[Foundation-l] #wikipedia changes
matthew.britton at btinternet.com
Sat Jun 16 22:05:56 UTC 2007
Sean Whitton wrote:
> I'm glad you've brought this up so clearly because, from my position,
> it isn't as obvious. I can see exactly what you mean about the issue
> with continuity between us. On one hand, I would simply say that this
> kind of thing will iron itself out with time, and that wounds will
> heal etc. However, on the other hand, users like yourself have no idea
> which rules to follow, and so things start to go downhill again.
> So, I'll try to give the position that we were aiming at in e-mail
> discussions here. I think Mark and I were trying to present it fairly,
> and I think that the reason it was confusing was because we were going
> for something /comparatively/ stricter as compared with what we had
> before, but guidelines in the sense of we are not going to stick to
> the letter and that a lot of it falls down to common sense.
> The position is that we are requesting that the channel remains
> reasonably on-topic, has a clean/presentable public face, and that if
> this is not being achieved users will be willing to listen to the
> operators to perhaps change things.
> The guidelines/rules/whatever are not the key thing: being a catalyst it.
> If this is horribly unclear, please let me know!
No, that sounds absolutely fine. But you've stayed pretty vague there.
What I want to know is, if I enter #wikipedia and say "hi" to someone,
or ask a question about a page that incidentally happens to be on the
English Wikipedia, will the response be "you're not allowed to talk
about that in here. It's policy now. You must talk about that in
#nameofchannel"? Or can I expect a helpful answer?
More importantly, is there actually anything left which *can* be talked
about in that channel? And how on earth is discussion of a particular
Wikipedia not "on-topic" in a channel called "#wikipedia"?
More information about the foundation-l