Wikipedia-l April 2004

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

67 participants
101 discussions

Meta deletions
by Anthere 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

I also like the guy, and think he has room in the project...but I did not appreciate him deceiving people to get sysop, I did not appreciate him using policy holes to get sysop in spite of obvious opposition, and I did not appreaciate in the least that he tried to apply pressure on me to be made sysop on meta. That seriously decreased the level of friendly feeling I could have toward him. Fortunately, there was a high level initially :-) so some of it is still there :-) I am also seriously concerned by his last requests, being a sysop on wikibooks, being a steward and suggestion that any sysop on one wiki should be sysop anywhere. I also am concerned that he got all this power, not because people trusted and supported him, but essentially thanks to rules. I think a project like wikipedia should be flexible, and driven by people decisions and collective feeling. Not by rules applied blindly. When someone is made sysop, thanks to rules, against community wishes, I think the system is seriously broken and rules should be changed. There should be a way to have decisions back in the hand of people, rather than in the words of rules. Also, there is a weird situation where basically, anyone made sysop one day will stay sysop forever, except if he makes a horrible infringment (even in this case...). So, someone made sysop without trust can stay a sysop even though people do not trust him. Is that good ? Why is it a permanent status ? Should it be unrevocable ? ant --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

1 0

meta deletion
by Anthere 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

>It strikes me that the pages should be listed on VfD of >en.Wikipedia so this >little backwater that is not closely watched no longer >exists. Hum ?!? Are you suggesting that en.wikipedia is the place which will decide of deletions of pages located on meta ? >I think >creating a separate sysop list for Meta that >"controlled" it would be a way >of playing politics within Wikipedia. Are you also suggesting that meta should be managed by en:sysop ? >Perhaps there should be more integration so that >separate separate accounts >and logging in could be eliminated. Are you suggesting that a sysop on one wikipedia would be sysop on all wikipedias ? >Fred __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

4 3

admin on meta
by Anthere 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAdministrator The new proposed policy for granting admin status on meta is here. It will go live on the 17th of april if no one complains. Mind you, this is a major change of policy, since it imposes limits while before there were none. Again, this was not necessary before, but I fear we outgrew the current policy relying on trust. Next one will be the de-adminiship policy :-) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

1 0

Meta deletions
by Anthere 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Hi all :-) I proposed a new deletion policy on meta. http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk%3ARequests_for_deletion There is no big deal, it is basically what we have been doing for a long time now. It is very similar to the english policy, with a couple of slight differences however. I think there was no real need to write precisely the policy before, because we were just a little group of people taking care of that and trusting one another (though we definitly sometimes disagreed :-)). Well, the place is growing and new members make it necessary to better define the rules and strengthen the process. I regret this. Given yesterday occurences, I fear this is urgent. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

1 0

Re: meta deletion
by Michael Snow 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Anthere wrote: >>It strikes me that the pages should be listed on VfD >> >> >of >en.Wikipedia so this > > >>little backwater that is not closely watched no >> >> >longer >exists. > >Hum ?!? >Are you suggesting that en.wikipedia is the place >which will decide of deletions of pages located on >meta ? > It strikes that this is part of the problem; Perl is applying the en: procedures for deletion to meta. This is what we want to avoid. >>Perhaps there should be more integration so that >>separate separate accounts >>and logging in could be eliminated. >> >> >Are you suggesting that a sysop on one wikipedia would >be sysop on all wikipedias ? > This need not be the case. A unified login system is sorely needed - having to log in separately to each different site is a big hindrance to working on multiple projects. I believe that is a big part of what makes meta so poorly used. But integrating logins can be done without creating universal sysops, other than perhaps the new "stewards". The system should be able to provide different user abilities depending on which project you are working on. --Michael Snow

