Ed begged: :-)
Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
...
Help me out, here, man.
Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.
kq
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Ed begged: :-)
Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
...
Help me out, here, man.
Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.
A more formalish proposal:
Banning should mean the suspension of all write access to the wikipedia with the exception of the users own "User:" space page.
A first time ban for any purpose should be lifted if the user apologises (either on their own "User:" page, on the mailing list, or on the "Talk:" page of the relevant article) and agrees not to repeat the offence.
----------------------------------- ===Vandalism===
Repeated vandalism is a 6-month bannable offence.
Vandalism defined as:
Deleting significant parts of an article without reasonable cause Inserting unnecessary profanity into an article. Inserting nonsensical text into an article. Purposefully changing an article in order to mislead readers. Modifying the comments of other users in Talk: or Wikipedia: namespace.
A single purposeful vandalism from an anonymous user is a 1-week ban.
A single vandalism from a logged in user results in a 24-hour ban, not to be enforced until at least 1 hour after the change to allow the user to apologises or removes their vandalism.
A minor vandalism of an otherwise empty page should only result at most in a 24-hour ban.
===Copyright===
Repeated copyright violation is a 6-month bannable offence.
A single copyright violation by an anonymous user should result in a 48-hour banning.
A single copyright violation from a logged in user should result in a 48 hour ban, not to be enforced until at least 24 hours after the users talk page has been updated to inform the user about the copyright violation, to allow the user to apologises or remove the copyright material.
===Libellous material===
Any libellous material (including accusing someone of being racist, fascist, or similar without evidence) should result in an immediate ban until the user either provides evidence or retracts the statement and apologises.
===Non-NPOV or factual dubious material===
If after non-NPOV or factually dubious material have been removed the original user repeatedly reinstates it without explanation it should results in a two week ban from the main wikipedia namespace, but not the talk space.
If a user repeatedly adds substantially biased text into a number of different articles after being warned then the user should again be banned from the wikipedia namespace but not that of talk. -----------------------------------
Imran
A while back we agreed that most chronological lists should go forward, from past to present reading down. (prizes, incumbents, lists of works, and chronologies themselves)
since there are many list pages that go the other way, and reversing by hand is tedious, I've put up a perl script:
* http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/cgi-bin/reverser.cgi
I'll link it to it from the manual of style when I get round to updating it to mention lists.
tarquin wrote:
A while back we agreed that most chronological lists should go forward, from past to present reading down. (prizes, incumbents, lists of works, and chronologies themselves)
since there are many list pages that go the other way, and reversing by hand is tedious, I've put up a perl script:
I'll link it to it from the manual of style when I get round to updating it to mention lists.
After doing a few of the Academyh Awards by hand, I became familiar with the tedium. Now I cut and paste to an Excel spreatsheet, resort there, and copy back to the article.
Eclecticology
On 10/25/02 12:01 PM, "Imran Ghory" imran@bits.bris.ac.uk wrote:
A more formalish proposal:
Banning should mean the suspension of all write access to the wikipedia with the exception of the users own "User:" space page.
A first time ban for any purpose should be lifted if the user apologises (either on their own "User:" page, on the mailing list, or on the "Talk:" page of the relevant article) and agrees not to repeat the offence.
<snip proposal>
Imran's proposal, while clearly well-intentioned, would hurt the project.
As STG wrote,
"I fight to keep things open, not to tolerate anti-social behaviour, but to keep Wikipedia from becoming the online equivalent of a police state. I believe that soft security is the best way to run a wiki community, and that too much hard security will eventaully kill us.
If we lock down Wikipedia too tighly, we'll lose *most* of our great contributors."
What about people who are deleting other people's comments on their Talk pages? Zoe koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:Ed begged: :-)
Wikipedia is the world's largest wiki, isn't it? When it's 10 times or 100 times the size, with 1,000 to 3,000 logged-in, daily contributors -- how will we manage then? My plea is for some way beyond the personal judgment of an elite, to maintain order, lest a self-perpetuating cabal develop that freezes out the very type of capable and devoted contributor it formed to protect.
...
Help me out, here, man.
Well--what's so bad about setting up a page outlining an expected code of conduct? Really that's what we've banned people based on--violation of an expected code of conduct--so let's at least outline what we expect. It's just not fair to ban people based on rules that aren't explicitly and undeniably clear.
I propose e.g. 1) no name-calling; save it for Jerry Springer. 2) don't change other peoples' comments. 3) don't question whether other people are actually people.
kq
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org