Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:31 AM Birgitte SB wrote: I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed. I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. As much as I have always supported project autonomy, I know from experience on Wikisource that certain malevolent individuals like Pathoschild will leave no facts undistorted to achieve their ends. I found what happened there deeply offensive. I did ask for help here. You asked then that I move the discussion back to the project, and out of respect for you I did. That accomplished nothing. I suggested mediation, and you effectively refused. Bureaucrats should have enough experience, stature and impartiality to be able to step into these situations and bring people to a common understanding instead of burying their heads in the sand and pretending that there is no problem. A community like the one at Wikisource is obviously too small to have a formal arbitration process, so we should be able to expect better leadership from the bureaucrats. So perhaps it is time for some kind of system outside the project that can look at these personality problems more objectively. Ec I have been offline since Friday and just read this message. I am too angry at your mis-characterization of me to trust myself to respond in any depth. But I cannot allow anyone, including you, to mistake my silence is any sort of agreement. I failed to resolve things to your satisfaction, but I approached you in good faith. When I was not able to help you; you could have approached others or returned the issue to the list then. Instead you wait months to spin things in a false light and label people malevolent. You have lost touch with the fact that we are all acting in good faith towards what we each believe the best path for the projects. When we find ourselves at odds it is not because one side is evil and the other good; but because we rank different values as more important than others. Leave my name out of your future emails. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Birgitte SB wrote: I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed. I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. As much as I have always supported project autonomy, I know from experience on Wikisource that certain malevolent individuals like Pathoschild will leave no facts undistorted to achieve their ends. I found what happened there deeply offensive. I did ask for help here. You asked then that I move the discussion back to the project, and out of respect for you I did. That accomplished nothing. I suggested mediation, and you effectively refused. Bureaucrats should have enough experience, stature and impartiality to be able to step into these situations and bring people to a common understanding instead of burying their heads in the sand and pretending that there is no problem. A community like the one at Wikisource is obviously too small to have a formal arbitration process, so we should be able to expect better leadership from the bureaucrats. So perhaps it is time for some kind of system outside the project that can look at these personality problems more objectively. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Mark Williamson wrote: My point is that this situation has arisen many times in the past and the response is very frequently a simple We can't help you, it's a local issue. Of course it should be dealt with at a local level but I think that the foundation should be a little less hands-off than it has often been when it comes to smaller communities where people have been allowed to wield tremendous influence just because they got to a wiki first. It doesn't even need to be the Foundation. Any group of people with objectivity and people skills would suffice. Of course, where another language is at the heart of the controversy there are special difficulties in getting outsiders to understand the particular problem. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hi, the replies and discussion have been extremely informative and useful to me. Thank you all. I will carefully read your opinions again, and notify JaWp MailingList of these ideas. Thanks again, Best Regarads ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular. On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed. I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. Birgitte SB --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular. On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ 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] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
My point is that this situation has arisen many times in the past and the response is very frequently a simple We can't help you, it's a local issue. Of course it should be dealt with at a local level but I think that the foundation should be a little less hands-off than it has often been when it comes to smaller communities where people have been allowed to wield tremendous influence just because they got to a wiki first. Mark On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed. I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. Birgitte SB --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular. On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items define well the basic behavior of community decision making and treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already notice the importance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hoi, The policies of the English language Wikipedia have evolved over many years and they suit a large world wide audience who is largely part of the Anglo American world. Many other Wikipedias reflect a culture which is distinctly different. with different value systems. These projects slowly but surely grow and evolve. They will look at the example that is given by the English language Wikipedia and they deserve the right to make the policies their own. We do not have a council or another body that helps with the assimilation of these concepts. Other concepts that are imho as important like the need for citations are not part yet of many projects because these projects do not have the maturity for this. This will also be a problem in the BLP project Cary wants to set up. Many projects just do not have the ability to adopt the overhead for what are essential policies in our more mature projects even arguably essential in all projects. The only real solution is for our projects is to mature and challenge existing dogmas. We will mature as an organisation as a consequence. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/6 Jade Harold jadehar...@gmail.com Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items define well the basic behavior of community decision making and treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already notice the importance. ___ 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] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
