The way I look at it, there already is one in group, and one out. Admins can
theoretically read and write anything. Other users can block creations with
{{db-nonsense}}, and only admins can over-ride the decision. Keep in mind
that BLP is a specific issue, and one that Wales said we should moderate.
So, perhaps admins should be told that moderation should never be done in
haste. For the vast majority of articles, comments about current events in
politics on [[coliseum]] would be normal. For high-traffic articles in sex,
such comments would be downright mind-numbing. In BLP, though, an admin
raises a "Flags" tab on the page and enables write access for group, then
disables it for EveryOneElse -- at the first edit war (or anything like it).
That is how it is with semi-protected, already -- no IP#s. My proposal would
hav more groups created. There could be a bot-approved application process
to be a group member in quiz form -- you can't get in until you get 100%. If
you do not know, then you ask somebody who does, because it's a pass or fail
test with no score. The objective is to reduce actions like blocks, which is
about the fourth group that already exists in [[category:blocked users that
are not dicks]].
My rule for sporadic moderation on USENET is only "If it sells something and
it does not relate to the group, then ask (probably abuse(a)groups.google.com)
for it to be deleted". I gather that it is more complicated, here.
________
Clarke's Third Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
"FT2" <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e71d9fab0907220539v256537e7we70cf4ff7570f43e@mail.gmail.com...
The idea of restricting asrticle writing to a small
group ("experienced
article writers" "admins" "veterans" "blp specialists
endorsed by the
community") has been raised before. In principle if the group is made
large
enough to not be owned by some small clique and with a suitable policy
guiding how it works and its responsiveness, it's viable without
undermining
NPOV and openness.
The crunch point is "open to editing by all", and a large number of users
take that aspect seriously and literally. Philosophically once "open to
all"
is drawn back, the same logic applies to any type of article where a
person
or group might be unhappy with editing, and there's also a risk that
groups
once created tend to gravitate to their own internally developed norms or
to
become slightly separated.
Open editing is a major safeguard against Wikipedia being able to be
monopolized by some special interest group, or affected by censorship of
some minority or externally imposed stance. Add a means to limit article
control to some group, and there's always a risk it can be used in future
in
other ways.....
Not agreeing or disagreeing, more just outlining the perceived pros cons
and
issues.
FT2
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Jay Litwyn
<brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wrote:
Subject-Was: Re: A new solution for the BLP
dilemma
"Nothing new is under the sun", are among the most humbling of a
preacher's
words. If you hav ever right-clicked on a file that you uploaded to your
website (and you probably hav one that you are not using), then clicked
on
"properties", you would be greeted with this menu of flags, all within
your
control:
R W P
e r e
a i r
d t m
e i
t
Owner: X X O
Group: O O O
Everyone: X O O
Those would be appropriate settings for your user page, which is the only
one that the system would let you own. Admins would be owners of all
pages
in main: and user: on wikipedia. That way, if you you refused to comply
with
one rule or another concerning how user space is used, then an admin
would
permit everyone to also be able to write to your space, so that a
volunteer
could show you his ignorance of those rules :-) I can almost see the
author
of "vandalproof" hanging his head and asking why he did not think of
that.
group permission is a special feature of protected file systems. Windows
does not hav group permission in XP, TMK, and it does let you protect
shared
objects from being written to. My web server is NetBSD, so it does hav
groups. Users can be added to groups, so that people who hav made
applications for being included in a group -- applications to a sysop
would
let you write files in a particular project, because you were a member of
the required group.
In a series of occurances, here is how a biography might become
authorized
and get a special stamp of approval from the subject of the biography.
Someone write's a biography about someone else on their user page.
They let it out among their collaborators.
Two of those collaborators want to fix it, so the starter permits
everyone
to write to it.
An edit war breaks out, so the sysop (sysops always hav power to permit,
as
well as power to destroy, which is not displayed) retracts all
permission,
except permission to a group, then assigns three veterans to that group
and
solicits their attention to an article in progress.
No blocks are issued.
No significant flaws are in the wording or the evidence.
The page is permitted for reading by all and writing by none.
Occasionally, on the talk page, someone raises {{editprotected}}.
The questions typically get an answer that could hav been found by
reading
three months of history.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l