#wikipedia

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

#wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
Dear all,

I have just subscribed to this list in the light of IRC problems we've
been having. Namely, a couple of users, primeraly seanw (I never heard
of him before) decided to create and enforce rules on #wikipedia.

The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
This is problematic for two reasons:

1) A lot of people have been in that channel for years. We like to
socialize and to help and seek help regarding Wikipedia. Wikipedia being
such an open project, most of us thought of the channel as great,
because people who otherwise wouldn't spend their time waiting for a
question, hung in there and were helpful. Both admins helped regular
users, and everybody helped newcomers. We think of off topic
conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a
silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour
later, when you lost all the interest

2) We percieve this as somebody trying to hijack the channel we've been
frequenting for a long time. There is a sort of a _power play_ going on.
A couple of people came in and said "we are in charge now", and they
decided that they are the ones who "officially, unofficially" run the
channel.

So, I have some question:

1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
with questions? Or this come just because some people don't like what we
talked about?

2) Whom can we ask for help? Most of the people in #wikipedia dislike
both the new rules and how they were implemented and we don't want seanw
in charge. As demonstrated in the channel and on the talk page of the
Guideline.

3) Who are seanw and other people who authorized them to come up with
rules? Can I make a gudeline on wikimedia and say that I'm in charge of
the feud I choose? Please :P

4) Why was there no community input? You can say all you want, but I
first heard about the issues on this mailing list from /topic, and first
saw the guideline after it was enforced.

5) Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too?

Thank you,
Dejan Čabrilo


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

Re: #wikipedia

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
Hello,

I would like to address two of your points here. I have done this
elsewhere but hopefully by doing it here others will see it and won't
ask again!

Firstly, the guidelines were drafted and left in the topic of
#wikipedia for several days. No real feedback or edits were received
and so we thought it would be okay to go ahead. Perhaps if the
community had got involved in discussion there, we probably would have
allowed more time, but it didn't seem to be happening. So, there was
no community input despite the opportunity for it.

Secondly, I agree that the off-topic guidelines were originally worded
far too strictly. I've since toned down the guidelines (I didn't write
them originally) to try and give the impression that was intended,
that extensive off-topic talk is discouraged, not that we are saying
"talk about anything but Wikipedia and you get banned". Please take a
look at them now and see what you think.

Thanks,

Sean

On 20/06/07, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have just subscribed to this list in the light of IRC problems we've
> been having. Namely, a couple of users, primeraly seanw (I never heard
> of him before) decided to create and enforce rules on #wikipedia.
>
> The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
> This is problematic for two reasons:
>
> 1) A lot of people have been in that channel for years. We like to
> socialize and to help and seek help regarding Wikipedia. Wikipedia being
> such an open project, most of us thought of the channel as great,
> because people who otherwise wouldn't spend their time waiting for a
> question, hung in there and were helpful. Both admins helped regular
> users, and everybody helped newcomers. We think of off topic
> conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a
> silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour
> later, when you lost all the interest
>
> 2) We percieve this as somebody trying to hijack the channel we've been
> frequenting for a long time. There is a sort of a _power play_ going on.
> A couple of people came in and said "we are in charge now", and they
> decided that they are the ones who "officially, unofficially" run the
> channel.
>
> So, I have some question:
>
> 1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
> with questions? Or this come just because some people don't like what we
> talked about?
>
> 2) Whom can we ask for help? Most of the people in #wikipedia dislike
> both the new rules and how they were implemented and we don't want seanw
> in charge. As demonstrated in the channel and on the talk page of the
> Guideline.
>
> 3) Who are seanw and other people who authorized them to come up with
> rules? Can I make a gudeline on wikimedia and say that I'm in charge of
> the feud I choose? Please :P
>
> 4) Why was there no community input? You can say all you want, but I
> first heard about the issues on this mailing list from /topic, and first
> saw the guideline after it was enforced.
>
> 5) Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too?
>
> Thank you,
> Dejan Čabrilo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
<[hidden email]>
http://seanwhitton.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

Dominic-21
In reply to this post by Dejan Čabrilo-2
Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
> The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other
channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting
#wikipedia-social. This doesn't mean that tangents and banter are
disallowed, but that completely off-topic discussion should be avoided
to begin with.
> We think of off topic
> conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a
> silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour
> later, when you lost all the interest
>  
Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry fandom drown out the
question is worse than that. I think your concern is exaggerated. Most
channels do not have 250 regular users, and they do fine. I think
#wiktionary is a good example of a channel that consistently has less
than 30 occupants, and is always more active than #wikipedia-en with
many more on-topic conversations, and tangents as well.
> 1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
> with questions?
Yes, very much so.