2009/8/6 Jade Harold jadehar...@gmail.com Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items define well the basic behavior of community decision making and treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already notice the importance. Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying This policy from en.wp seems sensible, maybe we should have something similar? This is different from slavish imitation. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hello, Jade. Wp99 is blocked as a sock puppet of very long term abuse user suspected using enormous sock puppets in jawp. I know my following request is rude, but I can't find your activity. Jade, please give me your edit history in any project. Jade Harold wrote: Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items define well the basic behavior of community decision making and treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already notice the importance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hey, Who are you? and Why you asking me such a thing?? Honestly, I don't care who is blocked in a local project, and it's beyond of my concern. Plus, truly puzzling, your interest of my activity. Purpose? Explain. 2009/8/6 mizusumashi mizusuma...@coda.ocn.ne.jp Hello, Jade. Wp99 is blocked as a sock puppet of very long term abuse user suspected using enormous sock puppets in jawp. I know my following request is rude, but I can't find your activity. Jade, please give me your edit history in any project. Jade Harold wrote: Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items define well the basic behavior of community decision making and treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already notice the importance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ 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] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hello, Jade. Jade Harold wrote: Who are you? and Why you asking me such a thing?? I'm mizusumashi, a Japanese Wikipedia sysop. See: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:Mizusumashi?uselang=en http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:%E6%8A%95%E7%A8%BF%E8%A8%98%E9%8C%B2/Mizusumashi?uselang=en http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:%E7%99%BB%E9%8C%B2%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7limit=1username=Mizusumashiuselang=en Plus, truly puzzling, your interest of my activity. Purpose? Explain. I know my request is rude. I requested to declare your edit history in any project, because I hope to clear up a doubt that you are a sock puppet of Wp99. Sorry for my poor English. Thank you. [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hello, Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be important for this list. Best regards, Huib -- Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/user:Abigor ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hello, Huib. O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit history or other activity - I think it's very very easy -. Huib! wrote: Hello, Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be important for this list. Best regards, Huib [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with foundation-l. -Chad On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, mizusumashimizusuma...@coda.ocn.ne.jp wrote: Hello, Huib. O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit history or other activity - I think it's very very easy -. Huib! wrote: Hello, Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be important for this list. Best regards, Huib [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ 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] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chad wrote: Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with foundation-l. -Chad On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, mizusumashimizusuma...@coda.ocn.ne.jp wrote: Hello, Huib. O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit history or other activity - I think it's very very easy -. Huib! wrote: Hello, Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be important for this list. Best regards, Huib [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ 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 This particular fight doesn't, no. But it does tangentially touch on the broader issue of cross-wiki policies, and instances where certain wikis go rogue (for instance, those that have instituted privacy policy violating user tracking systems, or where only one or two sysops exist and exercise de facto control over the entire list). I have to say, this is far from the first time I've heard stories of ja.wp administrators taking their private grievances out on contributors. Now we have them demanding that mailing users declare their edit history or other activity? What's next? Let me see your identification papers? The broader issue of what standards should apply cross-project and cross-community and who should be responsible for ensuring/enforcing that certain projects do not adopt policies that violate the Foundation's mission or standards is worthy of question on this list. I would assume that the answer to the latter question is the stewards, but the latter question can't be solved until the former question of cross-project standards is resolved; and I don't think that it has been. If I'm wrong of course, and we've had this discussion before, I would love to be pointed to it. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
