Message: 8 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there are hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a few edits and I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000 edits should have to defer to these typically inactive users.
1. Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single user login since when it is first established, the one who first register will own that username for all wikimedia sites.
2. The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active than the one with more edits. And according to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count, * since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites. * Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline storage, over and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia sites.
While some users have more edits count, * since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it first, and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over. * Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over, rather than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count. * Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than letting the real robot to do those tasks. * Some users often take part in many edit wars. * Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their edits count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase the edits count, * by submitting many edits without deliberated preview, * by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, and submit them separately, * by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by themselves, * by joining edit wars.
3. According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of activeness is to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of that username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit time
A choice has been made and as always, there will be people that will find an un-justice. There were many discussions and a choice was made. It is not good to revisit things continuously, it is good to finish things so that there is no point to it any more.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/12/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
According to the conflict resolution process, that the account with most edits is selected as a primary account for that username, this may sound reasonable for the username that is owned by the same person on all wikimedia sites.
But the problem will come when the same username on those wikimedia sites is owned by different person and they are actively in used. The active account that has registered first (seniority rule) should rather be considered the primary account. Since, I think the person who register first should own that username on the unified wikimedia sites.
Imagine, what if the wikimedia sites have been unified ever since the sites are first established long time ago (that their accounts have never been separated), the person who register first will own that username on all of the wikimedia sites. The person who come after will be unable to use the registered username, and have to choose their alternate username. This logic should also apply on current wikimedia sites, after it have been unified.
Hoi, Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a solution that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though everyone acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not have an alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It is not perfect but it is the best we have.
The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair either .. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ... Thanks, GerardM
On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 8 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there are hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a few edits
and
I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000 edits
should
have to defer to these typically inactive users.
- Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that
ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single user login since when it is first established, the one who first register will own that username for all wikimedia sites.
- The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active than
the one with more edits. And according to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count,
- since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the
articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites.
- Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline storage,
over and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia sites.
While some users have more edits count,
- since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it first,
and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
- Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over, rather
than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
- Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than
letting the real robot to do those tasks.
- Some users often take part in many edit wars.
- Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their edits count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase the edits count,
- by submitting many edits without deliberated preview,
- by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, and
submit them separately,
- by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by themselves,
- by joining edit wars.
- According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of activeness is
to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of that username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit timeA choice has been made and as always, there will be people that will
find an
un-justice. There were many discussions and a choice was made. It is not good to revisit things continuously, it is good to finish things so that there is no point to it any more.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/12/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
According to the conflict resolution process, that the account with most edits is selected as a primary account for that username, this may sound reasonable for the username that is owned by the same person on all wikimedia sites.
But the problem will come when the same username on those wikimedia sites is owned by different person and they are actively in used. The active account that has registered first (seniority rule) should rather be considered the primary account. Since, I think the person who register first should own that username on the unified wikimedia sites.
Imagine, what if the wikimedia sites have been unified ever since the sites are first established long time ago (that their accounts have never been separated), the person who register first will own that username on all of the wikimedia sites. The person who come after will be unable to use the registered username, and have to choose their alternate username. This logic should also apply on current wikimedia sites, after it have been unified.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Anon Sricharoenchai wrote:
Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single user login since when it is first established, the one who first register will own that username for all wikimedia sites.
The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active than the one with more edits. And according to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count,
- since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites.
- Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline storage, over and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia sites.
While some users have more edits count,
- since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it first, and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
- Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over, rather than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
- Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than letting the real robot to do those tasks.
- Some users often take part in many edit wars.
- Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their edits count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase the edits count,
- by submitting many edits without deliberated preview,
- by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, and submit them separately,
- by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by themselves,
- by joining edit wars.
What do you propose, then? A Name Asignation Committee?
On 14/10/2007, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
What do you propose, then? A Name Asignation Committee?
