Wikipedia-l November 2002

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

84 participants
422 discussions

how to stop vandal bots
by Bridget 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

Code a means by which all edits by a certain user can be undone. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD

3 2

Re: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

TMC wrote: >My "true position" is that there are no absolute morals, and that all frames of reference are equal. You wouldn't believe that if you had ever been a victim of violent crime. You sound like a "rebelling against my rich parents" anarchist: vapid philosophy and a daytrip, cushioned by moneyed luxury. kq

2 1

Re: voting
by Daniel Mayer 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

On Monday 11 November 2002 03:48 pm, wikipedia-l-request(a)wikipedia.org wrote: > While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is = > just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists = > with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time = > ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly = > refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' = > Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who = > deleted that page. > > rgds > > Steve Callaway Then state your POV on your user page or write an essay and post it at Meta. But leave the wikipedia:namespace free from POV divisiveness. We have open POV forums. Please use the correct channels. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

4 3

Re: Wikipedians/Queer etc.
by Daniel Mayer 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

On Monday 11 November 2002 09:39 pm, wikipedia-l-request(a)wikipedia.org wrote: > ------- > Just because you are a Linux user, or happen to be gay, or a vegetarian > doesn't mean that you have the requisite knowledge to write NPOV articles > on these subjects. These pages are therefore only of peripheral interest > and should be moved to a POV-friendly forum. > ------ > > Well, if you want to look at it that way, just because you are a Canadian > or a Russian or a Scot doesn't mean you have the requisite knowledge to > write NPOV articles on that subject. So I suppose we should move the > geography ones too. > > Matt Yep - all these categories are at best only of peripheral interest and at worst highly POV and hurtful. Moving all these pages will take some time though.... -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

1 0

Tokerboy weighs in
by Tucci 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

Tokerboy :Ed Poor I originally only wanted to respond to two posts. First of all, I like the Cunctster being a prick--he's a vaccine against groupthink because no decision will ever be unanimous as long as he is here--makes me wonder if that's his goal. Many CEOs and team leaders and the like secretly designate one board/team member to disagree on every decision, because otherwise groups tend to accept the first even remotely viable option presented. With that said, he can be a cock. (a throbbing, monster one, even) :I might be an anarchist, but if I see a gang of kids :going down the :street, methodically knocking out car windshields :with baseball bats -- :I'm calling the cops. And I want them to have :handcuffs, mace and guns. :Sometimes having a police force is the lesser of two :evils. Bad vandals destroy cars, property and occasionally people, but a corrupt police force doesn't stop any of this and tears apart the community. The best solution is to have the community oversee the police force. :Now, I'm not dismissing the risk that "law and order" :can turn into :fascism. Hitler is ever on my mind. But have you ever :lived in a :gang-controlled neighborhood? I've lived in several, and it depends on the gang and the city. In Baltimore, for example, gangs are indeed dangerous and to be stayed away from. In Richmond, organized crime gangs exist, and fight with each other, but generally leave others alone. In some cities, some gangs have done more to help the local community than governmental programs. The Mafia is the same way. Anyway, we're not discussing organized crime here, but I think it's a valid analogy. My solution is below. :With no legitimate authority, mob rule develops. With :excessive :authority, dictatorship ensues. What are we to do? I know exactly what to do, and everybody who disagrees with me is clearly wrong and should go live in the desert for forty years and forty nights and ponder the depths of your wrongossity and incorrectitude. I think we should divide the controversial powers up. Currently sysop status is not difficult to achieve; that's fine and wonderful since it means more people to delete silly vandalism and ban such IPs. I propose separating this from the position of moderator. I don't know if we need/it's possible to do this through the software, but I think it would work anyway. Sysop: delete obviously vandalized articles, delete pages to make way for a move, ban anonymous IPs if necessary. If there is _any doubt_ as to whether a change should be considered vandalism, refer the matter to a moderator. Moderator: powers of sysop above, but intervenes in edit wars and disagreements if a user or sysop asks (or if the moderator simply sees one developing). The moderator tries to get the situation cooled down, and the argument resolved in one way or another. I'd say the standard for freezing an article is 1: if an actual edit war has erupted and 2: the article should be frozen at the state it was before the war, or with no text at all and a reference to the talk page. I'd also suggest allowing both sides to write an article (or a section) from their POV, and then having one or more moderators combine the two. If someone does not agree with the moderator's decision, some sort of court should be established where a user can complain about a moderator's actions, and other moderators and/or sysops can discuss the decision and whether or not it was justified. Moderators should be chosen through some sort of anonymous nomination system. Any signed-in user can nominate another user and when a person has been nominated five times (by different users), he can be made a moderator. Alternatively, perhaps a person must be a sysop for a month or two before becoming a moderator. I think regardless of the merit of what I propose above, I do believe we should have a Bill of Rights of sorts for users without any special status (i.e. not even signed in) to more effectively guarantee that abuse will not occur. 1:Users have the right to edit any page, except for specifically protected ones or articles temporarily frozen because an edit war was developing 2:Users have the right to access a forum to complain of abuse of power Those are the only two I can think of right now. I have a good bit of experience in trying to spread out too little power among too many people, which is the problem we're having now, in one of my old jobs. The reason this is occuring is because sysops have two roles: general maintenance and moderation. The power for general maintenance should be spread out, because if the basic rule that only clearcut vandalism and nonsense can be deleted is followed, this can only help the wikipedia grow. I think that in 99% of cases, a sysop ruling to delete a page/ban an IP (currently) is simply because of vandalism. It's the minority of cases where judgement, and potential abuse of power, comes into play. If 99% of the problems is one discrete type, then 99% of the enforcement power should be directed towards those problems, and the other 1% where judgement comes into play should be considered separately, because it is a separate problem. Tokerboy PS: It has been decided that we will, one way or another, upload fair use material like album covers, right? I should continue to upload such things as needed, right? I didn't mean to raise a ruckus, brouhaha or shenanigans--I was just fed up trying to describe psychedelic album covers ("There's a woman... probably... with much... bizareness around her, and a star... or maybe it's a koala bear") and I saw others uploading video covers. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

