On 14/10/2007, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, personally, I think the solution is obvious; a Name Assignation Committee, or NAC, as m'honoured colleage Platonides proposes, which will award names based on First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis, where there is appropriate proof of eligibility (POE). Clearly, this all needs to be backed up by sufficient paperwork, in triplicate, so I propose the parallel creation of a Vogon-Level Bureaucratic Board, (VLBB) which will deal with the intricacies of the Foundation's proof of identity (POI) scheme. Or we could just see what happens when we *actually* migrate things; yes, there'll be conflicts, but I'm pretty confident it's going to get ironed out.

I call dibs on 007! :-P

Hoi, The FCFS is as unfair as a system determined by numbers. It is grossly

unfair in not recognising the efforts of people who came later but did a genuine lot of work. It is also likely to give the users of the English language Wikipedia an edge. When SUL has been implemented things will revert to the natural state of play and indeed that is FCFS but you cannot state that it is unfair at that time because nobody else will be able to claim that account.

Please accept that any system has weaknesses, that every system is unfair and that every system will have people that hate it.

Thanks, GerardM On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui(a)gmail.com> wrote: solution an not either edits edits login own than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count, storage, first, rather edits the themselves, activeness is

Message: 5 From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> Hoi, When only one person claims a name for an account there is no issue. When multiple people have the same account a method has to be selected to give it to one or the other. Once SUL has been implemented, you can only choose from the names that are still available; no issue. Concluding, it is only at the moment of implementing SUL that there is an issue of fairness, after that there is no issue left. I disagree utterly that FCSS is fair. It does not take into account the

large groups of people who worked really hard and who may lose the name that they are known by to people who are not even aware any more that they have a profile.

PS My account is safe anyway so it does not affect me. Thanks, GerardM On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/15/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hoi, > > The FCFS is as unfair as a system determined by numbers. It is grossly > > You said, FCFS is as unfair as the system determined by "number of > edits", right? > > > unfair in not recognising the efforts of people who came later but did a > > genuine lot of work. It is also likely to give the users of the English > > language Wikipedia an edge. When SUL has been implemented things will > revert > > to the natural state of play and indeed that is FCFS but you cannot > state > > that it is unfair at that time because nobody else will be able to claim > > that account. > > But before SUL, one can claim the account? > And to be able to claim the account is related to the fairness in what > way? > Could you please explain me? > > > > > Please accept that any system has weaknesses, that every system is > unfair > > and that every system will have people that hate it. > > So, this is the point that the word "fair" or "unfair" should not be > taken here, since every system is unfair. > And let's select the most neutral system (regardless of fairness), > that is, FCFS. > > Also, please accept that FCFS has weakness and unfairness, and that > every system is unfair, so, the "fairness" should not be taken here. > Talking about fairness will never have conclusion. So, let's use the > most neutral system, by not concerning fairness. > > BTW: Could you please point me to the archive where I can read the > discussion about this in the very past? > I have tried to search wikitech-l archive, but that's not help. > > Thanks you, > Anon. > > > > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > > On 10/15/07, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:14:21 +0200 > > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > Good points. I said it, it is not fair but as you do not provide a > > solution > > > > that is more fair, there is no real alternative. Even though > everyone > > > > acknowledges that edit count is not really that special, we do not > have > > an > > > > alternative approach that does justice to the efforts involved. It > is > > not > > > > perfect but it is the best we have. > > > > > > > > The fact that someone has done edits over a longer time is not fair > > either > > > > .. So I did one edit in 2003 and 2007 and you have 20.000 edits ... > > > > > > But this is at least a bridge between 2 approaches, > > > * first come first served (FCFS), and > > > * active edit estimation > > > While the edits count only estimate active edit. > > > > > > However, I think the view of "fair" or "not fair" shouldn't be taken > here. > > > * The FCFS is the middle ground, most neutral appraoch, which is > > > moderately or dispassionately acceptable to everyone. > > > * Regardless of whichever approach is used for primary account > selection, > > > however, when the unify process finish, the account system for new > > > users, thereafter, will still go on with FCFS approach. The > > > unfairness of FCFS is still going on, thereafter, but everyone can > > > accept. > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/14/07, Anon Sricharoenchai <anon.hui(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message: 8 > > > > > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:22 +0200 > > > > > > From: GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Primary account for single user login > > > > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > > This issue has been decided. Seniority is not fair either; there > are > > > > > > hundreds if not thousands of users that have done no or only a > few > > edits > > > > > and > > > > > > I would not consider it fair when a person with say over 10.000 > > edits > > > > > should > > > > > > have to defer to these typically inactive users. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Yes, it's not fair, but this is the truth on wikimedia project > that > > > > > ones > > > > > have to admit. Imagine if, all wikimedia sites has a single > user > > login > > > > > since when it is first established, the one who first register > will > > own > > > > > that > > > > > username for all wikimedia sites. > > > > > > > > > > 2. The person with less edits, doesn't mean that they are less > active > > than > > > > > the > > > > > one with more edits. And according to, > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_count, > > > > > > > > > > ``Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's > > > > > contributions > > > > > to the Wikipedia project.'' > > > > > > > > > > What if, some users have less edits count, > > > > > * since they deliberately edit, preview, edit, and preview the > > > > > articles, > > > > > over and over, before submitting the deliberated versions to > > > > > wikimedia > > > > > sites. > > > > > * Some users edit, edit and edit the articles in their offline > > storage, > > > > > over > > > > > and over, before submitting the only final versions to > wikimedia > > > > > sites. > > > > > > > > > > While some users have more edits count, > > > > > * since they often submit so many changes, without previewing > it > > first, > > > > > and > > > > > have to correct the undeliberated edit, over and over. > > > > > * Some users often submit so many minor changes, over and over, > > rather > > > > > than > > > > > accumulate the changes resulting in fewer edits count. > > > > > * Some users do so many robot routines by themselves, rather > than > > > > > letting > > > > > the real robot to do those tasks. > > > > > * Some users often take part in many edit wars. > > > > > * Some users often take part in many arguments in many talk > pages. > > > > > > > > > > What if, the users with less edits count, try to increase their > > edits > > > > > count > > > > > to take back the status of primary account. > > > > > What if, they decide to change their habit of editing, to > increase > > the > > > > > edits count, > > > > > * by submitting many edits without deliberated preview, > > > > > * by splitting the accumulated changes into many minor edits, > and > > > > > submit > > > > > them separately, > > > > > * by stopping their robots, and do those robot routines by > > themselves, > > > > > * by joining edit wars. > > > > > > > > > > 3. According to 2) above, I think, the better measurement of > > activeness is > > > > > to > > > > > measure the time between the first edit and the last edit of > that > > > > > username. > > > > > The formula will look like this, > > > > > > > > > > activeness = last edit time - first edit time > > > > >