[Foundation-l] SUL pilot and renaming issues

[Robert Rohde]

The discussion you think is finished resulted in a policy on Meta that
defers to local communities and at least one community that adopted a
standard of zero edits.

I would say that is prima facie evidence that the discussion was not
finished the way you think.

-Robert Rohde

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>