On Saturday 18 January 2003 04:00 am, elian wrote:
Hello,
I restored the test pages for the wikipedia main page (they got deleted when I moved my stuff to a new server)
It can be found now at http://djini.de/wikipedia-portal/
The PHP-version is not running correctly (the language guessing functionality did not work when I tested), but I have no time to debug at the moment.
If you send clear suggestions (like: take these colors, change the text here into the following), I will put up new pages with your modifications.
Please shorten the English text to read similar to the new English Main Page:
[[en:Wikipedia | Wikipedia]] is a [[en:multilingual coordination | multilingual project to create a complete and accurate [[en:Wikipedia:Copyrights | open content]] encyclopedia. We started on 15 January 2001 and are already working on XXXX articles spread across XX number of languages. Visit the [[en:help | help page]] and experiment in the [[en:Wikipedia:Sandbox | sandbox]] to learn how ''you can edit any article right now''.
Less is more.
BTW, everyone should vote on what to do with www.wikipedia.org over at meta.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma Payment. Have you had your Wiki today? http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_18 (added most of the events)
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday 18 January 2003 04:00 am, elian wrote: Please shorten the English text to read similar to the new English Main Page:
[[en:Wikipedia | Wikipedia]] is a [[en:multilingual coordination | multilingual project to create a complete and accurate [[en:Wikipedia:Copyrights | open content]] encyclopedia. We started on 15 January 2001 and are already working on XXXX articles spread across XX number of languages. Visit the [[en:help | help page]] and experiment in the [[en:Wikipedia:Sandbox | sandbox]] to learn how ''you can edit any article right now''.
Less is more.
BTW, everyone should vote on what to do with www.wikipedia.org over at meta.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Consensus is the way to reach decision on Wikipedia. Not voting.
C'est par le consensus que les d�cisions devraient �tre prises sur Wikip�dia. Pas par le vote.
See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision_making
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
X. Cunc wrote:
Consensus is the way to reach decision on Wikipedia. Not voting.
But if consensus (why does that word remind me of the Borg? ;-) can not be achieved after years of discussion, voting might be a way to actually get something done...
OK, let Yet Another Endless Discussion begin!
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
But if consensus (why does that word remind me of the Borg? ;-) can not be achieved after years of discussion, voting might be a way to actually get something done...
With the risk of getting overly philosophical...
Even in a parliamentary democracy, there has to be consensus about using voting as the method and how to apply it. Otherwise, the method will be useless. In open organizations (where anybody can become a member at no cost) such as the IETF and Wikipedia, voting is problematic, since it is unclear who is eligible to vote. This leaves a suspicion that the opposite party cheats by subscribing new voters, undermining the consensus about voting as a method.
Within the IETF and in some other places, consensus is often hailed as a better alternative to voting, but they are two methods that have always been intertwined. When the IETF hails "rough consensus and running code" as their successful method, I think "running code" is the more important part, since the obvious problems with voting leave "rough consensus" as the only realistic alternative.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Even in a parliamentary democracy, there has to be consensus about using voting as the method and how to apply it. Otherwise, the method will be useless. In open organizations (where anybody can become a member at no cost) such as the IETF and Wikipedia, voting is problematic, since it is unclear who is eligible to vote. This leaves a suspicion that the opposite party cheats by subscribing new voters, undermining the consensus about voting as a method.
So? I get a dozen new email adresses from freemailers, and "mailbomb" the mailing list, with each of my new @s saying "I don't agree to consensus yet", in slightly different words.
So, if one can undermine both voting and consensus, why is voting worse?
Consider this: voting is better, because if, say, 10% of the votes are bogus, a decision can still be reached. With consensus, we'll keep on discussing, until we're tired of discussion and the question to decide just drops dead to the floor. See our mailing list archives for numerous examples of this.
Magnus
So, if one can undermine both voting and consensus, why is voting worse?
One reason might be that I would automatically discount a flood of similarly worded messages from people who have never joined the discussion before. Consensus leaves me wiggle room to find ways to make adjustments, based on the rich fabric of information I get from lots of discussions.
Voting, on the other hand, is manipulable unless I have equal freedom to simply discount some votes. And that's fine, too. Except that it removes one of the big positives from the voting system, namely that it's more clearly defined and objective.
One solution that might be greeted with massive howls of protest (or might not!) would be to someday restrict voting to 'members' who have contributed at a level of say $20 per year, perhaps with some oldtimers grandfathered in for 5 years. There are pros and cons to this, obviously.
But it is a fairly common way of restricting voting privileges in nonprofit organizations.
--Jimbo
One solution that might be greeted with massive howls of protest (or might not!) would be to someday restrict voting to 'members' who have contributed at a level of say $20 per year, perhaps with some oldtimers grandfathered in for 5 years. There are pros and cons to this, obviously.
But it is a fairly common way of restricting voting privileges in nonprofit organizations.
--Jimbo
Hummmm....then...would anonymous ip... sending you $40 per year be allowed to also *vote* then ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Hummmm....then...would anonymous ip... sending you $40 per year be allowed to also *vote* then ?
I think that provisions could be made for anonymity, yes. This strikes me as useless and paranoid, but sure, why not? And not sending _me_ $40, I don't want it.
--Jimbo
On sab, 2003-01-18 at 05:55, X. Cunc wrote:
Consensus is the way to reach decision on Wikipedia. Not voting.
Yes, but if we don't know what the range of opinions is, it'll be rather difficult to say whether there's a consensus. A 'vote' is useful as a straw poll for that, no?
C'est par le consensus que les décisions devraient être prises sur Wikipédia. Pas par le vote.
Oui, mais si personne ne sais quelle et la distribution des opinions, ce serait très difficile à dire si existe un consensus. Pour ça, le 'vote' est utile, non?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
--- Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
On sab, 2003-01-18 at 05:55, X. Cunc wrote:
Consensus is the way to reach decision on
Wikipedia.
Not voting.
Yes, but if we don't know what the range of opinions is, it'll be rather difficult to say whether there's a consensus. A 'vote' is useful as a straw poll for that, no?
C'est par le consensus que les décisions
devraient
être prises sur Wikipédia. Pas par le vote.
Oui, mais si personne ne sais quelle et la distribution des opinions, ce serait très difficile � dire si existe un consensus. Pour ça, le 'vote' est utile, non?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Yeah sure. As a poll. Not as a decision. Only that is not clear to most internationals.
And...on which basis will we say there is consensus or not ?
When I enter a voting place in France, I know what is the pourcentage required for a proposition to be rejected or not. Here nobody knows, for it has never been discussed through which process the decision would be taken.
What is that way of doing, "voting" without knowing what will be done with the "votes" ???
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org