Note Durin's *great* work at WP:BN -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BN#Redesigning_adminship
RFA is suffering the "a group is its own worst enemy" problem.
(Note that I don't think Wikipedia as a whole is. Almost all articles
are uncontroversial. It's amazing it scales as well as it has.)
- d.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_e…
>
> I posted about this to both these lists and have had no replies or
> comment whatsoever so far.
>
> So unless someone comes up with really convincing reasons not to push
> this as the place to send companies with article concerns - and I mean
> as in, sending out a press release - then that's precisely what's
> going to happen.
>
> In particular, are there any OTRS volunteers who can tell me if that's
> the best way to raise a substantial legal concern about something on
> en:wp?
That's fine - OTRS volunteers will forward valid requests to the OTRS
legal queue, and close/deal with the insane/hysterical ones.
--
user:Jeandré
It would be a terrible idea to give *every editor* admin powers. If you don't believe me, let me give an outline of what would happen:
1. Main page is deleted/restored/deleted/unprotected/protected/etc
2. Main page is replaced with tubgirl/goatse/meatspin
3: MediaWiki namespace is trashed/vandalised/deleted
4: Random editors are blocked for no reason
5: Random pages are deleted/protected for no reason
And the terrible thing about this is that nobody could stop it. Normally, when an edit war breaks out, a sysop is able to descend from the clouds and settle things. When there is an abusive editor, a sysop can rain holy thunder upon him.
If every editor can block, unblock, and generally destroy everything, who's next? Will the bureaucrats have to step in and lay down a Supreme Block? And then what if Bureaucrat is made a default right? And up until Steward? Will Jimbo have to step into the fray and lay his divine vengeance?
Now the continuation of expanding user rights is just hypothetical, but it gives you an idea.
---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
This just in from [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Class Action?]]:
I was recently contacted by some law firm from Miami,
Florida about some class-action lawsuit they were
assembling that involved a bunch of former and current
Wikipedia editors that are suing the Wikimedia Foundation
for compensation for all the time they spent improving
the site without pay.
[[User:Snowboarder77]] 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I rather suspect it's bogus on a couple of different levels,
but I thought I'd mention it here.
In Wikien-l, you wrote:
I've already explained this elsewhere, so I'll only give a quick summary
here. Wikipedia does something _right_ by letting everyone edit. The
underlying philosophy is that everyone starts out as innocent, and is
blocked from editing only if they show misbehaviour. Adminship is the
wrong way around. Users start out as being viewed with caution and
suspicion, and must "earn" their admin "privileges" by fulfilling some
ridiculous set of criteria. The _right_ way would be to demote the ones
who misuse it, not to prevent the constructive ones from being constructive.
Have you seen my proposal for adminship? It's on my blog at
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on…
Kelly
Bearing in mind the nature of YouTube commenters
(http://xkcd.com/c202.html), here is a randomly-encountered opinion
from Some Internet Person about Wikipedia admins. I wonder how many
people share the misconceptions expressed below (strange vocabulary
not included - themes? Threads? Huh?).
<quote>
Klyern (1 day ago)
you dont know s**t about wikipedia
you have to rely ONLY on the posts created by mods. or ppl given power by mods.
mods give power to a lot of ppl one at a time, its like a piramid. but
it DOES works, its only that theres only so few mods yet and so few
THEMES being mod locked yet.
you can only sugest stuff in mod locked threads.
</quote>
--
Earle Martin
http://downlode.org/http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
We apparently just lost Alkivar (hopefully just on a stress relief
break, but he says he's out of here indefinitely).
We're doing terribly at keeping identified, overstressed admins from
ending up going over the edge. What are we doing wrong, or what do we
need to learn to do right?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
Hi,
I agree that providing well-sourced "typical amounts" (perhaps with a historical perspective?) is useful information. That is not an issue. Here is an abstract from [[Trimipramine]] without a citation:
"The recommended initial dose is 75 mg daily in two or three divided
doses. Initial tolerance may be tested by giving the patient 25 mg on
the evening of the first day...."
Which would be better written:
"The American Medical Association recommends a dosage of 75mg for the treatment of acute <whatever> without complications.^A"
A) The AMA reference (not rxlist.com)
If the AMA does provide such recommendations. Having a vandal change specific dosage amounts is a scary prospect, as some people may actually trust our information at face value.
Thanks, George
en: [[User:GChriss]]
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:02:48 +0000 English Wikipedia wrote:
On 18/02/07, George Chriss <GChriss(a)psu.edu> wrote:
> Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on
prescription drugs? I generally remove the following sections on sight:
Please don't do that. It's useful knowledge to know what dosages are
typically given for what.
e.g. amitryptyline, which has quite different dosages for depression
and for chronic pain relief (and has come into its own for the latter
after SSRIs beat it for the former).
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l