Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to
fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
on 5/31/10 2:43 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the
On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
(1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree
that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is
what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going to harm that, and it
will only
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with
the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue
how to deal with people who they see as being out of their
David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with
the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue
how to deal with people who they see as being
On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:49:49 -0400, Abd wrote:
And I feel that I did. I've watched the community, in a few cases,
adopt as consensus what I'd proposed to jeers and boos, there is
some satisfaction in that
Maybe the initial reaction you get to your proposals, even ones that
eventually
At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to
fix A, you'd
At 10:34 AM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
(1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree
that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is
what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it
can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the
On 31 May 2010 18:49, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
But AGK is
an administrator, and if he expects that police work will almost
always cause the administrator to gain enemies, I rather suspect
that some of his work is
At 01:49 PM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote:
On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
wrote:
But AGK is
an administrator, and if he expects that police work will almost
always cause the administrator to gain enemies, I rather suspect
that some of his work is less than
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:35 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Actually, most people who don't apply as an admin just don't apply.
With ten million registered editors and a handful of RfAs, that's
obvious.
They
don't generate evidence one way or another. It is a perfectly
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So
my comments get long. If
Administrators differ in competence, and perhaps even in
trustworthiness, but I think experience has shown that not even the
most experienced and trusted of all will always correctly interpret
the view of the community, and that nobody whomsoever can really trust
himself or be trusted by others
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
specifically (and as to on-line process, for over
At 11:19 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
[...] remedies - for a bigger picture
- have the disadvantages of requiring a great deal of investment of
time. I believe I have tried a number of those, without yet getting a
complete view of the elephant.
Right. Sensible. There is a solution to
At 02:17 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
Abd has been beaten around the head by the arbcom on several
occasions, and so has an understandably negative view of power
structures on Wikipedia in general - since it couldn't possibly be the
case that he was ever actually wrong or anything.
My views
I'm not quite sure if this responding to what I wrote or to other bits
above, but it seems in part to apply to what I said, so I will respond
accordingly. First of all, my proposal was not meant, in any sense, to
suggest supplanting consensus with the arbitrary judgement of bureaucrats.
To the
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty
years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years
specifically (and as to on-line process, for over
At 12:11 PM 5/31/2010, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:49:49 -0400, Abd wrote:
And I feel that I did. I've watched the community, in a few cases,
adopt as consensus what I'd proposed to jeers and boos, there is
some satisfaction in that
Maybe the initial reaction you get
On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading.
No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get
annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell the obvious, e.g. that
bringing interesting
At 05:51 PM 5/31/2010, David Lindsey wrote:
The key is not making it easier to remove adminship. This proposal gets us
closer to the real problem, but fails to fully perceive it as does the
common call to separate the functions of adminship.
Generally, Mr. Lindsey has written a cogent
At 06:11 PM 5/31/2010, David Goodman wrote:
The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the
consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin
would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per
the majority and closing per the strongest
At 07:34 PM 5/31/2010, you wrote:
On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading.
No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get
annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell the
Hi Everyone -
Our next strategic planning office hours will be: 20:00-21:00 UTC,
Tuesday, 1 May. Local timezones can be checked
athttp://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?year=2010month=6day=1hour=20min=0sec=0p1=0
As always, you can access the chat by going to
Neither they nor anyone else knows how to do this at our scale in as
open a structure as ours. Most ideas tend to retreat towards one form
or another of centralized control over content or to division of the
project to reduce the scale. That it is possible to organize well
enough to do what
Let's not mince words: Wikipedia administratorship can be a serious
liability. The 'reward' for volunteering for this educational nonprofit can
include getting one's real name Googlebombed, getting late night phone calls
to one's home, and worse. The Wikimedia Foundation has never sent a cease
27 matches
Mail list logo
