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

Thu Oct 23 09:18:22 UTC 2003

Effectively it's really pitty your are the alone to speak for french people.
(your are often not representative of other french opinion)
I can't help... I can't read all the mails (too long to translate for me).
Just hope the french Wikipedia growing will attract more people fluent in
english.
How about other no-english Wikipedia ?

Guillaume

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: Re : [Wikipedia-l] Mailing lists (Was: Dammit!

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>