[Foundation-l] SUL pilot and renaming issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This discussion was finished a long time ago. We are passed the point where
objections on principle are even reasonable.

As I indicated earlier, a single project cannot and should not stand in the
way of the implementation of global policies. This was discussed ad nauseam.
Even when a local policy is "reasonable", it does not make it reasonable in
the larger scale of things. There is no reason why the attribution is to be
linked by the self chosen user name, the only thing relevant is that it is
correctly attributed to the user involved. This argument is problematic
anywaw as people can request a name change and in that case attribution
changes as well.

Indeed it can be frustrating for some and it will be frustrating to some.
This was understood from the start.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The number of edits of an account has been a consideration in that the
> one
> > with the biggest numbers can have the price. With 6000 edits a user can
> be
> > found with less edits then a user from another project. By giving
> > precedence
> > to admins of projects a new ballgame may exist. There are many people in
> > this group who are active in MANY wikis and when you combine their number
> > of
> > edits, you may find really high numbers.
> >
> > I do not think that usurpation policies should be determined by
> individual
> > projects. There are too many of them, some 700, and consequently things
> > would break down.
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
>
>
> The principle behind enwiki's policy is still reasonable though.
>
> Attribution is a fundemental legal expectation under the GFDL.  We
> attribute
> edits under our self-chosen psuedonyms.  I'm not convinced that
> involuntarily renaming accounts that have an established edit history is
> either ethical or legal.
>
> I know the SUL proposal has been to give the account to the most
> established
> user, but it's not clear to me that doing so is appropriate.  An
> unfortunate
> consequence of that is that some popular names might never be unified, but
> personally, I'm inclined to think that the only way to be fair to some
> existing users may well be to frustrate others.
>
> -Robert Rohde
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>