Well, personally, I think the solution is obvious; a Name Assignation Committee, or NAC, as m'honoured colleage Platonides proposes, which will award names based on First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis, where there is appropriate proof of eligibility (POE). Clearly, this all needs to be backed up by sufficient paperwork, in triplicate, so I propose the parallel creation of a Vogon-Level Bureaucratic Board, (VLBB) which will deal with the intricacies of the Foundation's proof of identity (POI) scheme.
Or we could just see what happens when we *actually* migrate things; yes, there'll be conflicts, but I'm pretty confident it's going to get ironed out.
Rob Church
On 14/10/2007, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
What do you propose, then? A Name Asignation Committee?
Well, personally, I think the solution is obvious; a Name Assignation Committee, or NAC, as m'honoured colleage Platonides proposes, which will award names based on First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis, where there is appropriate proof of eligibility (POE). Clearly, this all needs to be backed up by sufficient paperwork, in triplicate, so I propose the parallel creation of a Vogon-Level Bureaucratic Board, (VLBB) which will deal with the intricacies of the Foundation's proof of identity (POI) scheme.
Or we could just see what happens when we *actually* migrate things; yes, there'll be conflicts, but I'm pretty confident it's going to get ironed out.
How about we do away with usernames altogether and just give everyone numbers? Works for the Borg...
I call dibs on 007! :-P
On 10/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/10/2007, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
What do you propose, then? A Name Asignation Committee?
Well, personally, I think the solution is obvious; a Name Assignation Committee, or NAC, as m'honoured colleage Platonides proposes, which will award names based on First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis, where there is appropriate proof of eligibility (POE). Clearly, this all needs to be backed up by sufficient paperwork, in triplicate, so I propose the parallel creation of a Vogon-Level Bureaucratic Board, (VLBB) which will deal with the intricacies of the Foundation's proof of identity (POI) scheme.
Or we could just see what happens when we *actually* migrate things; yes, there'll be conflicts, but I'm pretty confident it's going to get ironed out.
How about we do away with usernames altogether and just give everyone numbers? Works for the Borg...
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 10/14/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
I call dibs on 007! :-P
Sorry, you are already 981967 of enwiki.
(newbie!)
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 10:54:36PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
How about we do away with usernames altogether and just give everyone numbers? Works for the Borg...
Could I have 7 of 9?
Cheers, -- jra
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a solution that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though everyone acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not have an alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It is not perfect but it is the best we have.
The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair either .. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ...
But this is at least a bridge between 2 approaches, * first come first served (FCFS), and * active edit estimation While the edits count only estimate active edit.
However, I think the view of "fair" or "not fair" shouldn't be taken here. * The FCFS is the middle ground, most neutral appraoch, which is moderately or dispassionately acceptable to everyone. * Regardless of whichever approach is used for primary account selection, however, when the unify process finish, the account system for new users, thereafter, will still go on with FCFS approach. The unfairness of FCFS is still going on, thereafter, but everyone can accept.
On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 8 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there are hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a few edits
and
I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000 edits
should
have to defer to these typically inactive users.
- Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that
ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single user login since when it is first established, the one who first register will own that username for all wikimedia sites.
- The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active than
the one with more edits. And according to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count,
- since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the
articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites.
- Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline storage,
over and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia sites.
While some users have more edits count,
- since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it first,
and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
- Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over, rather
than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
- Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than
letting the real robot to do those tasks.
- Some users often take part in many edit wars.
- Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their edits count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase the edits count,
- by submitting many edits without deliberated preview,
- by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, and
submit them separately,
- by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by themselves,
- by joining edit wars.
- According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of activeness is
to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of that username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit time
Hoi, The FCFS is as unfair as a system determined by numbers. It is grossly unfair in not recognising the efforts of people who came later but did a genuine lot of work. It is also likely to give the users of the English language Wikipedia an edge. When SUL has been implemented things will revert to the natural state of play and indeed that is FCFS but you cannot state that it is unfair at that time because nobody else will be able to claim that account.
Please accept that any system has weaknesses, that every system is unfair and that every system will have people that hate it.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a
solution
that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though everyone acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not have
an
alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It is
not
perfect but it is the best we have.
