Some things we should consider:
- Should we re-integrate the meta.wikipedia as a "meta:" namespace? - Should we then (or anyway;) enable each user to select the namespaces he wants to see on the Recent Changes? - Should we then turn the meta namespace on or off by default?
and
- Should we introduce some users with a "trusted" status? So some "old hands" could do some maintnance, like permanently deleting obsolete pages, without access to the really crucial functions like direct database access.
Thoughts? Comments? Bribes? ;)
Magnus
Magnus Manske wrote:
- Should we introduce some users with a "trusted" status? So some "old
hands" could do some maintnance, like permanently deleting obsolete pages, without access to the really crucial functions like direct database access.
One idea I had seems very doable and very useful.
One of the main reasons we want to delete some pages is so that underlined links go back to being questionmark links, tempting the reader to write something. (And also making the link show up on most requested, and so on.)
For that purpose, the side-effect of deletion, which is to delete the history as well, is just that: a side-effect. We don't really need it.
Since any user can delete all the text anyway, it would not hurt for them to be able to delete the page, too.... that is, IF they don't also automatically delete the history.
There can be reasons to delete the history, of course! Sometimes the history will just be so very wrong that we must delete it. Maybe it will be a copyright violation, or maybe it will be just really mean-spirited or something.
But in most cases where we want to delete pages, they're just silly, and there's not much harm done in leaving the history.
--Jimbo
But: * There's a good, extensive article in the 'pedia * Some troll deletes it (leaving the history intact) * To everyone, it seems that there is no article * Someone writes a two-line stub, not realizing that there's a much better article in the history This would not be good, right?
I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and some of the empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the database.
Magnus
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 10:48 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] meta namespace?
Magnus Manske wrote:
- Should we introduce some users with a "trusted" status? So some "old
hands" could do some maintnance, like permanently deleting
obsolete pages,
without access to the really crucial functions like direct
database access.
One idea I had seems very doable and very useful.
One of the main reasons we want to delete some pages is so that underlined links go back to being questionmark links, tempting the reader to write something. (And also making the link show up on most requested, and so on.)
For that purpose, the side-effect of deletion, which is to delete the history as well, is just that: a side-effect. We don't really need it.
Since any user can delete all the text anyway, it would not hurt for them to be able to delete the page, too.... that is, IF they don't also automatically delete the history.
There can be reasons to delete the history, of course! Sometimes the history will just be so very wrong that we must delete it. Maybe it will be a copyright violation, or maybe it will be just really mean-spirited or something.
But in most cases where we want to delete pages, they're just silly, and there's not much harm done in leaving the history.
--Jimbo [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:
But:
- There's a good, extensive article in the 'pedia
- Some troll deletes it (leaving the history intact)
- To everyone, it seems that there is no article
- Someone writes a two-line stub, not realizing that there's a much better
article in the history This would not be good, right?
The only difference between this and the current situation is what, *exactly*?
I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and some of the empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the database.
So, yes--retain the ability to permanently delete pages.
Larry
But:
- There's a good, extensive article in the 'pedia
- Some troll deletes it (leaving the history intact)
- To everyone, it seems that there is no article
- Someone writes a two-line stub, not realizing that there's a
much better
article in the history This would not be good, right?
The only difference between this and the current situation is what, *exactly*?
Currently, you see that an article exists, and if it is blank, you will probably have a look at the history. If the article is deleted, you might miss the history even though it is still stored.
I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and
some of the
empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the
database.
So, yes--retain the ability to permanently delete pages.
Sure we do. But currently, you and Jimbo are the only ones who *can* permanently delete pages. Jimbo is too busy to do that, and AFAIK, you are currently as well (job, wife,...;) That's the reason I suggested the "trusted" status, to get some work off your shoulders (and actually done, look at the "page titles to be deleted"!) without compromising security. I don't think we'll get the "cabal" discussion again about this one, as we are not reducing user rights, merely expanding them for some. And, we could still give The Cunctator trusted status - noone could complain about the cabal THEN! :)
Magnus
I was thinking about the "page titles to be deleted" list, and
some of the
empty or silly orphans. No need to accumulate that stuff in the
database.