Dominic


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

Re: #wikipedia

geni
On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
> > The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
> Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other
> channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting
> #wikipedia-social.

coaxing =rming most of the ops thus making the channel to vulnerable
to attack to be useable

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

Re: #wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
In reply to this post by Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:59 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Firstly, the guidelines were drafted and left in the topic of
> #wikipedia for several days. No real feedback or edits were received
> and so we thought it would be okay to go ahead. Perhaps if the
> community had got involved in discussion there, we probably would have
> allowed more time, but it didn't seem to be happening. So, there was
> no community input despite the opportunity for it.

Did this not lead you to believe that the guideline was not advertised
properly? After we heard about it, many people got very upset. So, I
suggest you give us another chance to give you input on the topic. The
guideline page is protected, and when I asked an op (rather harshly, I
must admit) in #wikipedia to change the /topic, to reflect that most of
us don't agree with it, he didn't do anything about it.

My question still stands: why do you get to make decisions for all of
us?

> Secondly, I agree that the off-topic guidelines were originally worded
> far too strictly. I've since toned down the guidelines (I didn't write
> them originally) to try and give the impression that was intended,
> that extensive off-topic talk is discouraged, not that we are saying
> "talk about anything but Wikipedia and you get banned". Please take a
> look at them now and see what you think.

Like I said before: I hang out in that channel because I like the wit of
the people in it. If we are not allowed to dwell into out conversations
to a point in which we discuss the political philosophy behind the
religious dynamics among the royalty of Swaziland or the latest episode
of Dr House, the channel will lose its charm of an encyclopedia channel
- and it will be void of people who otherwise helped newcomers. It will
also be void of admins, and in many cases, my only way to quickly
contact an admin was through that channel.

As it is worded now, the guideline is more permissive of off-topic.
However, you say: "It remains up to the channel operators to decide
their implementation." We all know that in this power play you
reinstated only the ops that agree with your take on what #wikipedia
should be.

The only thing that this guideline has so far accomplished was to bring
*hostility* to the channel.

Finally, let me repeat this: While I applaud your effort to take
initiative, why do you think you have legitimacy to deop people, make a
guideline without community input (whether the lack of community input
was your fault or not doesn't matter, there still wasn't any), and then
give ops to people who will follow it?

Dejan Čabrilo


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

Re: #wikipedia

Guillaume Paumier
Hello,

On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:59 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Firstly, the guidelines were drafted and left in the topic of
> > #wikipedia for several days. No real feedback or edits were received
> > and so we thought it would be okay to go ahead. Perhaps if the
> > community had got involved in discussion there, we probably would have
> > allowed more time, but it didn't seem to be happening. So, there was
> > no community input despite the opportunity for it.
>
> Did this not lead you to believe that the guideline was not advertised
> properly? After we heard about it, many people got very upset. So, I
> suggest you give us another chance to give you input on the topic. The
> guideline page is protected, and when I asked an op (rather harshly, I
> must admit) in #wikipedia to change the /topic, to reflect that most of
> us don't agree with it, he didn't do anything about it.
>
> My question still stands: why do you get to make decisions for all of
> us?


Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).

> Secondly, I agree that the off-topic guidelines were originally worded
> > far too strictly. I've since toned down the guidelines (I didn't write
> > them originally) to try and give the impression that was intended,
> > that extensive off-topic talk is discouraged, not that we are saying
> > "talk about anything but Wikipedia and you get banned". Please take a
> > look at them now and see what you think.
>
> Like I said before: I hang out in that channel because I like the wit of
> the people in it. If we are not allowed to dwell into out conversations
> to a point in which we discuss the political philosophy behind the
> religious dynamics among the royalty of Swaziland or the latest episode
> of Dr House, the channel will lose its charm of an encyclopedia channel
> - and it will be void of people who otherwise helped newcomers. It will
> also be void of admins, and in many cases, my only way to quickly
> contact an admin was through that channel.


Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global
Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you
had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was
English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is
#wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de).

Finally, let me repeat this: While I applaud your effort to take
> initiative, why do you think you have legitimacy to deop people, make a
> guideline without community input (whether the lack of community input
> was your fault or not doesn't matter, there still wasn't any), and then
> give ops to people who will follow it?


Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.

Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
that people really understand why your action was needed.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
imagined." Henry David Thoreau
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
In reply to this post by Dominic-21
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 01:01 -0700, Dmcdevit wrote:
> Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry fandom drown out the
> question is worse than that. I think your concern is exaggerated. Most
> channels do not have 250 regular users, and they do fine. I think
> #wiktionary is a good example of a channel that consistently has less
> than 30 occupants, and is always more active than #wikipedia-en with
> many more on-topic conversations, and tangents as well.

I personally listened to off topic discussion in #wiktionary and I
participated in several. This was while I was editing wiktionary, so I
needed a lot of help on technical issues.

Wiktionary has a smaller regular users base, so what you are talking
about is only natural.

> > 1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
> > with questions?
> Yes, very much so.

Please give us the specifics and let us decide how to solve the
problems. Don't solve them for us.

Also, a question for you: why not consult the community (properly)
first? Why not take our input now?

Dejan Čabrilo


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

Re: #wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
In reply to this post by Guillaume Paumier
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
> James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
> whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).

Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode
can't get along?

> Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global
> Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you
> had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was
> English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is
> #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de).

Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to
contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is
mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can
both direct you and help you.

> Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.

I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't
think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in
it would be a way to go.

> Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
> that people really understand why your action was needed.

So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?

Dejan Čabrilo


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

Re: #wikipedia

Effe iets anders
Hi,

I have to say, that I like the channel as it is constructed now much
more. Some pepole will want to move to the social channel now, I can
only encourage that if that is the chat they are searching. Please
consider a few points:

*All Wikimediaprojects which are on IRC have their channel as in
#projectname-langcode , for example #wikibooks-nl . Why would
en.wikipedia be an example?

The channel was often flooding with off topic talk, when I came there
for help (yes, even a steward needs help sometimes) no-one was
responding often, due to the heavy offtopic conversations about star
trek and indeed politics, generally americal politics. If there was a
respond, it was not possible to find it in the flood when are not
using a irc client with highlighting (such as javachat).

There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often.
people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
#wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
foundation/organization-related, not project-based.

Freenode is a big network, and contains a lot of channels. I think it
is not so very weird to move from channel, if you want a social talk,
just go to the appropriate channel. If the social talk is a short
spin-off of a Wikipedia-related issue, I guess there is nobody banging
on your head.

Yes, you are allowed (of course) to change from network. If you really
feel that you cannot operate anymore in Freenode, you are free to
choose another network, and go there. Consider however, that it is not
as much Freenode you are having problems with here, you just disagree
on a few rules for *one channel*. I guess it is easier then to set up
another channel, such as ##Wikipedia .

And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The
mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki
admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting
the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go
the right way.

Best Regards,

Lodewijk

2007/6/20, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]>:

> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> > Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
> > James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
> > whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).
>
> Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode
> can't get along?
>
> > Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global
> > Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you
> > had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was
> > English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is
> > #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de).
>
> Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to
> contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is
> mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can
> both direct you and help you.
>
> > Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
>
> I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't
> think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in
> it would be a way to go.
>
> > Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
> > that people really understand why your action was needed.
>
> So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
>
> Dejan Čabrilo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Dominic-21
Hoi,
It has been said that there was some notice on the /topic. That is great..
realistically who reads it? You mention that there were complaints about
this channel .. well, there are always people that complain but how relevant
is that.

There are even people that complain that the Foundation is a mess. There
too, you have to consider what the board is trying to do, that it does not
have the means to implement what it aims to do, that the size of the
projects are growing rapidly and that some rabidly are opposed to anything
because it does not coincide with their own typically not well articulated
view of how "things should be or else".

Now, let me be clear, our culture allows you to be bold. Even when half
cocked. You have been bold and things have improved from what you proposed.
It is however not clear that you have the people frequent #wikipedia agree
with your premises. There is room for either more back pedalling or for more
changes to what you proposed and implemented but was not seen and considered
by most.