The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair
either
.. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ...
But this is at least a bridge between 2 approaches,
- first come first served (FCFS), and
- active edit estimation
While the edits count only estimate active edit.
However, I think the view of "fair" or "not fair" shouldn't be taken here.
- The FCFS is the middle ground, most neutral appraoch, which is
moderately or dispassionately acceptable to everyone.
- Regardless of whichever approach is used for primary account selection,
however, when the unify process finish, the account system for new users, thereafter, will still go on with FCFS approach. The unfairness of FCFS is still going on, thereafter, but everyone can accept.
On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 8 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there are hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a few
edits
and
I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000edits
should
have to defer to these typically inactive users.
- Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that
ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single user
login
since when it is first established, the one who first register will
own
that username for all wikimedia sites.
- The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active
than
the one with more edits. And according to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count,
- since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the
articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites.
- Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline
storage,
over and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia sites.
While some users have more edits count,
- since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it
first,
and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
- Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over,
rather
than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
- Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than
letting the real robot to do those tasks.
- Some users often take part in many edit wars.
- Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their
edits
count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase
the
edits count,
- by submitting many edits without deliberated preview,
- by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, and
submit them separately,
- by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by
themselves,
- by joining edit wars.
- According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of
activeness is
to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of that username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit time
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 10/15/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The FCFS is as unfair as a system determined by numbers. It is grossly
You said, FCFS is as unfair as the system determined by "number of edits", right?
unfair in not recognising the efforts of people who came later but did a genuine lot of work. It is also likely to give the users of the English language Wikipedia an edge. When SUL has been implemented things will revert to the natural state of play and indeed that is FCFS but you cannot state that it is unfair at that time because nobody else will be able to claim that account.
But before SUL, one can claim the account? And to be able to claim the account is related to the fairness in what way? Could you please explain me?
Please accept that any system has weaknesses, that every system is unfair and that every system will have people that hate it.
So, this is the point that the word "fair" or "unfair" should not be taken here, since every system is unfair. And let's select the most neutral system (regardless of fairness), that is, FCFS.
Also, please accept that FCFS has weakness and unfairness, and that every system is unfair, so, the "fairness" should not be taken here. Talking about fairness will never have conclusion. So, let's use the most neutral system, by not concerning fairness.
BTW: Could you please point me to the archive where I can read the discussion about this in the very past? I have tried to search wikitech-l archive, but that's not help.
Thanks you, Anon.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a
solution
that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though everyone acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not have
an
alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It is
not
perfect but it is the best we have.
The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair
either
.. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ...
But this is at least a bridge between 2 approaches,
- first come first served (FCFS), and
- active edit estimation
While the edits count only estimate active edit.
However, I think the view of "fair" or "not fair" shouldn't be taken here.
- The FCFS is the middle ground, most neutral appraoch, which is
moderately or dispassionately acceptable to everyone.
- Regardless of whichever approach is used for primary account selection,
however, when the unify process finish, the account system for new users, thereafter, will still go on with FCFS approach. The unfairness of FCFS is still going on, thereafter, but everyone can accept.
On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 8 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there are hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a few
edits
and
I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000
edits
should
have to defer to these typically inactive users.
- Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project that
ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single user
login
since when it is first established, the one who first register will
own
that username for all wikimedia sites.
- The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less active
than
the one with more edits. And according to,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count,
- since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the
articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites.
- Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline
storage,
over and over, before submitting the only final versions to wikimedia sites.
While some users have more edits count,
- since they often submit so many changes, without previewing it
first,
and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
- Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over,
rather
than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
- Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather than
letting the real robot to do those tasks.
- Some users often take part in many edit wars.
- Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their
edits
count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to increase
the
edits count,
- by submitting many edits without deliberated preview,
- by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, and
submit them separately,
- by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by
themselves,
- by joining edit wars.
