dcabrilo at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 12:40:25 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:08 +0100, James Forrester wrote:
> Well, if people fail to read it, that's their problem. Its sole
> purpose is to inform people about changes to the channel and that
> about which it is concerned.
Oh, come on. Y'all were saying how you got community input
through /topic and this mailing list. There was NONE.
> > You mention that there were complaints about
> > this channel .. well, there are always people that complain but how relevant
> > is that.
> The complaints were not minor. #wikipedia was a stain on the
> reputation of Wikimedia. It was inevitable that it was going to be
> purged of the mess. Please don't brush the very real problems off as
> lacking relevance.
And? We are complaining about the guideline and how it was created and
how it is enforced. What are we going to do about that.
Still no excuse for not including the community into the decision making process.
My questions still remain:
1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
with questions? Or this come just because some people don't like what we
2) Whom can we ask for help? Most of the people in #wikipedia dislike
both the new rules and how they were implemented and we don't want seanw
in charge. As demonstrated in the channel and on the talk page of the
3) Who are seanw and other people who authorized them to come up with
rules? Can I make a gudeline on wikimedia and say that I'm in charge of
the feud I choose? Please :P
4) Why was there no community input? You can say all you want, but I
first heard about the issues on this mailing list from /topic, and first
saw the guideline after it was enforced.
5) Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too?
More information about the foundation-l