Hello. Im a long time reader first time writer. I think this list is kinda
boring and has way to high volume. Im not interested in moderator
nomiations and meta discussions about flaming and who is a flamer. Im
arrogant sorry. :-) So my suggestion is why not creature more mailing
lists? I for one would love a list about important happenings in the
wikipedia project and separate lists for differenct subjects it would be
really cool.
//Björn
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:55, The Cunctator wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 17:45, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 14:36, The Cunctator wrote:
> > > At least 90% of our problems would be solved, without adding hierarchies
> > > and censorship, if we just moved to a bulletin board system.
> >
> > What are the problems that this would solve, and how would it solve
> > them?
> >
> It would solve the basic scaling problems
> * the problem of flooded inboxes
Present solution: Filter your mailbox; put lists in their own folders.
(But not everyone has a mailreader that does filtering, or knows how to
set it up if they do.)
> * the problem of lack of threading
Present solution: Use a threaded mailreader.
(But not everyone has a mailreader that does threading, or knows has to
turn it on if they do.)
> * the problem of ephemerality of content (by making it easy to refer to
> earlier threads)
Present solution: Hyperlink to the archives on the web; most mailreaders
these days will let you click on a URL.
(But it's harder to reply to the original post; it's hard to search the
archives; URLs are long.)
> These scaling problems underlie the current tensions causing the
> upswells of conflict on the lists.
>
> If the bbs were integrated with the Wikipedia system (that is, it
> recognized users and/or allowed people to make wiki links) it would
> solve
> * the problem of obscurity and
Not sure what you mean here -- perhaps easier ability to link from
Wikipedia pages to particular threads in the bbs? How so?
> * the problem of not being able to link directly to [[Wikipedia]]
Now, that _would_ be nice.
> * the problem of not being able to coordinate Talk page discussion with
> list-based discussions
I'm not sure how the bbs helps here. It's trivial to include a URL to a
talk page in a list message, and URLs to bbs threads are about as
obscure as URLs to the mailing list archive.
A web board is also inimical to offline reading (as is the 'pedia, at
present) and doesn't integrate well with people who have an organized
way to deal with massive amounts of e-mail. Possible solution:
smtp<->bbs or nntp<->bbs gateway.
There's some potential here though; feel free to set up a page on meta
with some specific proposals.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
If I were a Moderator, I would give Jonathan a "day off" from the list. You have been very patient and cooperative, though, Robert.
Ed Poor
--not a moderator, just an admin for wikiEN-l
Jonathan Walther <krooger(a)debian.org> wrote:>
Jimmy, I caught RK pulling 'facts' out of his ass, and provided a link
>to it. Bias is one thing, but outright fabrication should be taken
>seriously. Do you take it seriously? Do we as an encyclopedia take it
>seriously? I personally take it very seriously.
This is outright libel. Jonathan is not only lying, he has a public history
of flaming both me and other Wikipedia contributors with virulently
anti-Semitic statements.
He has created some rather hateful lies about how Wikipedia is turning into
"Zionipedia" (itself a blatantly racist statement); he has some clinically
paranoid delusions about how "Zionists" are warping "Zionipedia". The facts,
however, show no such thing. If people take the time to read the Talk pages
that Jonathan is contributing to, they will see that I also make a good
faith effort to work with others to create NPOV articles - for instance, see
my recent contributions to the Book of Revelations article and the Book of
Mormon article. In contrast, note that virtually everyone is opposed to his
virulently hateful attacks, and his distastfeful apologetics for
anti-Semitism within Wikipedia articles.
I have stayed silent on this issue long enough. Time and time again he is
slandering me on this forum, and it has reached the point of libel. Stop it.
And stop it now. If people on Wikipedia cannot act like civilized human
beings, then leave. But don't use this forum for repeated libel.
Robert (RK)
> The moderator doesn't have to approve every posting. Just watch the
> list, toot the lifeguard whistle from time to time when swimmers go
> too far from shore or bother others, correspond privately with problem
> posters, have the power to check mail from a problem poster and use it
> wisely, including permanently sending their mail to the bit bucket if
> necessary.
>
> Tom P.
> O88
That's exactly what the mailing list software is set up to do.
I just took a look at the administrative website, and I'm prepared at the drop of a hat to implement a Moderation Policy. All I need is a list of who's on the Moderator Team.
I suggest we bat it around for a few more days, though. No sense in making a quick decision.
Ed Poor
Brion Wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 12:47, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
>[..]
>> Brion Vibber
>> * for: Erik, Ed, Larry
>
>I'll pass -- as it is, my Wikipedia time is mostly taken up maintaining
>the software and I don't have time to contribute content.
I read the list backwards--I see now. Erik, Ed, and Larry voted for
Brion, not the other way around. Apologies, Ed; I've misunderstood
your post.
Hangdog,
kq
Ed Wrote:
>Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
<snip>
>KQ
>* for: Toby, Larry, Ed
Ed, I did *not* tell you this, and I'm curious how you came to that
conclusion. I have not discussed moderation with anyone.
kq
As far as I know, the mailing list software is already set up to support moderation, either by a single individual or a team -- exactly as previously discussed.
The only issues are:
* should wikiEN-l or wikipedia-l (or both) be moderated
* who ought to be moderator(s)
* what should the rules of participation be
I bet the first rule we'd all like to have is that a Moderator should not use "moderation" to as a weapon in debate (!) -- just as a sysop should not.
Ed Poor
(just a list administrator -- not a moderator)