Thanks,
    Gerard

On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
> > The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
> Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other
> channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting
> #wikipedia-social. This doesn't mean that tangents and banter are
> disallowed, but that completely off-topic discussion should be avoided
> to begin with.
> > We think of off topic
> > conversation as a good thing. There is nothing worse than getting into a
>
> > silent channel, asking a question, and getting the answer half an hour
> > later, when you lost all the interest
> >
> Yes, getting no answer while US politics or furry fandom drown out the
> question is worse than that. I think your concern is exaggerated. Most
> channels do not have 250 regular users, and they do fine. I think
> #wiktionary is a good example of a channel that consistently has less
> than 30 occupants, and is always more active than #wikipedia-en with
> many more on-topic conversations, and tangents as well.
> > 1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
> > with questions?
> Yes, very much so.
>
> Dominic
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
In reply to this post by geni
I admit we are at fault here with how quickly ops are being reinstated.

Applications to me or Dmcdevit via e-mail or IRC are appreciated.

On 20/06/07, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/20/07, Dmcdevit <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Dejan Čabrilo wrote:
> > > The most problematic rule is the ban of off-topic talk in the channel.
> > Off-topic chat is not *banned,* but it is being coaxed into other
> > channels where it is more appropriate. Consider visiting
> > #wikipedia-social.
>
> coaxing =rming most of the ops thus making the channel to vulnerable
> to attack to be useable
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
<[hidden email]>
http://seanwhitton.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
In reply to this post by Guillaume Paumier
> Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
> James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
> whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).

I'd like to make it very clear this was an action as group contact not
as freenode staff. freenode staff have given advice as my peers,
nothing more. Also, Mark_Ryan was widely recognised as the 'leader' of
the channel as he was the most active manager of the ops team. He
fully supported our proposals and contributed to them, suggesting to
me that we do have authorisation, if you see what I mean.

> Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
>
> Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
> that people really understand why your action was needed.

Guillom, thanks for highlighting this. The problems were that a lot of
on-wiki users had abandoned #wikipedia in favour of other channels or
of leaving IRC altogether. It had been called a blasted wasteland.
However, IRC was still recognised as a useful tool, just that our
original channel (as in, been around in one form or another for the
longest time) was not. I didn't see that as a good situation.

Also, I was of the opinion that our ops were a little harsh at times
and were not willing to act as catalysts. This is not to say they did
not agree with the philosophy, but just that they were in old habits.
Here I agree with the concern that it is not for me to say "you will
op as I wish you to) but there was plenty of popular support for the
spirit of the idea.

So, the idea of removing ops was primarily to create the opportunity
for ratification of the guidelines. It was realised that the last
attempt at guidelines had failed because those who were to enforce
them were confused: if we had created a peaceful channel with them and
then an inactive op came back and shattered things (in good faith and
unintentionally) it would have been all for naught. By asking ops to
reapply we can reaffirm we're all on the same wavelength.

Sean

On 20/06/07, Guillaume Paumier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 08:59 +0100, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > Firstly, the guidelines were drafted and left in the topic of
> > > #wikipedia for several days. No real feedback or edits were received
> > > and so we thought it would be okay to go ahead. Perhaps if the
> > > community had got involved in discussion there, we probably would have
> > > allowed more time, but it didn't seem to be happening. So, there was
> > > no community input despite the opportunity for it.
> >
> > Did this not lead you to believe that the guideline was not advertised
> > properly? After we heard about it, many people got very upset. So, I
> > suggest you give us another chance to give you input on the topic. The
> > guideline page is protected, and when I asked an op (rather harshly, I
> > must admit) in #wikipedia to change the /topic, to reflect that most of
> > us don't agree with it, he didn't do anything about it.
> >
> > My question still stands: why do you get to make decisions for all of
> > us?
>
>
> Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
> James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
> whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).
>
> > Secondly, I agree that the off-topic guidelines were originally worded
> > > far too strictly. I've since toned down the guidelines (I didn't write
> > > them originally) to try and give the impression that was intended,
> > > that extensive off-topic talk is discouraged, not that we are saying
> > > "talk about anything but Wikipedia and you get banned". Please take a
> > > look at them now and see what you think.
> >
> > Like I said before: I hang out in that channel because I like the wit of
> > the people in it. If we are not allowed to dwell into out conversations
> > to a point in which we discuss the political philosophy behind the
> > religious dynamics among the royalty of Swaziland or the latest episode
> > of Dr House, the channel will lose its charm of an encyclopedia channel
> > - and it will be void of people who otherwise helped newcomers. It will
> > also be void of admins, and in many cases, my only way to quickly
> > contact an admin was through that channel.
>
>
> Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global
> Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you
> had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was
> English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is
> #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de).
>
> Finally, let me repeat this: While I applaud your effort to take
> > initiative, why do you think you have legitimacy to deop people, make a
> > guideline without community input (whether the lack of community input
> > was your fault or not doesn't matter, there still wasn't any), and then
> > give ops to people who will follow it?
>
>
> Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
>
> Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
> that people really understand why your action was needed.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
> imagined." Henry David Thoreau
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
<[hidden email]>
http://seanwhitton.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
> There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often.
> people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
> together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
> #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
> foundation/organization-related, not project-based.

Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are
affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is
definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for
project-related matters.

> And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The
> mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki
> admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting
> the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go
> the right way.

While I agree with you in principle, I personally do not believe that
talk about a specific project is harmful until it stops another
project being discussed. We do advertise that #wikipedia is for
projects that don't have a sufficiently active channel of their own.

All the same, it is important to remember that not everyone is enwiki,
as you say.

Sean

On 20/06/07, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have to say, that I like the channel as it is constructed now much
> more. Some pepole will want to move to the social channel now, I can
> only encourage that if that is the chat they are searching. Please
> consider a few points:
>
> *All Wikimediaprojects which are on IRC have their channel as in
> #projectname-langcode , for example #wikibooks-nl . Why would
> en.wikipedia be an example?
>
> The channel was often flooding with off topic talk, when I came there
> for help (yes, even a steward needs help sometimes) no-one was
> responding often, due to the heavy offtopic conversations about star
> trek and indeed politics, generally americal politics. If there was a
> respond, it was not possible to find it in the flood when are not
> using a irc client with highlighting (such as javachat).
>
> There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often.
> people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
> together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
> #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
> foundation/organization-related, not project-based.
>
> Freenode is a big network, and contains a lot of channels. I think it
> is not so very weird to move from channel, if you want a social talk,
> just go to the appropriate channel. If the social talk is a short
> spin-off of a Wikipedia-related issue, I guess there is nobody banging
> on your head.
>
> Yes, you are allowed (of course) to change from network. If you really
> feel that you cannot operate anymore in Freenode, you are free to
> choose another network, and go there. Consider however, that it is not
> as much Freenode you are having problems with here, you just disagree
> on a few rules for *one channel*. I guess it is easier then to set up
> another channel, such as ##Wikipedia .
>
> And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The
> mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki
> admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting
> the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go
> the right way.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/6/20, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]>:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> > > Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
> > > James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
> > > whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).
> >
> > Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode
> > can't get along?
> >
> > > Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global
> > > Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you
> > > had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was
> > > English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is
> > > #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de).
> >
> > Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to
> > contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is
> > mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can
> > both direct you and help you.
> >
> > > Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
> >
> > I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't
> > think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in
> > it would be a way to go.
> >
> > > Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
> > > that people really understand why your action was needed.
> >
> > So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
> >
> > Dejan Čabrilo
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
<[hidden email]>
http://seanwhitton.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

James Forrester-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 20/06/07, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It has been said that there was some notice on the /topic. That is great..
> realistically who reads it?

Well, if people fail to read it, that's their problem. Its sole
purpose is to inform people about changes to the channel and that
about which it is concerned.

> You mention that there were complaints about
> this channel .. well, there are always people that complain but how relevant
> is that.

The complaints were not minor. #wikipedia was a stain on the
reputation of Wikimedia. It was inevitable that it was going to be
purged of the mess. Please don't brush the very real problems off as
lacking relevance.

Those who have useful input (that means "why not allow xyz, because
...?", not "I don't like these rules, get rid of them!") are welcome
so to do, but this thread doesn't seem to contain much in the way of
the former, I'm afraid.

All IRC decisions are, in the end, my responsibility. Please do not
lambast others who are "further down the chain". Ignorance of the
long-standing power structure for the WMF IRC channels is a little
disappointing, but then, we do try to run things with a very light
hand on the tiller.

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
[hidden email] | [hidden email]
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

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

Re: #wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 13:08 +0100, James Forrester wrote:
> Well, if people fail to read it, that's their problem. Its sole
> purpose is to inform people about changes to the channel and that
> about which it is concerned.

Oh, come on. Y'all were saying how you got community input
through /topic and this mailing list. There was NONE.

> > You mention that there were complaints about
> > this channel .. well, there are always people that complain but how relevant
> > is that.
>
> The complaints were not minor. #wikipedia was a stain on the
> reputation of Wikimedia. It was inevitable that it was going to be
> purged of the mess. Please don't brush the very real problems off as
> lacking relevance.

