Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/News and notes

Discuss this story

I still believe that superprotect was the single largest mistake in Wiki-history. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Superprotect was a huge mistake, ~~but such hyperbole makes it impossible to take your comment seriously.~~ Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I amended my comment. This should (hopefully) solve the issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I worry that hyperbolic comments may be taken as "evidence" by some in the WMF that the unruly community is in need of the adult supervision only they can provide. You can see the images produced by opponents on Commons; many are quite preposterous and some are in very poor taste. Superprotection deserves strong objections and even contempt, but we should keep things in proper perspective. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With around 35 or so employees, some of them very senior, fired, time limited contracts expired, or simply voluntarily moved on since Tretikov took office, it's possible that WMF opinion could now be swayed to accepting major policy changes demanded by major Wikipedia communities. Otherwise if one day the Foundation suddenly finds itself with a multimillion $ server farm and nobody writing articles for it or to maintain the pages, it will be their own fault. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Superprotect should never be used to force cosmetic software changes on a community that does not want them. While I do not think this will ever be attempted again, I think it would be good for the WMF to come out with a statement to that effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean a substantial weakening of the movement's ability to improve Mediawiki—a selling out of the WMF's ability to steer a little cohesion into disparate communities. Tony (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: That's just silly logic, though you are not the first to advance it. It does not follow from "Past software deployments have met resistance" that "Wikimedians are fundamentally resistant to change." That interpretation, when asserted by WMF personnel (in the past, I have not heard it so much recently) has been highly self-serving, illustrating an important COI the organization has in such matters. -Pete (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The support percentage for Liz's RfA should be reported, using the standard method of calculating it, as about 73.5%, not 71%. I believe the report here is including the neutrals in calculating the ratio, which is not how it's generally done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have looked it up instead of just doing the math myself. I'll correct my error. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely true. I did not vote on it as I saw the problems inherent in taking any position at all (ArbSpeak). To the point, moreover, is that discussions about many RfX issues (not just the case discussed supra) are now in process (Wikipedia_talk:Reflections_on_RfX inter alia). Collect (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if someone from WMF would communicate to say "we trust the community (which created us) and will not oppose them, except where it is clearly our legal bounden duty."
And it is most satisfying to see Liz appointed admin, where I'm sure she will do sterling work

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I read Peteforsyths blog post about the WMF board election results and disagree with this article's characterization of his remarks as "almost giddy". Pete was gracious and generous in his praise of the defeated incumbents, and acknowledged that he was not a good candidate himself, which is why he withdrew. I see no need to use a phrase to describe Pete's writing which, in my mind, carries negative connotations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for saying this, Cullen328. While I tend to agree, I'm not too worried about it -- Resident Mario provided a good overview of the history, and that's the important part. The one thing I'd have liked to see was a note that I was the author of the letter -- which I think would help readers understand why my reaction was relevant. But, meh. Good piece overall, glad it was published. I had not previously noticed Doc James' comment above, which I believe is the first time a Trustee (after election) has emphasized the importance of a public comment about related practices going forward. Thanks for that, James. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Superprotect was a convenient way for the WMF to achieve their short term goal of implementing a technical solution. It's no secret the foundation believes that technical "solutions" will solve falling activity and attract new editors. I do not believe their focus on technical solutions to be the answer to the current problems and in doing so they have turned their back on the current community which will continue to shrink away by being alienated and overridden. Mkdw ^talk 03:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel: This was a while back and the page has been blanked so you might have forgotten, but shouldn't you disclose that Auerbach was quite critical of you in his workshop comments? Brustopher (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel, your description of the interaction between me and a now-sitebanned user who (according to Jimmy Wales) committed a BLP violation against me and subsequently harassed me across several other websites as "a spat" is noted. My participation in the case stemmed, of course, from the actions of that party to the case, who was ultimately site-banned at the close of the case. Auerbachkeller (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Jimmy Wales? Mercy me, it MUST be serious. Parabolist (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]