4 3

windshield police (Was: Wikipedia moderators and moral authority)
by Throbbing Monster Cock 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

> Those car windows represent work and labor on > someones part, whether the builder, or someone who > traded their labor for those car windows. To > destroy those windows is to rob someone of their > labor. Anarchists clearly frown on robbery, as it > is a form of coercion. This is not a debate on the flavors of anarchism, but an example illustrating that the gang's desire to smash windows is objectively equal to Ed's desire to leave them intact. If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers the intact windshields to be the "means of production" through which broken windshields are produced. Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use their ownership of these means of production to exert control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to take "possession" of the windshields while they put they to the use of being smashed. You can label the thought processes of the gang whatever you like, I really don't care. Call them "anarcho-capitalists" or call them "crypto-facists". The point is that without some moral absolutes, Ed and the gang are on equal moral ground. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

3 3

Wikipedians/Queer etc.
by Matt M. 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

------- Just because you are a Linux user, or happen to be gay, or a vegetarian doesn't mean that you have the requisite knowledge to write NPOV articles on these subjects. These pages are therefore only of peripheral interest and should be moved to a POV-friendly forum. ------ Well, if you want to look at it that way, just because you are a Canadian or a Russian or a Scot doesn't mean you have the requisite knowledge to write NPOV articles on that subject. So I suppose we should move the geography ones too. Matt

1 0

RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia moderators and moral authority (wasRe: Repost: clear guidelines and the power to enforce)
by Poor, Edmund W 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

I don't understand your "functionality" vs. "authority" distinction. I maintain that Wikipedia has *de facto* five levels of AUTHORITY. Now, the users on each level may have different roles and responsibilities; they may carry out different functions. But I maintain that each category of users has power over all the users in the lower categories. Jimbo can pull the plug on the machine, arbitrarily fire any developer, block any user, etc. The developers can erase a user account, grant or revoke sysop rights. Sysops can block unsigned users. That is a hierarchy of power, like it or not. By the way, I never said I favored such a hierarchy. I am just describing the status quo. There are five levels of POWER in our community. If we agree that such is the case, then let's start discussing what responsibilities they should have: if you will, what their "functions" should be. There's always some improvement to be made, right? Ed Poor

4 3

Enough for now
by Larry Sanger 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

Well, folks, I've had enough for now. I can't continue these conversations, because they are taking far too much of my time; I couldn't do them justice if I wanted to. You also won't see me much anytime soon on Wikipedia itself. I really do apologize to those (few, no doubt) who thought I was a positive influence recently. I wish I had the time, energy, and patience to continue, and I hope you'll keep fighting the good fight. I will continue to work on Sifter-l, though. Larry -- "We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell

1 0

RE: [Wikipedia-l] Fucking Asshole
by Poor, Edmund W 12 Nov '02

12 Nov '02

Well, duh! If I wanted to hide it, I would have used a fake e-mail address. But I'm not that sneaky. Besides, just imagine the coincidence of ME asking about a "hypothetical case" of a rant appear on the same day and hour as that rant actually appears, word for word the same? The point is: what do we do about "obscene" usernames? Is Throbbing Monster Cock okay, just because you see an image of a chicken towering over the skyline and thus "get" the joke? (Not talking about the user himself; he's a good chap; just his nick.) If we have a standard on not showing the goat man's naked butt, then we have a standard. All I'm saying is: let's refine and enshrine our standards. Ed "F.A." Poor

3 2

← Newer
1
...
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
...
43
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l November 2002