And? We are complaining about the guideline and how it was created and
how it is enforced. What are we going to do about that.

Still no excuse for not including the community into the decision making process.

My questions still remain:

1) Were there any complaints that #wikipedia wasn't helpful to people
with questions? Or this come just because some people don't like what we
talked about?

2) Whom can we ask for help? Most of the people in #wikipedia dislike
both the new rules and how they were implemented and we don't want seanw
in charge. As demonstrated in the channel and on the talk page of the
Guideline.

3) Who are seanw and other people who authorized them to come up with
rules? Can I make a gudeline on wikimedia and say that I'm in charge of
the feud I choose? Please :P

4) Why was there no community input? You can say all you want, but I
first heard about the issues on this mailing list from /topic, and first
saw the guideline after it was enforced.

5) Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too?

Dejan Čabrilo


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

Re: #wikipedia

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
Sean Whitton wrote:

>> There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often.
>> people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
>> together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
>> #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
>> foundation/organization-related, not project-based.
>
> Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are
> affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is
> definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for
> project-related matters.

Which is, when you think about it, the reason why this discussion should
have taken place on wikipedia-l rather than foundation-l.
I forgive the error, but #wikipedia is not a Foundation discussion
really, it is a Wikipedia discussion.

Ant


>
>> And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The
>> mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki
>> admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting
>> the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go
>> the right way.
>
> While I agree with you in principle, I personally do not believe that
> talk about a specific project is harmful until it stops another
> project being discussed. We do advertise that #wikipedia is for
> projects that don't have a sufficiently active channel of their own.
>
> All the same, it is important to remember that not everyone is enwiki,
> as you say.
>
> Sean
>
> On 20/06/07, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have to say, that I like the channel as it is constructed now much
>> more. Some pepole will want to move to the social channel now, I can
>> only encourage that if that is the chat they are searching. Please
>> consider a few points:
>>
>> *All Wikimediaprojects which are on IRC have their channel as in
>> #projectname-langcode , for example #wikibooks-nl . Why would
>> en.wikipedia be an example?
>>
>> The channel was often flooding with off topic talk, when I came there
>> for help (yes, even a steward needs help sometimes) no-one was
>> responding often, due to the heavy offtopic conversations about star
>> trek and indeed politics, generally americal politics. If there was a
>> respond, it was not possible to find it in the flood when are not
>> using a irc client with highlighting (such as javachat).
>>
>> There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often.
>> people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
>> together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
>> #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
>> foundation/organization-related, not project-based.
>>
>> Freenode is a big network, and contains a lot of channels. I think it
>> is not so very weird to move from channel, if you want a social talk,
>> just go to the appropriate channel. If the social talk is a short
>> spin-off of a Wikipedia-related issue, I guess there is nobody banging
>> on your head.
>>
>> Yes, you are allowed (of course) to change from network. If you really
>> feel that you cannot operate anymore in Freenode, you are free to
>> choose another network, and go there. Consider however, that it is not
>> as much Freenode you are having problems with here, you just disagree
>> on a few rules for *one channel*. I guess it is easier then to set up
>> another channel, such as ##Wikipedia .
>>
>> And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The
>> mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki
>> admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting
>> the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go
>> the right way.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> 2007/6/20, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]>:
>>> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
>>>> Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
>>>> James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
>>>> whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).
>>> Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode
>>> can't get along?
>>>
>>>> Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global
>>>> Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you
>>>> had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was
>>>> English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is
>>>> #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de).
>>> Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to
>>> contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is
>>> mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can
>>> both direct you and help you.
>>>
>>>> Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
>>> I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't
>>> think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in
>>> it would be a way to go.
>>>
>>>> Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
>>>> that people really understand why your action was needed.
>>> So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
>>>
>>> Dejan Čabrilo
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>


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

Re: #wikipedia

Michael Bimmler
On 6/20/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sean Whitton wrote:
> >> There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often.
> >> people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
> >> together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
> >> #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
> >> foundation/organization-related, not project-based.
> >
> > Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are
> > affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is
> > definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for
> > project-related matters.
>
> Which is, when you think about it, the reason why this discussion should
> have taken place on wikipedia-l rather than foundation-l.
> I forgive the error, but #wikipedia is not a Foundation discussion
> really, it is a Wikipedia discussion.
>
Agreed. Could you maybe move this discussion to the appropriate list
(which is #wikipedia)? BTW: Remember, the IRC channels are not
official Wikimedia Foundation channels, so they shouldn't really be
discussed on the foundation list.
On the other hand, some IRC users complained that they couldn't make
input because it is discussed on foundation-l, "a list that no normal
wikipedian reads" (quote). So, maybe, it's really not the best list
for this discussion!?
Michael

