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
>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
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/
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/
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
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
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
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
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>