On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
When I say OTRS-like it's deliberate - this
isn't going to be bolted
on to the existing system for handling @wikimedia.org emails, but
rather a seperate handling system which uses the same (or similar)
software and concepts. Basically, just something that lets us see
what's open, what's closed, what's being handled.
What's the need, exactly? Wikipedia is littered with "work to be done"
requests. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Opentask, fo
example. None of those tasks are really tracked, monitored,
prioritised - people just do them when they get to them. Is that not
the appropriate strategy for this as well?
In the long run, I honestly see this taking pressure
off main-OTRS -
it means that the people who will jump through the extra hoop or three
to contact us directly are likely to be those with a problem more
significant that "OMG someone vandalised this page".
Cool :)
I feel it would be nice, in many ways; logging IP
addresses is
defensible for contributions, but for something as trivial as a
critical comment... IMO it's overkill. YMMV.
I agree, but attempting to hide IPs would be difficult (ie, require
changes to the software) and problematic (possibly allowing vandals to
get around blocks etc). Desirable, but not strictly necessary?
An additional benefit of the "single flagging
account" is that we can
trivially go back and see how the system is being used, just by
looking at the contributions of that single "user".
Logging everything on one central page would also have that advantage.
I do honestly feel that preventing blocks from
governing this gives us
a net benefit - sure, we'll get some abuse, but we'll also get the
opportunity for a lot of users who would otherwise be unable to
participate to leave comments. (Think of AOL users, or those behind
school rangeblocks, etc etc)
Maybe - you could be right. Anyway, this is a bit of a side issue. We
can certainly implement this a bit further down the track, can't we?
Ask yourself this: would it have worked for
Siegenthaler, or for some
random hoax article in a walled garden? Talk-and-categorising would
work, I suppose - same effective result as central flagging.
Yep.
Yeah, that
would be a problem. A sufficiently loud warning "Please do
*not* leave any contact information here - your message will be made
public." should be able to cover that.
How about "this article is about me, and..." cases?
Contact OTRS for that one. We can delimit specific cases that should
and should not be dealt with via this method (which needs a name). The
talk page is not the right place to go for "I am lawyer X. My client
is being slandered. You have until sunrise tomorrow or knees get
broken." type messages. It *is* the right place for "Napoleon wasn't
born in 1943 you twerps." type messages.
Steve