> Ant
>
>
> >
> >> And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The
> >> mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki
> >> admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting
> >> the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go
> >> the right way.
> >
> > While I agree with you in principle, I personally do not believe that
> > talk about a specific project is harmful until it stops another
> > project being discussed. We do advertise that #wikipedia is for
> > projects that don't have a sufficiently active channel of their own.
> >
> > All the same, it is important to remember that not everyone is enwiki,
> > as you say.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On 20/06/07, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have to say, that I like the channel as it is constructed now much
> >> more. Some pepole will want to move to the social channel now, I can
> >> only encourage that if that is the chat they are searching. Please
> >> consider a few points:
> >>
> >> *All Wikimediaprojects which are on IRC have their channel as in
> >> #projectname-langcode , for example #wikibooks-nl . Why would
> >> en.wikipedia be an example?
> >>
> >> The channel was often flooding with off topic talk, when I came there
> >> for help (yes, even a steward needs help sometimes) no-one was
> >> responding often, due to the heavy offtopic conversations about star
> >> trek and indeed politics, generally americal politics. If there was a
> >> respond, it was not possible to find it in the flood when are not
> >> using a irc client with highlighting (such as javachat).
> >>
> >> There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear often.
> >> people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
> >> together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
> >> #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
> >> foundation/organization-related, not project-based.
> >>
> >> Freenode is a big network, and contains a lot of channels. I think it
> >> is not so very weird to move from channel, if you want a social talk,
> >> just go to the appropriate channel. If the social talk is a short
> >> spin-off of a Wikipedia-related issue, I guess there is nobody banging
> >> on your head.
> >>
> >> Yes, you are allowed (of course) to change from network. If you really
> >> feel that you cannot operate anymore in Freenode, you are free to
> >> choose another network, and go there. Consider however, that it is not
> >> as much Freenode you are having problems with here, you just disagree
> >> on a few rules for *one channel*. I guess it is easier then to set up
> >> another channel, such as ##Wikipedia .
> >>
> >> And *please* remember that not everybody is from en.wikipedia . The
> >> mistake of admin is one often made. If someone searches for an enwiki
> >> admin, he should actually search in #wikipedia-en . It is just setting
> >> the links in the helppages straight, and most of the people will go
> >> the right way.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >> 2007/6/20, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]>:
> >>> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 10:28 +0200, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> >>>> Because Sean is one of our two IRC group contacts for Wikimedia (with
> >>>> James_F), member of Freenode staff (you know, this network you are using and
> >>>> whose rules you have accepted a long time ago).
> >>> Can we consider changing the network then, if our community and FreeNode
> >>> can't get along?
> >>>
> >>>> Admin on which project ? #wikipedia is supposed to be about the global
> >>>> Wikipedia project, if you wish to find admins of a dedicated project, you
> >>>> had better join the dedicated channel (I guess your sentence was
> >>>> English-language-Wikipedia-centric, so in that case the dedicated channel is
> >>>> #wikipedia-en, just like there is #wikipedia-fr or #wikipedia-de).
> >>> Usually admins on en.wikipedia. Several people used #wikipedia to
> >>> contact me for help, as I'm an admin on sh.wikipedia, and our channel is
> >>> mostly empty. It's easier to have a centralized place where people can
> >>> both direct you and help you.
> >>>
> >>>> Because someone had to do it. Sean was only bold enough to dare doing it.
> >>> I am bold enough to go and reconstruct AfD on en.wikipedia. But I don't
> >>> think changing the rules and desysoping all the admins that took part in
> >>> it would be a way to go.
> >>>
> >>>> Sean, I think you should make it publicly clear what the problems were, so
> >>>> that people really understand why your action was needed.
> >>> So, Sean should tell us why the channel we were in had problems?
> >>>
> >>> Dejan Čabrilo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: #wikipedia

Rory Stolzenberg
In reply to this post by Dejan Čabrilo-2
On 6/20/07, Dejan Čabrilo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2) Whom can we ask for help? Most of the people in #wikipedia dislike
> both the new rules and how they were implemented and we don't want seanw
> in charge. As demonstrated in the channel and on the talk page of the
> Guideline.