1 0

statistics
by Erik Zachte 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Anthere wrote: "I think I need to have the rough number of hits per day on wikipedia (whole project)" Page requests: Look at http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesUsagePageRequest.htm Daily 4.4 million pages are requested for all Wikipedias, 1.8 million for en: This is slightly less than in March. Visitors: Look at http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesUsageVisits.htm Daily 586,000 people visit any wikipedia. 215,000 visit en: This is slightly less than in March. Note that Webalizer may count several visits per day by one person as several unique visitors if the time between those vists is several hours, so a (very) small correction downwards is needed. Figures may be influenced by current server setup (squids, etc), maybe visitors are counted once per squid, or something like that, I don't know. --- By the way: this allows me to say that the bottom line on both pages contains nonsensical percentual forecasts, I already spotted this before, so fix has been submitted. Erik

2 1

LanguageSw.php
by Marcos Cramer 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Some time ago, I put the file LanguageSw.php, containing the most important translations for the Swahili interface, onto http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software. How do I now make sure it gets installed, so that it will be used on sw.wikipedia.org? Marcos Cramer

1 0

Parasitic behaviour. We loose more than money by it.
by Erik Zachte 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

Mathias wrote: "One of the most important factors in the PageRank formula is freshness. If I copy a page from the source web site which is already in the google index, I have a certain chance to get ahead of if - for some time. After a while, the ratio of age will balance and other factors (the global pagerank of a site, and it's update frequency) will catch up." Comparison of PhatNav's Rembrandt page with our edit history reveals they used a dump from between 19 Jun 2003 and 14 Sep 2003. The Wikipedia article has been edited 30 times since then. Erik Zachte

1 0

Sysop
by Anthere 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

I suggested a change of policy on meta, about the way adminship was granted. Please comment. http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAdministrator __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

1 0

backlinks
by Kai Kumpf 12 Apr '04

12 Apr '04

Dear all it is now more than two years that I first started to get involved in Wikipedia. I have followed the explosion of interlinked free information with some incredulity and deep fascination (not to mention heavy active contributing). Still there is something about the appearance which I'm missing sadly: I find that most wikis support backlinks via a hyperlinked heading title. Is Wikipedia trying to appear more distinguished by hiding backlinks in a shyly hidden menu item variously called "what links here", "Links auf diese Seite ", etc. that only the few people familiar with collaborative workspaces will recognize as being of any use at all? From my point of view backlink functionality should be inherent in a conspicuous place in the page, most likely the title. Think of the vastly increased usefulness when people are enabled to comfortably navigate not only forwards but backwards as well. The 1:many relationship from an article to its referring articles is part of the knowledge domain partly covered by the respective article and cannot be underestimated or -rated in any way. Please consider eventually heaving backlinks towards the top! Hallo nun bin ich schon seit mehr als zwei Jahren aktiver Teilnehmer an der Wikipedia und habe die Explosion vernetzter, freier Information mit einiger Ungläubigkeit, Faszination und schliesslich auch manchmal ausschweifender Editiertätigkeit verfolgt. Leider gilt es nach wie vor ein - wie ich meine - großes Manko zu beseitigen. Die allermeisten Wikis unterstützen Rückverweise (backlinks) über einen Hyperlink in der Artikelüberschrift. Versucht Wikipedia sich vom mainstream abzusetzen, indem sie backlinks in dem scheu verborgenen Menüpunkt "links auf diese Seite" versteckt? Auf diese Weise werden Leute, die keine Ahnung von Wikis haben kaum je zur Erkenntnis gelangen, welchen Stellenwert die Rückverlinkung eigentlich besitzt. Meiner Meinung nach sollte der Backlink offensichtlicher platziert werden, die Titelzeile bietet sich dazu selbstverständlich an. Backlinks steigern den Nutzen einer hyperverlinkten Enzyklopädie, da ein Wissensgebiet immer durch beide Fragerichtungen definiert wird: "Wo wird sich dafür interessiert" und " Was ist direkt dafür von Interesse". Man kann die Bedeutung dieser 1:m-Beziehung nicht hoch genug einschätzen! Folglich: Ebnet dem Backlink den Weg nach Oben! 8-) kku/kakau <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Kku>

3 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
11
Older →

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 April 2004