- According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of
activeness is
to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of that username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit time
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hoi, When only one person claims a name for an account there is no issue. When multiple people have the same account a method has to be selected to give it to one or the other. Once SUL has been implemented, you can only choose from the names that are still available; no issue. Concluding, it is only at the moment of implementing SUL that there is an issue of fairness, after that there is no issue left.
I disagree utterly that FCSS is fair. It does not take into account the large groups of people who worked really hard and who may lose the name that they are known by to people who are not even aware any more that they have a profile.
PS My account is safe anyway so it does not affect me.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The FCFS is as unfair as a system determined by numbers. It is grossly
You said, FCFS is as unfair as the system determined by "number of edits", right?
unfair in not recognising the efforts of people who came later but did a genuine lot of work. It is also likely to give the users of the English language Wikipedia an edge. When SUL has been implemented things will
revert
to the natural state of play and indeed that is FCFS but you cannot
state
that it is unfair at that time because nobody else will be able to claim that account.
But before SUL, one can claim the account? And to be able to claim the account is related to the fairness in what way? Could you please explain me?
Please accept that any system has weaknesses, that every system is
unfair
and that every system will have people that hate it.
So, this is the point that the word "fair" or "unfair" should not be taken here, since every system is unfair. And let's select the most neutral system (regardless of fairness), that is, FCFS.
Also, please accept that FCFS has weakness and unfairness, and that every system is unfair, so, the "fairness" should not be taken here. Talking about fairness will never have conclusion. So, let's use the most neutral system, by not concerning fairness.
BTW: Could you please point me to the archive where I can read the discussion about this in the very past? I have tried to search wikitech-l archive, but that's not help.
Thanks you, Anon.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a
solution
that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though
everyone
acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not
have
an
alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It
is
not
perfect but it is the best we have.
The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair
either
.. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ...
But this is at least a bridge between 2 approaches,
- first come first served (FCFS), and
- active edit estimation
While the edits count only estimate active edit.
However, I think the view of "fair" or "not fair" shouldn't be taken
here.
- The FCFS is the middle ground, most neutral appraoch, which is
moderately or dispassionately acceptable to everyone.
- Regardless of whichever approach is used for primary account
selection,
however, when the unify process finish, the account system for new users, thereafter, will still go on with FCFS approach. The unfairness of FCFS is still going on, thereafter, but everyone can accept.
On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 8 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there
are
hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a
few
edits
and
I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000
edits
should
have to defer to these typically inactive users.
- Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project
that
ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single
user
login
since when it is first established, the one who first register
will
own
that username for all wikimedia sites.
- The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less
active
than
the one with more edits. And according to,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count,
- since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the
articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites.
- Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline
storage,
over and over, before submitting the only final versions to
wikimedia
sites.
While some users have more edits count,
- since they often submit so many changes, without previewing
it
first,
and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
- Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over,
rather
than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
- Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather
than
letting the real robot to do those tasks.
- Some users often take part in many edit wars.
- Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk
pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their
edits
count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to
increase
the
edits count,
- by submitting many edits without deliberated preview,
- by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits,
and
submit them separately,
- by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by
themselves,
- by joining edit wars.
- According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of
activeness is
to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of
that
username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit time
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Message: 5 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
Hoi, When only one person claims a name for an account there is no issue. When multiple people have the same account a method has to be selected to give it to one or the other. Once SUL has been implemented, you can only choose from the names that are still available; no issue. Concluding, it is only at the moment of implementing SUL that there is an issue of fairness, after that there is no issue left.
I disagree utterly that FCSS is fair. It does not take into account the
Yes, FCFS is unfair, and I have never said that FCFS is fair. The point is that fairness is not to be taken at all. You've just said that every system is unfair, so, why you worry about the fair/unfair issue?
large groups of people who worked really hard and who may lose the name that they are known by to people who are not even aware any more that they have a profile.
This also apply to those who lose their name by just less edits, but has contributed much work enough to be known and be recognized. But this is not to claim that FCFS is more fair than edits count; I just want to show that both is unfair, and every system is unfair (as you've just told me). Since every system is unfair, then the middle ground is to use the most neutral approach.
