[WikiEN-l] Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia.

[Florence Devouard]

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 27/10/2007, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Oldak Quill wrote:
>>> On 27/10/2007, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27/10/2007, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>> After a one month period, on December 9th, we will re-evaluate this
>>>>>> decision using previously established methods [...]
>>>>> Who is "we"? The Gregory Maxwell committee? Obviously it wasn't a Board
>>>>> decision, if Florence knows nothing about it. And if it was an executive
>>>>> decision, why isn't it being announced by Sue, or one of the staff?
>>>> This "experiment" needed to be concluded by someone and it seems that
>>>> the board haven't taken any steps in this direction. Two options when
>>>> it comes to concluding this experiment are declaring it a success and
>>>> making it permanent or declaring it failure and ending the ban. Since
>>>> the motivation for the trial was PR and since the ban has probably
>>>> done more net harm than good, I welcome Gregory Maxwell's initiative.
>>> P.S. Just as a point of discussion: the Foundation was created to make
>>> certain processes easier and to centralise fundraising, &c. Why is a
>>> non-Foundation decision or initiative somehow less valid than one led
>>> by the Foundation?
>>>
>>> Yes, the Foundation holds the purse strings (and does a very important
>>> job), but the Foundation has been given too much primacy and authority
>>> on Wikimedia issues. The Foundation also has a tendency to consolidate
>>> power and remove community-based decision making processes (e.g. the
>>> lack of consultation in the latest fundraising drive).
>>>
>> {{cite your sources}} :-)
>>
>> Honestly Oldak, this seems to me to be largely a string of statements
>> which are seriously lacking backing up.
>> I suppose we may have done sometimes what you are blaming us for.
> 
> The Foundation has made questionable encroaches in the past (e.g.
> influencing the content of Image:Missionary Sex Position.png at
> en.wiki). I'm not suggesting that the Foundation routinely does this
> or that when the Foundation does this it is particularly terrible.

No. The Foundation has not taken ANY position on the image you are 
talking about.
You would have proving that we regularly do that, because we simply do not.
I have no memory we ever voted on any resolution related to this image, 
nor on sex-related issues on Wikipedia, nor even actually on content itself.

I think what might have happened is that Jimbo might have made a 
comment, or might have taken a position on this matter. And you 
concluded that this was the Foundation position.

As far as I am concerned, I am not informed that we took a decision here.



>> But look, here, you are accusing us of having removed power from you on
>> fundraising issue. I would agree that you were perhaps less consulted
>> than you would have wished to be, but how can you talk about removing
>> power from you when several of the main concerns voiced by the english
>> community over the fundraising drive have been precisely acknowledged
>> and that modifications have been implemented in the following few hours ?
>> It seems to me that there might be an unsufficient "consultation", but I
>> see not where the lack of authority and power really was. If what you
>> are suggested is that you should have the power to decide when we need
>> to do a fundraising, indeed, I would disagree with you.
>> I do consider that a significant authority of the Foundation over
>> fundraising issues is mandatory, because ultimately, in case the
>> Foundation gets in financial troubles, the board will be the one
>> responsible in front of the law, not a vague, amorphous and often
>> anonymous community. We strive to listen as much as possible, but
>> ultimately, once there is responsability over something, there must be
>> authority somehow.
> 
> Was hardcoding the banner necessary?

Yes.
Last fundraiser was absolutely horrible to handle, because we run nearly 
10 projects and some projects exist in over 200 languages. And we had to 
go set up and edit every site notice, one after the other. It was a 
nightmare. Not all site notices were saying the same things. Some sites 
had no site notice at all. And there were several days of difference 
depending on sites when we finished the fundraising.
We have come to a time when it becomes necessary to centralize certain 
things if we want them to simply work.
So, it is hardcoded, which did not prevent you to give opinions and that 
the most clear and vocal suggestions were taken into account.

By the way, some people are working on alternative site notice mocks up 
here:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jp-sitenotice-mockup.png
Have a look.

>> You also mention that the Foundation has been given too much primacy and
>> authority on Wikimedia issues. I would be happy to hear more about his
>> and understand what your concerns are.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ant
>>
>> PS: note that the Foundation has never imposed that the creation of
>> pages by anonymous be prevented, or on the contrary be allowed. That's
>> not a Foundation issue, that's a community issue. It is YOUR
>> responsability to make that decision. However, we are free to have an
>> opinion on the topic, just as you are free to have an opinion as well.
> 
> Wasn't anon page creation turned off by Jimmy
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village%20pump%20%28technical%29&oldid=31723963#Anon_page_creation_restriction)?
> If so, wasn't that a Foundation action (if Jimmy was just acting on
> his own, where is this stated?)?

Jimmy was acting on his own. The board was not involved in that decision.
Where is this stated ?
Well, I believe that the normal way of doing things are that a person 
acting on his own states when he does so, not that the board states that 
an action done by an individual was not a board decision.

We now have a rather well defined decision making system.
You may find all the actions collectively agreed by the board here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

(/me notes that Erik did not report latest resolutions on this page, 
will remind him to do so).

Any other moves is likely to be "personal action" unless stated otherwise.

For example, you will find no resolutions here, related to english 
wikipedia arbitration committee. And you probably know that Jimbo is 
approving membership of this committee. Conclusion: this is not a 
Foudation activity, this is a Jimbo activity.


> The Foundation is generally very good, but I'd just like some formal
> restrictions in place (and more accountability to the community).

I am fine with the set up of more formal restrictions, but I think these 
ones should not come from the Foundation, but from the community :-)
So, I am listening to which restrictions you suggest.


As for more accountability, I am also listening to your suggestions. I 
have tried as much as possible to be "accountable" to the community, but 
I guess I have no more ideas of what is still missing now (or I may have 
some ideas, but these are practically not possible to implement right 
now). So, any further suggestion is welcome.

An example of one thing I would love: I would love to be sure that ANY 
member of the community is informed at least one month in advance that a 
fundraiser is planned and will start mid-october.
However, there is just so much we can do to announce that. We can send 
email to a list, but should we send an email to the perhaps 300 lists 
used by the community ? We can post on each pump, but there are about 
500 pumps right now. Etc...
There is NO technical way we can make sure we reach absolutely everyone 
in the community (except through a hardcoded sitenotice perhaps :-)). We 
need to rely on "relays", community member who choose to help to relay 
the information. But if relays do not relay, then so what ?

Ant