SUL

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
120 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

SUL

Anthony-61
On 8/13/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> DNS's multi-2ld shape is *precisely so that* 3ld's which are identical
> won't collide, since they fall under different administrative spheres
> of responsibility.  Why should Ford Motor Co., the Ford Foundation, and
> the Ford Car Club of America *not* be able to be ford.com, ford.org and
> ford.us?
>
My analogy used .com/.org/.net, which were all run initially by
network solutions.  Were that still true today I don't think the
analogy would be any better or worse.  Again though, analogies aren't
meant to be perfect.  My purpose was to show how bad of an idea it is
to merge multiple already overcrowded namespaces (namespace, in the
[[namespace (computer science)]] sense).  Maybe it was a bad analogy
though.  I don't know.

> A different situation pertains here: the WMF public wikis *do not* fall
> under separate administrative spheres, though I can understand the POV
> of some people who assert they might.
>
Count me under those who would say that the WMF wikis do fall under
separate administrative spheres, actually.

> There is a reasonable assumption that can be -- and clearly is -- made,
> by users, that the entire WMF is under one login namespace. [....]
>
> I believe a random statistical sample of wikipedians not directly
> involved with SSO, and who don't have accounts on more than one wiki,
> would show a "believe that SSO's already there" rate much higher than
> you might think.
>
I think you're correct that a number of people do make this
assumption.  But I don't think that's an adequate reason to adopt a
policy making it so.

I guess what has to happen before this can really be discussed is we
need to drop the hypotheticals and come up with a semi-accurate list
of actual conflicts.  If a good portion of the conflicts are actually
causing problems, then it's one thing.  If most of them are just good
faith collisions which wouldn't have even been discovered were it not
for SUL, then it's another.

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

Re: SUL

Mark Clements (HappyDog)
"Anthony" <[hidden email]> wrote in
message news:[hidden email]...
> On 8/13/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
> I guess what has to happen before this can really be discussed is we
> need to drop the hypotheticals and come up with a semi-accurate list
> of actual conflicts.  If a good portion of the conflicts are actually
> causing problems, then it's one thing.  If most of them are just good
> faith collisions which wouldn't have even been discovered were it not
> for SUL, then it's another.

As far as I am aware, the time for discussion ended months, if not a year
ago, and now it is simply a matter of waiting for the implementation to be
completed.  If that is the case (and correct me if it isn't) then this whole
conversation is somewhat pointless.

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)




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

Re: SUL

Rob Church
On 13/08/07, Mark Clements <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As far as I am aware, the time for discussion ended months, if not a year
> ago, and now it is simply a matter of waiting for the implementation to be
> completed.  If that is the case (and correct me if it isn't) then this whole
> conversation is somewhat pointless.

We are the Borg. Your login will be unified. Resistance is futile.


Rob Church

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

Re: SUL

Anthony-61
In reply to this post by Mark Clements (HappyDog)
On 8/13/07, Mark Clements <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "Anthony" <[hidden email]> wrote in
> message news:[hidden email]...
> > On 8/13/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I guess what has to happen before this can really be discussed is we
> > need to drop the hypotheticals and come up with a semi-accurate list
> > of actual conflicts.  If a good portion of the conflicts are actually
> > causing problems, then it's one thing.  If most of them are just good
> > faith collisions which wouldn't have even been discovered were it not
> > for SUL, then it's another.
>
> As far as I am aware, the time for discussion ended months, if not a year
> ago, and now it is simply a matter of waiting for the implementation to be
> completed.  If that is the case (and correct me if it isn't) then this whole
> conversation is somewhat pointless.
>
Considering that until a few weeks ago I (who follow the relevant
mailing lists rather closely) didn't even know what exactly SUL was, I
have to say that I don't think that is the case.  A great many people
right now still don't know what this whole SUL thing means.  The
documentation on it is inconsistent.  Tons of misinformation is being
spread.

When was this discussion period announced?

I don't think it's too late.  It certainly won't be too late before
user accounts start getting forcibly renamed, and even after that we
could probably still change our minds.

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

Re: SUL

Rob Church
On 13/08/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Considering that until a few weeks ago I (who follow the relevant
> mailing lists rather closely) didn't even know what exactly SUL was, I
> have to say that I don't think that is the case.  A great many people
> right now still don't know what this whole SUL thing means.  The
> documentation on it is inconsistent.  Tons of misinformation is being
> spread.

Wasn't the Communications Committee supposed to ensure that users were
advised of what would happen?

"Single user login" has been discussed and agonised about for a long
period of time, on mailing lists, on Meta, and at Wikimania. It's been
discussed in presentations at the previous two conferences, at least,
for example.

If there is a lack of communication, then it's not the fault of the
development team, it's the fault of the group which was tasked with
communicating. If there is no such group, then the blame rests higher.
That there are large numbers of long-term users who, at this time,
still don't know the precise facts (not the rumours) about it, well,
that screams "unacceptable" to me.


Rob Church

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

Re: SUL

Casey Brown-3
In reply to this post by Anthony-61
It definitely took place ages ago, read the Meta page on it.

