfiles (a developer can make a Checkuser directly at the servers without Checkuser logfile traces but nonetheless it were only a few in case of de.wikipedia).
The point I was trying to make here is that there have been enough checkuser scans and enough people with checkuser privileges that there must be, just through statistical analysis, some abuse that has taken place, or at least something that should have been investigated to see if a person with checkuser privileges has gone too far. Or if that has not happened that perhaps the whole worry is way overrated. Take for example somebody with sysop privileges and having deleted about 1000 pages from a given project. Don't tell me that 100% of those deletions are going to occur without *somebody* complaining that the admin went too far, even for the very best admin that is completely on top of policies and one of the most trusted Wikimedians. I was trying to ask if there are some specific examples here for checkuser abuse rather than some vague "it will happen in the future". Even investigations that later were proven to be legitimate uses of checkuser scans.
I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply looking up the IP address of a user.
My concerns are as follows: A Checkuser of an IP from let us say China or Saudi Arabia can have *serious* impact if these informations come into the wrong hands although the probability of a worst case scenario is quite low.
Who is this information going to be protected from? The governments of those countries, aka Chinese and Saudi governments? According to Wikimedia Foundation policy, this information can be, indeed must be, turned over to authorized government officials of any government that makes an official request for this information. The check user policy is not going to be any kind of protection in this situation. In addition, as I've pointed out earlier, both of these governments are more than capable technologically to be able to obtain the IP addresses of Wikimedia users without even having to ask for it from the Foundation. The Chinese have an entire battalion of their army that does nothing but electronic surveilance and warfare. This is a trivial task for people with that kind of training. They don't call it the Great Firewall of China for a trivial reason, as all IP traffic into and out of China is monitored.
As for the Saudis, I was offered a job with a Saudi company for $150,000/year (turned it down BTW). They certainly have the financial means to get whatever technological talent they need, especially if it is perceived as a threat to the royal family in any form, or even religious zealots within their government. If I were a Saudi citizen, I would not count on the Wikimedia checkuser policy as offering even a shred of protection. At best a speed bump to slow down the government by a few days. And a nightmare of negative publicity for the WMF if board members tried to drag their heels intentionally with an overtly political act to stop any government from obtaining this information.
So if en.wp makes heavy regular use of checkuser why shouldn't zh.wp and ar.wp do the same as well (and logfile data of a palestinian on he.wp is also a potentially serious matter for example)? It is a question of caution and role model function of en.wp.
So I don't suggest to en.wp stop checkuser but use it more seriously. Just block an IP or recently created vandal account unilaterally if you think it's a sock puppet without investigating deeper (hey you're admin you have to *be bold* sometimes) and only perform a checkuser afterwards in case there was a real demand from several third persons.
That way you also avoid creating a large bueraucracy on blocking of small fishes like IPs and short lived accounts and have more time for far more important matters.
Checkuser should mainly be a weapon against sock puppets of people that are involved deeper in the project (let's say several accounts of a single person that abuses them for quite some time in a sophisticated way with a mixture out of valid and POV edits).
Just my 2 cents...
Arnomane
I agree that sockpuppets and persistant vandals (a variation of sock puppet abuse) would be the main reasons for even using checkuser scans. While I can dream up some scenerios of abuse, what I'm asking is what actual abuse has happened based on experience. Apparently there is none at all.
It is too bad that non-Wikipedia projects can't use checkuser scans, however. That is another fight for another thread.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org