Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Teofilo
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Amir E. Aharoni
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 16:00, Teofilo <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Effe iets anders
Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not
transparant about it.

eia

2009/9/30 Amir E. Aharoni <[hidden email]>

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 16:00, Teofilo <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Amir E. Aharoni
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 17:22, effe iets anders
<[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Effe iets anders
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 <[hidden email]>

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 17:22, effe iets anders
> <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Guillaume Paumier
In reply to this post by Teofilo
Hello,

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Teofilo <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Tim Landscheidt
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
"Amir E. Aharoni" <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Amir E. Aharoni
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 20:49, Tim Landscheidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Amir E. Aharoni" <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Tim Landscheidt
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tim Landscheidt <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Tim Landscheidt
Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> 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
<URI:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=666>:
Vandalism! :-)

Tim


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

Tim Landscheidt
In reply to this post by Amir E. Aharoni
"Amir E. Aharoni" <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l