Make specific proposals for changing the guideline on the talk page and here
on the mailing list. Simply making a lot of noise about how much the
guidelines suck and how seanw should lose his group contact privileges
aren't going to get you anywhere. Participating in productive discussion
will.

3) Who are seanw and other people who authorized them to come up with
> rules? Can I make a gudeline on wikimedia and say that I'm in charge of
> the feud I choose? Please :P


Seanw was a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by the foundation to be a
liaison between WMF and Freenode, and also to be in charge of the channels.
Mark_Ryan had the access level to appoint ops before the change, and was
generally the most active of the people with the same access level.
Dmcdevit, AFAICT, didn't actually do any of the organizing of the change,
but (I think) he previously had the access to add/remove ops and so Mark and
Sean made him Mark's deputy in enforcing the new guidelines and promoting
new ops.


> 4) Why was there no community input? You can say all you want, but I
> first heard about the issues on this mailing list from /topic, and first
> saw the guideline after it was enforced.


There was no community input because nobody read the places where they
called for it. I'll admit that I think that Sean and Mark could have been a
bit more proactive in finding people to comment, but, because the guidelines
being passed doesn't mean that people can't still discuss it and change it,
it wasn't a huge mistake, people are just making it so because they're
constantly whining about how much they hate the guidelines instead of
working to revise them to make them better.

5) Is this how we are going to go about other issues on Wikipedia, too?

Dejan Čabrilo
>
> Someone being bold and then everyone discussing their changes is how we've
made decisions on Wikipedia for a long time.

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

Re: #wikipedia

Rory Stolzenberg
In reply to this post by Michael Bimmler
On 6/20/07, Michael Bimmler <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 6/20/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Sean Whitton wrote:
> > >> There is a need for interwiki-communication is something I hear
> often.
> > >> people are not able to get together and think about general solutions
> > >> together. The only channel being used for that kind of stuff is
> > >> #wikimedia , but to be honest, that is more
> > >> foundation/organization-related, not project-based.
> > >
> > > Precisely. If we could raise issues in the channel that really are
> > > affecting multiple places, it's great. As you say, #wikimedia is
> > > definately more geared towards WMF, and #wikipedia is appropriate for
> > > project-related matters.
> >
> > Which is, when you think about it, the reason why this discussion should
> > have taken place on wikipedia-l rather than foundation-l.
> > I forgive the error, but #wikipedia is not a Foundation discussion
> > really, it is a Wikipedia discussion.
> >
> Agreed. Could you maybe move this discussion to the appropriate list
> (which is #wikipedia)? BTW: Remember, the IRC channels are not
> official Wikimedia Foundation channels, so they shouldn't really be
> discussed on the foundation list.
> On the other hand, some IRC users complained that they couldn't make
> input because it is discussed on foundation-l, "a list that no normal
> wikipedian reads" (quote). So, maybe, it's really not the best list
> for this discussion!?
> Michael


Hmm, I guess I, and all the other enwikipedians on this list aren't normal,
then. It's a bit late to move to wikipedia-l (and less Wikipedians read that
than foundation-l, to be honest), though, so I think we should stay here for
the remainder of this discussion and move there for future discussions.

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

Re: #wikipedia

Dejan Čabrilo-2
In reply to this post by Rory Stolzenberg
Ok, gathered from what several of you said, is it fair that I draw the
following conclusions:

1) Seanw is a group contact of Wikimedia, appointed by Wikimedia, on
FreeNode.

2) Wikimedia granted him absolute right to do what he pleases
with the channels.

3) Community has the input, unless we propose that
off topic discussion should be allowed and that old ops are brought
back.

4) Many of you don't think that coming into the channel and saying:
tone it down a bit, would be beneficial. It had to be done in a way
which separates the community.

5) You all think that enacting the policy without ANY (justified
or not) community input was a good way to go.

I am asking all of this because I don't like separating #wikipedia
and #wikipedia-social one bit, and we have determined years ago that
#wikipedia serves best as both #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en channel
(we'd get tired of directing people to #wikipedia-en). This was because
en.wikipedia is a flagship project, and because the most commonly
used language on #wikipedia is English.

If there is nothing we can do, then somebody please tell me:
"Shut up, we already decided how we want that channel, trying
to discuss it will get you nowhere."

Thank you,
Dejan Čabrilo


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12