[Wikipedia-l] Mailing lists (Was: Dammit!

Thu Oct 23 05:12:59 UTC 2003

From: Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mailing lists (Was: Dammit!
> Post to the right
> 	list or	don't post at all.)

> The Cunctator wrote for the most part:
> 
> >Don't blame the participants--blame the flawed
> interface of using
> >multiple mailing lists for discussing Wikipedia
> issues.
> 
> Do you mean that it would be better for the French
> speakers
> to look through all posts now on wikiEN-L /and/
> wikipedia-L
> to search for matters relevant to all Wikipedias?
> Having general material appear on wikiEN-L from time
> to time,
> and [[en:]]-specific material appear on wikipedia-L
> occasionally,
> seems easier to deal with than always having to
> check everything.
> 
> Of course, I read both lists anyway, so I'll defer
> to Anthère if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> -- Toby

:-)
I am registered to fr, en, main, international,
textbook, and tech lists.
Because you guys are commonly spilling things at the
wrong place and that is the *only way* to know what is
going on. Ideally, I should also follow the village
pump as well, because more than once I fell upon
something all decided there. But I rarely do.
And of course, discussions also go on at meta, so that
is another place to watch.

For an english-only participant, that makes rather few
places to follow. Not so for someone working on
several wikipedias. Plus, we do not read so quickly as
you all do. And sometimes misinderstand entirely
things done, such as I did 2 days ago with Mav.

I think ultimately, one give up trying to follow.

I could not assume more than 100 messages a day in my
mail box, so I switched to digests. Now, I am breaking
threads, because I can't answer to a comment, just
copy the title of the thread. Further impairing the
information flow.

I know few internationals have the courage to follow
everything.

-------

Need proof ?

Some time ago, the english wikipedia decided to change
the software to make it suit better her own needs;
that is to make it possible to any sysop to block
someone.
I followed the discussion. It was a general soft
change, intended for the needs of ONE wikipedia only
(granted, we could use it as well one day, and that
can really help in case of vandalism). It was
discussed by english wikipedians only. It was decided
by english wikipedians only.
When I said that I did not want that on the french
wiki (sorry that no one else speak up, but I am not
gonna stop giving my opinion just because I am alone
talking), the soothing answer was "then we won't make
it available on the french wiki".

It was not even officially announced to
internationals, though imho, it is a *major* change,
and could have *very* bad consequences on those
wikipedias, where there are few sysops and no Jimbo.

Of course, the feature is available on the french
wiki. Just as politicians, promises last the time they
are written.

Similarly, a year ago, I remember fighting against the
red links for non articles, saying I would prefer ? to
be default. Again, I was finally told that the french
wikipedia would have ? as default then. Do I need to
say which one is default between ? and red links ?

Last week, one french, one that is supposingly
following the ML discovered by chance the ability to
block user name with one discussion here. He is
typically one that should have known, that should have
followed the discussion. But clearly did not. Probably
because the decision in software change was lost in
the discussion threads.

When the change over blocking decision was done,
french were discussing over a problematic user. I did
not want him to be banned, because I thought the issue
could be solved through discussion. Unless I am wrong,
it was.
If the french had known the feature, I foresee he
would have been blocked. So, I did not say anything
:-)
I suppose most french users are still not aware sysops
can block them. And it is not written anywhere :-)

------

I know damn well everyone is making efforts, and that
in the heat of a war, it is easy to make a mistake and
post things at a wrong place.

I know also that some people do disperse discussions
on purpose.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a global project.

Language can make whatever policies they see fit.

But software is commun asset. As such, any change made
to it should be discussed in common. Not at the
village pump and not on the english list. And ideally,
not in english only.
And when english people decide of a software change,
please do stop saying the change will be local only if
international do not agree with it. The truth is that
it is a good way to shut someone else opinion to say
so, and force someone to accept something, when they
discover that whatever their opinion, the change is
there, so better do with it.

I hardly dare to remind this, but the internationals
are slowly growing up. They may not be underage
wikipedias any more. They also have concerns on their
own, that are perhaps not those on the english
wikipedias.

There are also the small ones, not to forget. They
should perhaps have a specific mailing list, or a
specific place on meta, on their own, because their
concerns are differents from the biggest ones.

Any change in softwaree should NOT be discussed in
english and on english list and pump only. And it
should be officially announced somewhere. Perhaps a
"technical news" page should be set somewhere, where
we would put the upgrades announcements, the software
updates, the server status, the purchase
announcements, the classical bugs (ugly red missing
and visited links).  Having all this centralized could
help have the information follow.

Meta is becoming messy, because we can't distinguish
was is one wikipedia relevant, from what is wikipedia
wide relevant. English use meta as a repository of all
what they like on their main space. It is hard to
distinguish what we should read from what is not
necessary. Making it even more likely that we miss
something.
I would like very much to see something like
"categories" on meta, with boxes to tick when creating
or saving a page "english specific matters only",
"general matters". So at least an indicator on the
recent change could highlight what we are little
likely to be interested in. Or...do I dare say
again...even better, separate recent changes ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com