[WikiEN-l] How wikipedia could link into File Protection.

[Jay Litwyn]

The way I look at it, there already is one in group, and one out. Admins can 
theoretically read and write anything. Other users can block creations with 
{{db-nonsense}}, and only admins can over-ride the decision. Keep in mind 
that BLP is a specific issue, and one that Wales said we should moderate. 
So, perhaps admins should be told that moderation should never be done in 
haste. For the vast majority of articles, comments about current events in 
politics on [[coliseum]] would be normal. For high-traffic articles in sex, 
such comments would be downright mind-numbing. In BLP, though, an admin 
raises a "Flags" tab on the page and enables write access for group, then 
disables it for EveryOneElse -- at the first edit war (or anything like it). 
That is how it is with semi-protected, already -- no IP#s. My proposal would 
hav more groups created. There could be a bot-approved application process 
to be a group member in quiz form -- you can't get in until you get 100%. If 
you do not know, then you ask somebody who does, because it's a pass or fail 
test with no score. The objective is to reduce actions like blocks, which is 
about the fourth group that already exists in [[category:blocked users that 
are not dicks]].

My rule for sporadic moderation on USENET is only "If it sells something and 
it does not relate to the group, then ask (probably abuse at groups.google.com) 
for it to be deleted". I gather that it is more complicated, here.
________
Clarke's Third Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

"FT2" <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e71d9fab0907220539v256537e7we70cf4ff7570f43e at mail.gmail.com...
> The idea of restricting asrticle writing to a small group ("experienced
> article writers" "admins" "veterans" "blp specialists endorsed by the
> community") has been raised before. In principle if the group is made 
> large
> enough to not be owned by some small clique and with a suitable policy
> guiding how it works and its responsiveness, it's viable without 
> undermining
> NPOV and openness.
>
> The crunch point is "open to editing by all", and a large number of users
> take that aspect seriously and literally. Philosophically once "open to 
> all"
> is drawn back, the same logic applies to any type of article where a 
> person
> or group might be unhappy with editing, and there's also a risk that 
> groups
> once created tend to gravitate to their own internally developed norms or 
> to
> become slightly separated.
>
> Open editing is a major safeguard against Wikipedia being able to be
> monopolized by some special interest group, or affected by censorship of
> some minority or externally imposed stance. Add a means to limit article
> control to some group, and there's always a risk it can be used in future 
> in
> other ways.....
>
> Not agreeing or disagreeing, more just outlining the perceived pros cons 
> and
> issues.
>
> FT2
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Jay Litwyn 
> <brewhaha at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>> wrote:
>
>> Subject-Was: Re: A new solution for the BLP dilemma
>>
>> "Nothing new is under the sun", are among the most humbling of a 
>> preacher's
>> words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you uploaded to your
>> website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then clicked 
>> on
>> "properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags, all within 
>> your
>> control:
>>          R  W  P
>>          e  r  e
>>          a  i  r
>>          d  t  m
>>             e  i
>>                t
>> Owner:    X  X  O
>> Group:    O  O  O
>> Everyone: X  O  O
>>
>> Those would be appropriate settings for your user page, which is the only
>> one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all 
>> pages
>> in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply 
>> with
>> one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin 
>> would
>> permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a 
>> volunteer
>> could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the 
>> author
>> of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of 
>> that.
>>
>> group permission is a special feature of protected file systems. Windows
>> does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect 
>> shared
>> objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav
>> groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made
>> applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop 
>> would
>> let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member of
>> the required group.
>>
>> In a series of occurances, here is how a biography might become 
>> authorized
>> and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the biography.
>> Someone write's a biography about someone else on their user page.
>> They let it out among their collaborators.
>> Two of those collaborators want to fix it, so the starter permits 
>> everyone
>> to write to it.
>> An edit war breaks out, so the sysop (sysops always hav power to permit, 
>> as
>> well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all 
>> permission,
>> except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to that group 
>> and
>> solicits their attention to an article in progress.
>> No blocks are issued.
>> No significant flaws are in the wording or the evidence.
>> The page is permitted for reading by all and writing by none.
>> Occasionally, on the talk page, someone raises {{editprotected}}.
>> The questions typically get an answer that could hav been found by 
>> reading
>> three months of history.
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>