On 2009-08-06 12:01, Jade Harold wrote: Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items define well the basic behavior of community decision making and treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already notice the importance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Let's get down to basics: 1. What's the purpose of Wiki[p|m]edia? Roughly, to distribute all knowledge. That's the mission. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement) 2. How do we do that? *What* knowledge? *Whose* knowledge? What is it, in short, that separates Wikimedia's projects from other things out there? Well, that'd be the [[m:Founding_principles]]. NPOV, freedom to contribute, wiki process, free license. (and existence of a dispute resolution, if needed). A few further policies, like [[WP:NOTLAW]], are of course necessary to cover our backsides... 3. How do we get around doing this in practice? How do we make the daily work as efficient as possible? In terms of what's in, what's out, exactly how should decisions be made, etc, etc. That is - to me - the point of policies such as WP:NOT#Community and a few other points in WP:NOT. For me, the first two points determine very much what will be the result of our work. The philosophy and the ideas behind the project. The third point is technicalities which governs how we'll get there. Sure, some paths will be easier, some will be harder; some paths will match better with certain cultures or mindsets, other paths will match other mindsets. But! This is all about the path to the goal, not the goal in itself. *If two paths arrive at equivalent encyclopedias, I see no reason why the foundation or anyone else outside the community should care: it's the community's choice.* So, my two cents would be: Don't confuse the process, the encyclopedia writing, with the goal, the encyclopedia. The *writing* is not - should not be - the goal. Right? \Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. Mark skype: node.ue On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Dan Rosenthalswatjes...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chad wrote: Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with foundation-l. -Chad On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM, mizusumashimizusuma...@coda.ocn.ne.jp wrote: Hello, Huib. O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit history or other activity - I think it's very very easy -. Huib! wrote: Hello, Could you discuss this outside the list? I don't see why it would be important for this list. Best regards, Huib [[w:ja:User:mizusumashi]] ___ 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 This particular fight doesn't, no. But it does tangentially touch on the broader issue of cross-wiki policies, and instances where certain wikis go rogue (for instance, those that have instituted privacy policy violating user tracking systems, or where only one or two sysops exist and exercise de facto control over the entire list). I have to say, this is far from the first time I've heard stories of ja.wp administrators taking their private grievances out on contributors. Now we have them demanding that mailing users declare their edit history or other activity? What's next? Let me see your identification papers? The broader issue of what standards should apply cross-project and cross-community and who should be responsible for ensuring/enforcing that certain projects do not adopt policies that violate the Foundation's mission or standards is worthy of question on this list. I would assume that the answer to the latter question is the stewards, but the latter question can't be solved until the former question of cross-project standards is resolved; and I don't think that it has been. If I'm wrong of course, and we've had this discussion before, I would love to be pointed to it. -Dan ___ 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] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
--- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.comwrote: Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying This policy from en.wp seems sensible, maybe we should have something similar? This is different from slavish imitation. Indeed -- I think Gerard expressed a similar idea. All wikis can and should keep an eye out for good ideas and practices on other wikis, even outside of the Wikimedia sphere, but in most cases there's nothing saying they *need* to adopt policy from elsewhere. A good idea is a good idea, but every wiki is different. The best people to make that decision are the people working on that wiki. -Luna ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ 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
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hi, currently, I participate a process to translate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and import that to JaWp. Since WP:NOT is a Global Principle according to the right box of the page, I naturally insist to import this document as it is without modifications, at least without major modifications for basic key concepts such as Wikipedia:Consensus. In a final phase to fix the final translated version, a user appeared and claimed that he cannot agree to apply WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to JaWp, since it's not properly to reflect the current JaWp manner, etc.(dunno what exactly he intends to mean, but the bottom line is he doesn't agree to import these 2 sections of WP:NOT). Obviously, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY includes a significant Wp Global Principe - Wikipedia:Consensus, so I explained him that WP:NOT is not a mere policies but a Global Princile including singificant Wp concpet. Basically, he won't listen claiming JaWp is somewhat independent of EnWp, and this discussion is still open in JaWp. Another user suggested me to ask an official statement from Wikimedia Foundation, and I also think it would be better to clear how internlingual cordination of Wikipedia Policy works. So, is there anyone here who knows well about this topic, and could you advise where to start to make this clear. Thank you. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
