> Unfortunately, LDC never got around to porting the promote/demote
> feature of Phase II to Phase III, so Jimbo (possibly a developer)
> will have to promote you two. I'm sure nobody will object to your
> promotion.
I already did. Any of the developers can do it directly to the
database. I do plan to build screens for that, but I've got my head
buried in a new recent changes implementation at the moment that I
really want to get out first.
> Again I would like to restate my proposal to have an 'old hand'
> status that would allow users that have been around a while and
> are generally trusted to move pages and edit protected pages.
> Not everyone wants to have to keep up with the mailing list or
> have the burden of being seen as some type of cop just to have
> the ability to do stuff like moving pages or editing the Front
> Page. These things can't really be entrusted to totally green
> users that signed-up 5 minutes before and are totally unaware of
> our editing policies and naming conventions but I see no reason
> to deny this to longtime users.
If you want to give this out more freely (and I agree it should be),
then it will become a maintenance headache unless it's automated
somehow. Obviously "logged in as a user" is one criterion, and then
something like having edited some number of articles over some period
of time.
> Aside.... Is the name "Pedia Wiki" used anymore? Or does our
> wikiware have no name? :-(
If you think it oughta have a name, give it one!
Hi,
During the password scare a few weeks/months ago I changed my password
on my account. Somehow in the last few weeks/months the cookie on my
portable has gotten messed up and I cannot remember/hack the current
password phrase for the wikipedia site. My meta account still works
fine, apparently I never changed the password phrase there.
Would it be possible for a sys admin to assign a new pass phrase to the
main site account and email it to me or must I start a new account and
request the old to be deleted?
Thanks,
mirwin
Hi All,
I have been inactive a while. Can someone tell me whether the user
contribution page is going to return to listing contributions or is it
going to stick with the recent changes format of within last 30 days?
Was this change due to a performance issue or as a result of refactoring
the wiki software?
Personally I found the old format extremely useful in quickly browsing
to subjects that I had previously found interesting and was able to
contribute to. It was also fun/useful to be able to see a list of my
contributions without me having to build and maintain a list manually.
Easier to find skimpy entries or augment articles of interest with
additional information.
It was also useful on the occasion a few months ago when I was labeled
<b>TROLL</b>. In response to my defensive reaction to this offensive
allegation, Rgamble actually looked up a few of my contributions and
affirmed that he/she thought I was contributing more than I was damaging
and that he/she therefore did not consider me a troll.
As things stand right now on the contribution page he/she would have
been unable to respond semi-quantitatively due to an inability to easily
audit a random sampling of past contributions.
mirwin
Jan Hidders wrote at last:
>This discussion is probably coming out of everybodies noses by now, so I
>suggest we wrap it up, or continue it by e-mail.
I want to answer you, and I don't want to leave the public forum,
so I'll reply at [[User talk:Jan Hidders/HTML-free mark-up]].
See you there!
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 07:37 pm, LDC wrote:
> As comfortable as all of us are with HTML, /we/ aren't the kind of
> people we want editing articles (except maybe those on computer
> subjects).
I agree.
>We want Bridge players writing about Bridge, and cat
> breeders writing about cats, and campers writing about camping--the
> kind of people who have never even heard of HTML are the kind of
> people we want most to attract and make use of. We computer nerds
> are used to dealing with special syntaxes; it is we who should adapt
> to them, not the other way around.
Wow... LDC you just beautifully crystalized the issue. Something like the
above paragraph should be on the editing policy page.
--mav
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:18 am, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to apply for sysop status and mailed Jimbo Wales, as mentioned on
> the page concerning the topic; he referred me to the list, however. Can any
> of you sysops judge if my "application" is valid? And then also fix the
> page concerning the topic?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeroen Heijmans
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:18 am, you wrote:
> I, too, would like to apply for sysop status if I am eligible.
>
> Danny
I say Jeroen and Danny would make a great sysops. However I know Jeroen used
to use the "vote for deletion" feature of phase II Pedia Wiki a lot and at
least several of the entries submitted had to be removed from the deletion
queue as not being valid for administrative removal. But I still trust that
Jeroen will /not/ abuse the delete page sysop feature and when there is /any/
question that a page should be removed that that page be first placed on the
vote for deletion page for a day or two -- which is the general policy anyway.
Unfortunately, LDC never got around to porting the promote/demote feature of
Phase II to Phase III, so Jimbo (possibly a developer) will have to promote
you two. I'm sure nobody will object to your promotion.
