and should 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 find an _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

What do you propose, then? A Name Asignation Committee?

On 14/10/2007, Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote: How about we do away with usernames altogether and just give everyone numbers? Works for the Borg... _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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 ...

On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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 >

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: solution an not either edits edits login own than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count, storage, first, rather edits the themselves, activeness is

Message: 5 From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/15/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 > > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 8 > > > > > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 > > > > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)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 > > > > >

Message: 2 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:17:00 -0400 From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra(a)baylink.com> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <20071015131700.GB21934(a)cgi.jachomes.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 10:54:36PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote: Could I have 7 of 9? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)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(a)inbox.org> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <71cd4dd90710150937m133e45e0hea9828d8f7ff08cc(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 10/12/07, Rob Church <robchur(a)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. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:39:05 +0100 From: "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <a4359dff0710151039k67013bd2yb12de9ecc5e3c817(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <4713BA55.3030407(a)gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anon Sricharoenchai wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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(a)gmail.com ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:45:36 -0400 From: Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <71cd4dd90710151245s386ef599n3c4cab8b81b79797(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 10/15/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Depends on what it is you're doing. 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. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_login_poll All three options would work.