PS. Where can I read the discussion, that has made the decision to use "most edit" approach? I can't find it in the archive.
Thank you, Anon.
PS My account is safe anyway so it does not affect me.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The FCFS is as unfair as a system determined by numbers. It is grossly
You said, FCFS is as unfair as the system determined by "number of edits", right?
unfair in not recognising the efforts of people who came later but did a genuine lot of work. It is also likely to give the users of the English language Wikipedia an edge. When SUL has been implemented things will
revert
to the natural state of play and indeed that is FCFS but you cannot
state
that it is unfair at that time because nobody else will be able to claim that account.
But before SUL, one can claim the account? And to be able to claim the account is related to the fairness in what way? Could you please explain me?
Please accept that any system has weaknesses, that every system is
unfair
and that every system will have people that hate it.
So, this is the point that the word "fair" or "unfair" should not be taken here, since every system is unfair. And let's select the most neutral system (regardless of fairness), that is, FCFS.
Also, please accept that FCFS has weakness and unfairness, and that every system is unfair, so, the "fairness" should not be taken here. Talking about fairness will never have conclusion. So, let's use the most neutral system, by not concerning fairness.
BTW: Could you please point me to the archive where I can read the discussion about this in the very past? I have tried to search wikitech-l archive, but that's not help.
Thanks you, Anon.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login
Hoi, Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a
solution
that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though
everyone
acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not
have
an
alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It
is
not
perfect but it is the best we have.
The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair
either
.. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ...
But this is at least a bridge between 2 approaches,
- first come first served (FCFS), and
- active edit estimation
While the edits count only estimate active edit.
However, I think the view of "fair" or "not fair" shouldn't be taken
here.
- The FCFS is the middle ground, most neutral appraoch, which is
moderately or dispassionately acceptable to everyone.
- Regardless of whichever approach is used for primary account
selection,
however, when the unify process finish, the account system for new users, thereafter, will still go on with FCFS approach. The unfairness of FCFS is still going on, thereafter, but everyone can accept.
On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai anon.hui@gmail.com wrote:
> > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 > From: GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login > > Hoi, > This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there
are
> hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a
few
edits
and > I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000
edits
should > have to defer to these typically inactive users.
- Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project
that
ones have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single
user
login
since when it is first established, the one who first register
will
own
that username for all wikimedia sites.
- The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less
active
than
the one with more edits. And according to,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count,
``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project.''
What if, some users have less edits count,
- since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the
articles, over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to wikimedia sites.
- Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline
storage,
over and over, before submitting the only final versions to
wikimedia
sites.
While some users have more edits count,
- since they often submit so many changes, without previewing
it
first,
and have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over.
- Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over,
rather
than accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count.
- Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather
than
letting the real robot to do those tasks.
- Some users often take part in many edit wars.
- Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk
pages.
What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their
edits
count to take back the status of primary account. What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to
increase
the
edits count,
- by submitting many edits without deliberated preview,
- by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits,
and
submit them separately,
- by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by
themselves,
- by joining edit wars.
- According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of
activeness is
to measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of
that
username. The formula will look like this,
activeness = last edit time - first edit time
== Negotiation for consent == Would it be possible to let the conflicting users to resolve the conflict by themselves, not by the decision of the automatic system using edit-count? The renaming of username will be made on their consent.
Example,
1. user123@fr.wikipedia and user123@ja.wikipedia is owned by different person, Mr. A and Mr. B. 2. user123@fr.wikipedia and user123@ja.wikipedia will talk together to make the final agreement that who will own the user name user123, and who will be renamed. 3. If the final agreement is that Mr. A will own user123, then Mr. B will, by himself, rename all of user123 username that he currently possess.
4. If they can't find any final agreement, then user123 will never be merged forever, or until they can make the agreement in anytime later. The conflicting status will be held until they can make the agreement.
