Brion Wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 12:47, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
>[..]
>> Brion Vibber
>> * for: Erik, Ed, Larry
>
>I'll pass -- as it is, my Wikipedia time is mostly taken up maintaining
>the software and I don't have time to contribute content.
I read the list backwards--I see now. Erik, Ed, and Larry voted for
Brion, not the other way around. Apologies, Ed; I've misunderstood
your post.
Hangdog,
kq
Ed Wrote:
>Here is my initial and unofficial tally of who wants whom to be a
list moderator:
<snip>
>KQ
>* for: Toby, Larry, Ed
Ed, I did *not* tell you this, and I'm curious how you came to that
conclusion. I have not discussed moderation with anyone.
kq
Erik asked, "...does our software actually support such moderator teams?"
I checked on the admin page for the mailing list, under Privacy Options: general posting filters.
It has two relevant options:
1. Hold all posts for administrator review
2. Hold all posts, except from a specified list of subsribers, for review
I think that'll do it.
As of now, there are 3 people listed as wikiEN-l administrators:
* me (Ed Poor)
* elian(a)gmx.li (Elian)
* dairiki+wpadmin(a)dairiki.org (not sure who this is)
As far as I know, the mailing list software is already set up to support moderation, either by a single individual or a team -- exactly as previously discussed.
The only issues are:
* should wikiEN-l or wikipedia-l (or both) be moderated
* who ought to be moderator(s)
* what should the rules of participation be
I bet the first rule we'd all like to have is that a Moderator should not use "moderation" to as a weapon in debate (!) -- just as a sysop should not.
Ed Poor
(just a list administrator -- not a moderator)
I wrote:
Ed, I'm really not meaning to be contrary here, but I don't think it's a
terribly great idea to tabulate "votes" on this particular issue for the
simple reason that the people whose posts most need moderation will be
voting. I suggest we simply leave the actual choice of moderators up to
Jimbo and debates the merits of the proposal itself.
-----
By "this particular issue" I meant only who the moderators should be--not
whether there should be moderation. That is, indeed, something that I
think should depend a great deal on "votes."
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
Don't worry, Larry, you're a shoo-in for First Moderator. I just like tabulating things.
In fact, I don't think the list is going to become moderated unless there's a consensus. If it's 50-50 or 60-40, maybe we should leave it as is. I'm not trying to ram anything through, and I'm sure you aren't either. I mean, shucks, you only proposed the idea today. A lot of people haven't even read the list digest yet.
In scrupulous fairness,
Ed Poor
Cc'ing wikien-l in case there are members of that list that aren't on
Wikipedia-l and haven't seen the recent discussion about making
Wikipedia-l or WikiEN-l moderated.
Jimbo wrote:
>> I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main policy list,
wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of
censorship, etc.
But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame
wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for
specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation
might do wonders. <<
I suggest we keep discussing this for a while and then, if the discussion
is *generally* in favor of some sort of moderation scheme, Jimbo picks the
first moderators.
(I just thought that appeal to vanity would do the trick. ;-) )
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the
obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
This quotation may or may not apply to the contents of this e-mail.
As one of the list administrators, I already have the *power* to ban posters or put them on the naughty list (i.e., the "I have to read it before deciding whether to pass it on" list).
I don't have the *authority* do to this, though. So I don't even consider doing so.
This is just like my status as a "developer", which gives me the *power* -- but not the *authority* -- to ban any user from Wikipedia or promote or demote sysops.
Ahh, the responsible exercise of power: how difficult it is! Yet, how essential!
Ed Poor
wikiEN-l administrator
& Wikipedia developer
& Wikipedia sysop
On Monday 09 December 2002 04:00 am, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I don't dispute the factual correctness of Mav's statement (or his hard
> work and dedication), but I disagree with the conclusions that he draws
> from that statement. I find him to prone to decide issues based on his
> genuflections to the Google God.
Hm. With all due respect to you and your contributions, I take some issue with
your oversimplified analysis of me and don't think such an analysis is really
appropriate in the first place. I've stated on many occasions that Google is
simply a tool to be used that can give an impression of usage when the most
proper usage is in question. That data can then be used as one important
external factor to help decide what we should be naming things. If and when a
naming conflict arises or there is otherwise an ambiguity issue presented,
then alternates need to be sought.
>With deepest respect I see Mav as a
> dedicated simplifier who would very much like to see knowledge in neatly
> wrapped little packages; sometimes that means cutting off the sharp and
> thorny bits just to get the gift to fit into the package. Once we get
> into that box it is more difficult to look out and see the other
> possibilities.
Also with the deepest respect, I think your oversimplication of me as a
"dedicated simplifier" is a bit off the mark (yet does have a thin veneer of
truth to it). For me, its not the knowledge itself but how that knowledge
interelates with other knowledge and how everything fits together in a
cohesive whole in order to make something superior to the sum of its parts
(similar to the role of chemistry and physiology in creating the emergent
property we call life). Granted, the use of the short forms of country names
was a bit simplistic, but it fit into our established naming conventions and
is also the form that most people would expect - thus its perceived overall
usefulness for both readers and contributors won the day.
This makes perfect sense until the fact that a modern nation like the PRC is
not the same as the historical China. So, upon reflection, a more complicated
system is needed for naming countries in order to bypass the ambiguity
between the two different (yet related) entities and write on-topic articles.
I in fact enjoy complex solutions so long as the result is logical, useful
and is reasonably self-consistant with the minimum of exceptions. In short, I
adhere to Einstein's call to make things as simple as possible, but no
simpler. Note the "no simpler" part.
So I focus on many details at once and track how those many details might
combine to form the big picture. Sometimes the detailed work leads to blind
corners (or failed metabolic pathways) because I fail to take related details
into account or fail to see their importance (or even their existence). This
is what occurred with the China issue; I failed to compute the detail on what
in fact was the best and most useful way for the article itself to present
and organize its data since I overlooked the fact that the PRC and China are
really separate entities.
--Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma payment. Have you had your Wiki today?
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bacillus&diff=0&oldid=476532