Again I would like to restate my proposal to have an 'old hand' status that
would allow users that have been around a while and are generally trusted to
move pages and edit protected pages. Not everyone wants to have to keep up
with the mailing list or have the burden of being seen as some type of cop
just to have the ability to do stuff like moving pages or editing the Front
Page. These things can't really be entrusted to totally green users that
signed-up 5 minutes before and are totally unaware of our editing policies
and naming conventions but I see no reason to deny this to longtime users.
Aside.... Is the name "Pedia Wiki" used anymore? Or does our wikiware have no
name? :-(
--mav
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:18 am, you wrote:
> Hi, everybody. I thought it's about time I joined the list.
>
> Instead of just a lockout button, why not also provide admins with the
> ability to:
>
> a) Limit edits to logged-in users, or
>
> b) Limit the frequency of edits to "one edit per minute" for any
> given user or any given IP
>
> (You could adjust the time value of one minute in option B above.)
>
> --Ed Poor
This seems like a reasonable alternative and should be considered -- however
this would probably require more work than allowing mere admins the ability
to use the existing database block feature now only available to developers.
But I digress... There has been several well reasoned posts about /not/
starting an arms race with vandals. Which would mean:
1) This feature would have to be given to admins in a hush-hush mannor and
act as a "secrete weapon" to use only as a last resort (however, any script
kiddy vandal with half a brain will scan all the mailing lists to find out
security details and will quickly find out about such a "weapon" and mount
counter-measures to circumvent it)
2) Or, this feature would be announced and open to act as some type of
deterrence to a script kiddy vandal (which is also would fail due to the
above).
I oftentimes (all-the-time?) overthink things and look too far ahead. So I
leave this debate to saner minds than mine for now. Do what you think is best
for the security of Wikipedia.
Maybe all we need is daily database snapshots sent to a few different secure
locations (perhaps more often if it doesn't become a performance issue).
Heck, send me a script to automate the process and I will download a daily
snapshot -- I have bandwidth to spare.
--mav
We have a little issue on the fr.wikipedia, and I wondered whether that kind of pb already occurred to you (probably did), and what you would do about it.
Some time ago, a new user, Mulot, joined us. She started many articles all related to religion. These articles were apparently results of collaborations between her and other people she is related to. Very valuable stuff imho. However, it appears that she doesnot fit with the wiki project very well (hum, she got pretty hot with our comments and modifications, though frankly light). Today, she just blew the lid off (so to speak, would you say that ?). Put all her articles in the list �to be deleted�. And said she wanted all of them to be deleted, as well as the talk pages.
When she said she would delete all if we did not do it (tomorrow, Paris time 10:41, LOL)., Aoineko answered of course she was not the owner of the articles, so (beside the technical issue of deletion) she had no �right� upon them. She, then, threatened that the articles could �reveal� themselves copyrighted.
This afternoon, she started to delete 5 pages, her personal one, her discussion page, three discussion pages and an article. Aoineko, fortunately, reverted the vandalism.
So the questions I would ask
- what rights does she have on pages ?
I specifically think of her personal page. Is a personal page somebody�s property ? Intuitively, I would say yes, and I would say someone has the right to delete his own page as well as the talk page attached. What is the policy about that ?
What is the �policy� about discussion pages ? Is one�s content of a discussion page personal or not ?
- what can we do against a deletion campaign ? Is there a solution other than Aoineko keeping restoring pages until she gets tired ? (in case you ask, she is probably not on a fixed IP)
- what about the threat of the articles finally revealing themselves copyrighted ?
To say the least, I am very troubled
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>I, too, would like to apply for sysop status if I am eligible.
>Danny
I'm afraid I don't remember you--what's your Wiki username?
I'll try hard not to hold the AOL address against you :-)
Jan Hidders raved (I assume he meant "ranted"):
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>For example, many many many people, not just programmers, understand
>>how to make html <b>bold</b> and <i>italics</i>. Those are intuitive
>>and harmless. The original Ward Cunningham wiki solution of ' and ''
>>and ''' for different things, well, that was never very intuitive and
>>newcomers didn't know about it.
>Oh, come on! How long does it take for newcomers to grasp what '' and
>''' means? I agree that in itself there is nothing wrong with <b> and <i>
>although I personally think they are slightly less easier to read then the
>WikiWiki notation and I think it is always better to simply have one notation
>for every mark-up.
The question isn't how easy "'''" is to learn.
The question is how easy "<b>" is to learn.
The answer to that is, it's pretty darned easy;
therefore, since people will try it, it should be allowed.
If having two ways to write the same thing is bad,
then honestly "'''" should go before "<b>" does.
(Note the "if"; I think that "'''" is great -- easier to type.
In fact, it should actually be rendered as <strong>,
which is even harder to type but is almost always more correct.)
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>