5. In the case that Mr. B is an inactive user that Mr. A can't even contact to discuss for the agreement, there will be some expire time (may be one year) that, if Mr. B not response before this expire time, user123 of Mr. B will be forced to be renamed. 5.1 There will be some mechanism to let Mr. B to leave a message that he agree for his user to be renamed or not. 5.2 If Mr. B leave the message "not agree", he must talk to Mr. A until they meet the same agreement. 5.3 If Mr. B not leave the message before the expire time, Mr. A can force renaming of Mr. B account.
== Unify by language == Apart from the above solution, I would like to purpose the less conflict solution. To merge the user accounts by language.
Example,
* user123 on fr.wikipedia.org, fr.wiktionary.org, fr.wikibooks.org, fr.wik*.org will be merged * user123 on ja.wikipedia.org, ja.wiktionary.org, ja.wikibooks.org, ja.wik*.org will be merged * user123 on fr.wikipedia.org and ja.wikipedia.org won't be merged, so that user123@fr.* and user123@ja.* will be separated.
1. This will make much less conflict than unifying all language. 1.1 Most conflicts in non-english wiki is the conflicting of user between diffenrent language. 1.2 Even on the first-come-first-serve (FCFS) basis, this still result in few conflict. While it look very unreasonable when the first registered user will suddenly gain control for wikis on all languages, it is more reansonble when FCFS is used only among the same language, since it cover not too much wiki websites.
2. Most users will not be likely to actively edit non-trivial contents in more than one or two languages. And it does not take too much energy for one person to maintain their user account/preference/watchlist in only two or three languages. 3. Most users will tend to agree to loss their username (if conflict with others) on their non-primary language that they not actively edit or contribute only trivial contents.
4. Even the new registered user (after this unify) will only get the accounts of the same username on wikis of the same language. They will not get accounts on all languages. Why let FCFS users to reserve the control on wikis of hundred languages that most of them are unlikely to edit or taking any attention? Unifying all languages is an overuse.
=== Account in wiki commons === The only problem is that, wiki commons will be merged with which language? * commons --> en.*, fr.*, ja.* ? * Let the person who own user account on commons to choose the language that will be merged with commons? * Or the person on the language with most edit-count will get username on commons? * Or let the users to negotiage for the agreement by themselves?
== Public hearing == However, until now, why not have any poll, or any public hearing, about this topic, from wikipedia community?
Message: 2 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:17:00 -0400 From: "Jay R. Ashworth" jra@baylink.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 20071015131700.GB21934@cgi.jachomes.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 10:54:36PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
How about we do away with usernames altogether and just give everyone numbers? Works for the Borg...
Could I have 7 of 9?
Cheers,
-- jra
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:37:01 -0400 From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 71cd4dd90710150937m133e45e0hea9828d8f7ff08cc@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 10/12/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
I have noticed a worrying trend where members of the community are leaping up and saying, "well, it should be done like this, not like that", which is a discussion that should have been held several years ago.
The thing is, the discussion *was* had several years ago. See the thread entitled "Single login - decision 2004" on foundation-l. And it seems that most people discussing it there, including Erik, Jimbo, Jamesday, Kate, and Daniel Mayer, said that they'd prefer not to rename any accounts.
Angela and Ant commented that they'd like for there to be a poll. AFAIK there never was such a poll.
Message: 4 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:39:05 +0100 From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: a4359dff0710151039k67013bd2yb12de9ecc5e3c817@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
The thing is, the discussion *was* had several years ago. See the thread entitled "Single login - decision 2004" on foundation-l. And it seems that most people discussing it there, including Erik, Jimbo, Jamesday, Kate, and Daniel Mayer, said that they'd prefer not to rename any accounts.
Angela and Ant commented that they'd like for there to be a poll. AFAIK there never was such a poll.
You can't do it without renaming accounts. It would be pointless. Why have a single account per person if they all have different names? It's not really even a single account, since accounts are pretty much defined by their names (yes, there is a numerical id in the database, but only developers care about it - and I don't think that id would be the same anyway).
You can only have a poll if there are multiple options. Edit counts is the only option I've seen anyone propose that stands a chance of working.
