Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
"Amir E. Aharoni" wrote: > [...] > Most importantly, don't forget that you know what the abuse log is and > you know that it's harmless, but newbies don't know it. Many newbies > got really scared when they saw Windows 95's error messages about > applications that performed "illegal" actions. (I actually saw it > myself.) > I gave several classes of basic Wikipedia editing to groups of > newbies. The misunderstandings of the technical terms - and they do > encounter these technical terms - are most unexpected. Actually, until today I did not even know what the abuse log was. But I would have treated it the same way as the block log: "Oh, it's empty, can't be that bad then!" Your experience with Windows users seems to differ vastly from mine though. I do not know of even a single one who was scared to play "Minesweeper". On the other hand, they grasp in microseconds what a "friend" in a social network is, how a politician "tweets" without opening his mouth and that not all "blackberries" are edible. So if, as you say, newbies could be frightened off by /seeing/ an "abuse log" (or a "block log") link, we should not try to find a short term that could explain to someone with no insights whatsoever in Wikipedia's inner workings what the link contains, but we should hide the link (if the log is empty). But personally, I would ask new users to endure that sight because if they want to participate in the community, there will be lots of other terms, rules and habits that they did not know beforehand. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six >> billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer >> users who are curious enough to just click on that link to >> find out what's behind it? > Obviously we should replace the text messages with the ulitmate > wiktionary "Defined Meaning" numeric identifier! > [...] In many cultures there are numbers with negative connota- tions (cf. [[Number of the Beast]], [[88 (number)]] and *many* more). So maybe the board should appoint a "Numbers Committee" that determines which sequences of digits (bina- ry? decimal? hexadecimal?) are acceptable for use. Obviously there is a need - just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=666>: Vandalism! :-) Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six > billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer > users who are curious enough to just click on that link to > find out what's behind it? Obviously we should replace the text messages with the ulitmate wiktionary "Defined Meaning" numeric identifier! or… you know… just submit a new translation. (but… I for one welcome the ultimate conlang lexicon overloards!) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 20:49, Tim Landscheidt wrote: > "Amir E. Aharoni" wrote: > >>> Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not >>> transparant about it. > >> Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as >> important to be nice. "Filter log" is just as correct and transparent >> as "abuse log", but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of >> abuse. > > "Filter" in current German discussions /can/ allude to the > semi-governmental content filters deployed by most major > German ISPs to deny users access to child pornography web- > sites. > > So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six > billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer > users who are curious enough to just click on that link to > find out what's behind it? With crowdsourcing, finding the right word for six billion people is not so hard. The admins of every language edition can find a suitable word for their edition. Most importantly, don't forget that you know what the abuse log is and you know that it's harmless, but newbies don't know it. Many newbies got really scared when they saw Windows 95's error messages about applications that performed "illegal" actions. (I actually saw it myself.) I gave several classes of basic Wikipedia editing to groups of newbies. The misunderstandings of the technical terms - and they do encounter these technical terms - are most unexpected. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
"Amir E. Aharoni" wrote: >> Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not >> transparant about it. > Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as > important to be nice. "Filter log" is just as correct and transparent > as "abuse log", but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of > abuse. "Filter" in current German discussions /can/ allude to the semi-governmental content filters deployed by most major German ISPs to deny users access to child pornography web- sites. So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer users who are curious enough to just click on that link to find out what's behind it? Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Teofilo wrote:
>
> Now go to meta.wikimedia.org (1), create a new account there and click
> on your "My contributions" link. And see what you see on the top line
> of Special:Contributions : "Abuse Log". My preference on meta is
> French, and it reads ("Journal des abus"). In French "Journal" means
> both "Log" and "Newspaper". It sort of says "you are already making
> headlines in newspapers for abuse".
>
> It means Wikimedia users are considered as suspects from the first
> time they set foot into the wiki. It means that the climate there is a
> climate where everyone suspects everybody else, where you are guilty
> until proven innocent, and where bad faith is assumed (3).
So, in a word, you're not complaining about the tool itself, you're
complaining about how a tool is named. I invite you to raise your
concerns with the developers and to propose a better French
translation at translatewiki.net.
Any other wikilawyering or claim of assuming bad faith is completely
unnecessary and unhelpful.
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.gpaumier.org
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
sure it would, and maybe it would be an improvement. But the mere fact that the log is there, I don't see as a problem. Also, realize that the average newbee will not even look at the contributions page... 2009/9/30 Amir E. Aharoni > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 17:22, effe iets anders > wrote: > > Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not > > transparant about it. > > Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as > important to be nice. "Filter log" is just as correct and transparent > as "abuse log", but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of > abuse. > > -- > אמיר אלישע אהרוני > Amir Elisha Aharoni > > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > > "We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace." - T. Moore > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 17:22, effe iets anders wrote: > Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not > transparant about it. Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as important to be nice. "Filter log" is just as correct and transparent as "abuse log", but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of abuse. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not transparant about it. eia 2009/9/30 Amir E. Aharoni > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 16:00, Teofilo wrote: > > Now go to meta.wikimedia.org (1), create a new account there and click > > on your "My contributions" link. And see what you see on the top line > > of Special:Contributions : "Abuse Log". > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > On the English Wikipedia it is called "filter log", which is indeed much > better. > > -- > אמיר אלישע אהרוני > Amir Elisha Aharoni > > http://aharoni.wordpress.com > > "We're living in pieces, > I want to live in peace." - T. Moore > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 16:00, Teofilo wrote: > Now go to meta.wikimedia.org (1), create a new account there and click > on your "My contributions" link. And see what you see on the top line > of Special:Contributions : "Abuse Log". Thanks for bringing this up. On the English Wikipedia it is called "filter log", which is indeed much better. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?
Make the following experience:
Go to Gmail and create a new account on Gmail. Does Google tell you
after you have created your new account : We are ready to have a
conflict relationship with YOU ? We have an Abuse Log ready for YOU ?
Now go to meta.wikimedia.org (1), create a new account there and click
on your "My contributions" link. And see what you see on the top line
of Special:Contributions : "Abuse Log". My preference on meta is
French, and it reads ("Journal des abus"). In French "Journal" means
both "Log" and "Newspaper". It sort of says "you are already making
headlines in newspapers for abuse".
It means Wikimedia users are considered as suspects from the first
time they set foot into the wiki. It means that the climate there is a
climate where everyone suspects everybody else, where you are guilty
until proven innocent, and where bad faith is assumed (3).
Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow want to attract new volunteers (2) in
these conditions ?
Can anybody show me the page on meta.wikimedia.org, which shows that a
consensus was reached prior to implementing this Special:AbuseLog
software ?
It is almost the same problem on Commons (my user preference there is
English) where the AbuseLog has been pudically renamed "filter log"
(but the wording with Abuse is still used in the URL).
The French Language Wikipédia is still unaffected by this Abuse thing.
I hope the virus of suspicion will not infect her.
(1) http://meta.wikimedia.org
(2) http://volunteer.wikimedia.org
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