So, yes--retain the ability to permanently delete pages.
Sure we do. But currently, you and Jimbo are the only ones who *can* permanently delete pages. Jimbo is too busy to do that, and AFAIK, you are currently as well (job, wife,...;) That's the reason I suggested the "trusted" status, to get some work off your shoulders (and actually done, look at the "page titles to be deleted"!) without compromising security. I don't think we'll get the "cabal" discussion again about this one, as we are not reducing user rights, merely expanding them for some. And, we could still give The Cunctator trusted status - noone could complain about the cabal THEN! :)
Magnus, just so you're clear, this is *exactly* what a cabal is. "Expanding rights for some" users == creating a cabal.
Giving me trusted status would have no bearing on whether such a cabal exists or the ensuing problems. That you assert it would is a deliberate misinterpretation of the point.
--TC
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
- Should we introduce some users with a "trusted" status? So some "old
hands" could do some maintnance, like permanently deleting obsolete pages, without access to the really crucial functions like direct database access.
One idea I had seems very doable and very useful.
One of the main reasons we want to delete some pages is so that underlined links go back to being questionmark links, tempting the reader to write something. (And also making the link show up on most requested, and so on.)
For that purpose, the side-effect of deletion, which is to delete the history as well, is just that: a side-effect. We don't really need it.
I totally agree, by the way! There's no reason we shouldn't do this!
Larry
Magnus Manske wrote:
Some things we should consider:
- Should we re-integrate the meta.wikipedia as a "meta:" namespace?
What's going on at the spanish wikipedia is a result of lack of comunication betwen the english wikipedia and the international projects. We need to improve communication betwen projects. There are two possible solutions:
keep a neutral place for discussion: meta.wikipedia.com
or
integrate all the international projects in the same wiki: es.wikipedia.com would become: "es:" namespace.
Joao http://www.nonio.com
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, João Mário Miranda wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Some things we should consider:
- Should we re-integrate the meta.wikipedia as a "meta:" namespace?
What's going on at the spanish wikipedia is a result of lack of comunication betwen the english wikipedia and the international projects. We need to improve communication betwen projects.
Actually, that was the whole point of intlwiki-l. It was the precise stated aim of that list, in fact, to improve communication between projects.
There are two possible solutions:
keep a neutral place for discussion: meta.wikipedia.com
This is a pretty solid argument for keeping it where it is. Hadn't thought of that.
integrate all the international projects in the same wiki: es.wikipedia.com would become: "es:" namespace.
That would be bad for people on non-English Wikipedias whose links currently do not begin with "es:" or "fr:" etc.
Larry
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Magnus Manske wrote:
Some things we should consider:
- Should we re-integrate the meta.wikipedia as a "meta:" namespace?
If we can have a separate "Recent Changes" page, sounds good to me.
- Should we then (or anyway;) enable each user to select the namespaces he
wants to see on the Recent Changes?
That would be one way to accomplish the above! Interesting!
- Should we then turn the meta namespace on or off by default?
Off; on the other hand, as soon as the majority of the people who are interested in Meta-W. turn it on, all the changes will be intruding side-by-side with other changes, which is a bad thing, I think.
- Should we introduce some users with a "trusted" status? So some "old
hands" could do some maintnance, like permanently deleting obsolete pages, without access to the really crucial functions like direct database access.
Generally, I'm opposed to this, for reasons we've rehearsed (regarding that cabal thing, y'know :-) ). Unless there really is a need for this that I'm not seeing right now.
Larry
- Should we re-integrate the meta.wikipedia as a "meta:" namespace?
If we can have a separate "Recent Changes" page, sounds good to me.
Will this mean that within any meta page, a link to another meta page will have to be written using [[meta: ...]] ? Cause this is how it works for the talk: and user: namespaces today, isn't it? Or would normal [[links]] stay within that namespace, and you would write [[unmeta: ...]] to get back to the English Wikipedia? Or how would it work?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org