On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/13/07, Mark Clements <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > "Anthony" <[hidden email]> wrote in
> > message news:[hidden email]
> ...
> > > On 8/13/07, Jay R. Ashworth <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess what has to happen before this can really be discussed is we
> > > need to drop the hypotheticals and come up with a semi-accurate list
> > > of actual conflicts.  If a good portion of the conflicts are actually
> > > causing problems, then it's one thing.  If most of them are just good
> > > faith collisions which wouldn't have even been discovered were it not
> > > for SUL, then it's another.
> >
> > As far as I am aware, the time for discussion ended months, if not a
> year
> > ago, and now it is simply a matter of waiting for the implementation to
> be
> > completed.  If that is the case (and correct me if it isn't) then this
> whole
> > conversation is somewhat pointless.
> >
> Considering that until a few weeks ago I (who follow the relevant
> mailing lists rather closely) didn't even know what exactly SUL was, I
> have to say that I don't think that is the case.  A great many people
> right now still don't know what this whole SUL thing means.  The
> documentation on it is inconsistent.  Tons of misinformation is being
> spread.
>
> When was this discussion period announced?
>
> I don't think it's too late.  It certainly won't be too late before
> user accounts start getting forcibly renamed, and even after that we
> could probably still change our minds.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SUL

Anthony-61
In reply to this post by Rob Church
On 8/13/07, Rob Church <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13/08/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Considering that until a few weeks ago I (who follow the relevant
> > mailing lists rather closely) didn't even know what exactly SUL was, I
> > have to say that I don't think that is the case.  A great many people
> > right now still don't know what this whole SUL thing means.  The
> > documentation on it is inconsistent.  Tons of misinformation is being
> > spread.
>
> Wasn't the Communications Committee supposed to ensure that users were
> advised of what would happen?
>
> "Single user login" has been discussed and agonised about for a long
> period of time, on mailing lists, on Meta, and at Wikimania. It's been
> discussed in presentations at the previous two conferences, at least,
> for example.
>
Looking back, I guess it was brought up in a number of places, and I'm
not quite sure how I missed it.  I don't remember it being discussed
on any of the non-tech mailing lists though.

> If there is a lack of communication, then it's not the fault of the
> development team, it's the fault of the group which was tasked with
> communicating. If there is no such group, then the blame rests higher.

I don't blame the development team for the lack of communication,
though I will blame them if they push this change through.

> That there are large numbers of long-term users who, at this time,
> still don't know the precise facts (not the rumours) about it, well,
> that screams "unacceptable" to me.
>
I'd say now would be a good time to go through the list of users that
might potentially be affected, and email them all, and put a message
on each of their talk pages.  Then sit back and watch the complaints,
and hopefully change your mind.

SUL doesn't have to happen.

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

Re: SUL

Anthony-61
On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Looking back, I guess it was brought up in a number of places, and I'm
> not quite sure how I missed it.  I don't remember it being discussed
> on any of the non-tech mailing lists though.
>
The closest thing I can find is an email from Erik entitled "Single
login - decision 2004", from November 2004.  But no decision seems to
have been made at that time.

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

Re: SUL

Brion Vibber-3
In reply to this post by Anthony-61
[snip]
I've put Anthony on moderation, I'm tired of his trolling.


Please note that the single user login account merging system is up and
running in a live demo state since Wikimania at
http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MergeAccount

If your account on test.wikipedia.org matches your main one, you can try
it out there and check for conflicting accounts. We'll go into the
opt-in beta for actual logins over the next couple of weeks.

-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)

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

Re: SUL

Dan Collins-2
On 8/13/07, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> [snip]
> I've put Anthony on moderation, I'm tired of his trolling.
>
>
> Please note that the single user login account merging system is up and
> running in a live demo state since Wikimania at
> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MergeAccount
>
> If your account on test.wikipedia.org matches your main one, you can try
> it out there and check for conflicting accounts. We'll go into the
> opt-in beta for actual logins over the next couple of weeks.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

I wasn't aware that we were this close, I have still been using this along
with [[Special:Electroshock]] as a joke as recently as last week - excellent
jobs, developers, and I'll go have a look at the demo!

--
ST47
Administrator, en.wikipedia
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SUL

Anthony-61
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-3
On 8/13/07, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've put Anthony on moderation, I'm tired of his trolling.
>
That's completely obnoxious.  Disagreeing with one of the moderators
is not trolling.

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

Re: SUL

Rob Church
In reply to this post by Dan Collins-2
On 13/08/07, Dan Collins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I wasn't aware that we were this close, I have still been using this along
> with [[Special:Electroshock]] as a joke as recently as last week - excellent
> jobs, developers, and I'll go have a look at the demo!

The joke's on you! [[Special:LART]] and [[Special:Electroshock]] are
both (non-committed) extensions, and have been for six months.


Rob Church

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

Re: SUL

Rob Church
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-3
On 13/08/07, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If your account on test.wikipedia.org matches your main one, you can try
> it out there and check for conflicting accounts. We'll go into the
> opt-in beta for actual logins over the next couple of weeks.

Neat, it's even identified MediaWiki.org as my home wiki. As it should be.