Message: 5 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:07:01 -0600 From: Daniel Cannon cannon.danielc@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: Wikimedia developers wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4713BA55.3030407@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anon Sricharoenchai wrote:
According to the conflict resolution process, that the account with most edits is selected as a primary account for that username, this may sound reasonable for the username that is owned by the same person on all wikimedia sites.
But the problem will come when the same username on those wikimedia sites is owned by different person and they are actively in used.
One point worth considering: Active users will, in the vast majority of cases, specify an e-mail address for their account. If these are two different, yet equivocally active users, even with the same username, they will most likely specify unique e-mail addresses. As such, and correct me if this has changed, the accounts will not be merged and treated as the same account, at least not without contacting both users first to find a resolution. If they have not specified an e-mail address, then either the accounts will not be merged or, if the accounts are eventually merged, the users will be more than capable of contacting Brion or another member of Wikimedia's technical staff to work out a resolution.
The active account that has registered first (seniority rule) should rather be considered the primary account. Since, I think the person who register first should own that username on the unified wikimedia sites.
This approach seems even more arbitrary than the edit-count approach. Consider that almost every Wikimedia project has a User:I They are most likely *all* different individuals. Why should the first registered User:I suddenly contain control and attribution for all of the other User:I's out there?
Naturally, the editcount approach does not present a much better solution to this problem, but since almost User:I's except for the one on enwiki have been virtually deceased, it seems appropriate for enwiki's User:I to be User:I on all projects. The conflict practically fails to exist if the other User:I's have specified e-mail addresses, as they can then be contacted to work out a resolution.
Imagine, what if the wikimedia sites have been unified ever since the sites are first established long time ago (that their accounts have never been separated), the person who register first will own that username on all of the wikimedia sites.
Idealism is a nice world to live in. Unfortunately nothing about SUL is ideal. It's taking nearly a decade worth of history on hundreds (if not now thousands) of sites, containing an uncountable number of conflicts and questions about who is who and what is what, and attempting to glue them together in to one unified Wikimedia. Regardless of what approach is taken, this is going to be messy and cause a lot of headaches. Thus, the approach that is the most likely to minimize these headaches and this mess, namely the editcount-based solution, has been chosen.
The person who come after will be unable to use the registered username, and have to choose their alternate username. This logic should also apply on current wikimedia sites, after it have been unified.
And the detriment of a quite inactive user who did not even feel the need to specify an e-mail address now having to go by a different username is ...? Naturally, accreditation issues can be quite easily resolved by developers, and no user is going to be revoked of his technical rights incorrectly nor is another user going to suddenly obtain ungranted rights on any project. As such, I fail to see what the real concern here is.
Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)
http://amidaniel.com cannon.danielc@gmail.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHE7pUFRAT5u/mSaMRAgiSAJ0QHkDBeA705+21DM5MrNjj8H1nhgCgh4qC Bs+zvBtsJb2nCxnIY/iYYug= =mWgD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message: 6 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:45:36 -0400 From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 71cd4dd90710151245s386ef599n3c4cab8b81b79797@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 10/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The thing is, the discussion *was* had several years ago. See the thread entitled "Single login - decision 2004" on foundation-l. And it seems that most people discussing it there, including Erik, Jimbo, Jamesday, Kate, and Daniel Mayer, said that they'd prefer not to rename any accounts.
Angela and Ant commented that they'd like for there to be a poll. AFAIK there never was such a poll.
You can't do it without renaming accounts.
Depends on what it is you're doing.
It would be pointless. Why have a single account per person if they all have different names?
Presumably at some point (maybe decades from now at the current rate) there are going to be shared preferences, shared watchlists, maybe even single sign on. In fact, until Single User Login was redefined to mean renaming of accounts, the whole point of it was supposed to be to prepare for these sorts of things.
You can only have a poll if there are multiple options. Edit counts is the only option I've seen anyone propose that stands a chance of working.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login_poll
All three options would work.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org