Rob Church

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

Re: SUL

Aryeh Gregor
In reply to this post by Anthony-61
On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That's completely obnoxious.  Disagreeing with one of the moderators
> is not trolling.

Probably not, but at this point the decision is effectively
irreversible, barring a *really* big backlash (which I very much doubt
we'll be seeing).  Quite a lot of work has been done on it and most
people seem to think it's a great idea.

On 8/13/07, Rob Church <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Neat, it's even identified MediaWiki.org as my home wiki. As it should be.

Me too.  I'm betting it notices if you're a bureaucrat, then falls
back to sysop, then edit count, or something like that.  I hadn't
realized we were this far along either, having become a bit
desensitized to the overoptimistic DoA's that have been released in
the past.  Neat.

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

Re: SUL

Walter Vermeir-2
In reply to this post by Rob Church
Rob Church schreef:
> Wasn't the Communications Committee supposed to ensure that users were
> advised of what would happen?

Communication can only be done about things you know about. There has
been no communication to the ComCom about SUL since a long time.

About certain things is known that there is something going on but
nothing concrete. I know there was supposed to be announced/presented
on Wikimania a new skin for the WMF wikis. How it looks like and of it
was presented I do not know.

The Communications Committee is actually nothing more then a mailing
list. What is not send to there is unknown.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
English - EspaƱol - Deutsch - Indonesia


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

Re: SUL

Anthony-61
In reply to this post by Aryeh Gregor
On 8/13/07, Simetrical <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > That's completely obnoxious.  Disagreeing with one of the moderators
> > is not trolling.
>
> Probably not, but at this point the decision is effectively
> irreversible, barring a *really* big backlash (which I very much doubt
> we'll be seeing).  Quite a lot of work has been done on it and most
> people seem to think it's a great idea.
>
Fair enough, I still don't think that's a valid reason to put me on
moderation or to call me a troll.

If I'm not permitted to question this decision (to implement
checkuser) on this mailing list, then I will abide by that.

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

Re: SUL

Rob Church
In reply to this post by Walter Vermeir-2
On 13/08/07, Walter Vermeir <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Communication can only be done about things you know about. There has
> been no communication to the ComCom about SUL since a long time.

If your remit is such that you are required to communicate things
about a particular project, then it is within your responsibility to
find that out, by asking questions, by doing research - the actual
implementation plans are there, in Subversion, for anyone to see - as
is the code - and by pestering the developer(s) concerned until you
know everything you feel you need to.

Review his presentations, review his plans, hell - ask Brion for an
interview if you think that you can compose the questions.

> About certain things is known that there is something going on but
> nothing concrete. I know there was supposed to be announced/presented
> on Wikimania a new skin for the WMF wikis. How it looks like and of it
> was presented I do not know.

Who said this? Pester them. Pester the Board, since they would
presumably know something about this.

> The Communications Committee is actually nothing more then a mailing
> list. What is not send to there is unknown.

Then it sounds like the committee is malformed and needs to be created
anew, with fresh volunteers, and with a proper understanding of what
its purpose is. And as I suspected, the blame does lie higher.


Rob Church

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

Re: SUL

Steve Sanbeg
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber-3
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:23:57 -0400, Brion Vibber wrote:

> [snip]
> I've put Anthony on moderation, I'm tired of his trolling.
>
>
> Please note that the single user login account merging system is up and
> running in a live demo state since Wikimania at
> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MergeAccount
>
> If your account on test.wikipedia.org matches your main one, you can try
> it out there and check for conflicting accounts. We'll go into the
> opt-in beta for actual logins over the next couple of weeks.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)

It seems to work, although the instructions are a bit unclear.  In my
case, my password on test didn't match the others, so it just gave a link
to my wikipedia user page, and didn't tell how to proceed.  Once I changed
my test password it worked.



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

Re: SUL

Anthony-61
In reply to this post by Aryeh Gregor
On 8/13/07, Simetrical <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > That's completely obnoxious.  Disagreeing with one of the moderators
> > is not trolling.
>
> Probably not, but at this point the decision is effectively
> irreversible, barring a *really* big backlash (which I very much doubt
> we'll be seeing).  Quite a lot of work has been done on it and most
> people seem to think it's a great idea.
>
FWIW, I think there will be a really big backlash, and from what I've
heard the whole reason it's taken over 3 years to implement is
precisely because a lot of people don't think it's a great idea.

I can see how the fact that me criticizing something that people have
spent so much effort on might hurt some feelings, but I think these
things have to be said anyway.

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

Fwd: SUL

Anthony-61
In reply to this post by Anthony-61
On 8/13/07, Simetrical <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > That's completely obnoxious.  Disagreeing with one of the moderators
> > is not trolling.
>
> Probably not, but at this point the decision is effectively
> irreversible, barring a *really* big backlash (which I very much doubt
> we'll be seeing).  Quite a lot of work has been done on it and most
> people seem to think it's a great idea.
>
Fair enough, I still don't think that's a valid reason to put me on
moderation or to call me a troll.

If I'm not permitted to question this decision (to implement SUL) on
this mailing list, and a moderator tells me so, then I will abide by
that.  There's no need to put me on moderation to accomplish that.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
1234 ... 6