|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 11, 2014 23:32:08 GMT -5
Given this is a board about anything, I decided to write about the *huge* controversy on Wikipedia right now. Nobody read this- it'll be a waste of your time. Acronyms: Enwp = (the) English Wikipedia Sysop/admin = administrator RfC = Request for Comment, the way policy is formed on enwp. There is a proposal and editors offer support or opposition for them, and once consensus is determined, policy is enacted. WMF = the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that owns Wikipedia Currently, on Wikipedia, it's Arbitration Committee(from now on "ArbCom"), the supreme dispute resolution body on enwp, has a case regarding a RfC proposing to turn off the site feature "MediaViewer", a new way to view images, for all users on enwp, by default. That RfC concluded, by an overwhelming majority, that MediaViewer was to be turned off for all users. After that, Fabrice Florin, a product manager within WMF, commented on behalf of WMF "recommending" that MediaViewer remain enabled on enwp. After that, an administrator made an edit to the site's "common.js", a file that contains JavaScript to be executed by all users on Wikipedia, to turn off MediaViewer for everyone. This was reverted by Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, 11 minutes later. Möller also left a message of the administrator who made the edit that disabled MediaViewer, saying "Per Fabrice's explanation, please refrain from further edits to the site JavaScript, or I will have to temporarily revoke your admin privileges. This is a WMF action." Now, there are many reasons this is controversial on Wikipedia, some of them being: 1. The WMF exists to support, not manage, it's projects, and should be subservient to community consensus. 2. Removing administrator rights on enwp is considered an extremely controversial thing to do(sysopship is granted by community consensus.) There are lots more, but I gotta go- need to get back to a discussion on Wikipedia. ArbCom case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media_Viewer_RfC |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Aug 11, 2014 23:41:22 GMT -5
Wow, a real look into the inner workings of a very complex organization. I'm trying to think how some lessons of this can be applied in our political simulators.
|
|
|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 11, 2014 23:50:09 GMT -5
Wow, a real look into the inner workings of a very complex organization. I'm trying to think how some lessons of this can be applied in our political simulators. ... Did you read it? Why! Get back to programming, your time is far too valuable to be spent reading things marked as "this is a waste of your time." You're grounded to the chair in front of your computers.  |
|
|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 12, 2014 8:52:42 GMT -5
Oh, my. Basically, in the German Wikipedia, the same thing has happened, except that Möller went farther. Möller added new code into the MediaWiki software, the software that Wikipedia uses, to make a "superprotect" feature- a protection that local administrators can't edit. He then applied this superprotection to the German common.js, to prevent local admins from disabling MediaViewer. The German Wikipedia got so fed up that they blocked Möller from editing the German Wikipedia for one month. (note that this block doesn't actually do anything; Möller has "staff" global access, which allows him to remove his own block, as well as add or remove... any access rights.) See de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALogbuch&type=block&user=&page=Eloquence&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1 (you will have to translate to English) (To be clear, Möller's name on Wikipedia is "Eloquence") |
|
mataeus
Templar
[ Elite & Star Traders 2 Supporter ]
From summer sands, to armageddons reach.
Posts: 820 
|
Post by mataeus on Aug 12, 2014 9:05:31 GMT -5
Every organisation, no matter how 'for the people' and altrustic it's objectives may seem, needs some kind of administrative powers-that-be to stop horrible people screwing with it.
However, on a site the scale of Wikipedia - who are on a constantly evolving mission to enclopediacally document every ounce of human knowledge on everything from why Pluto is no longer a planet, to why Holly Valance was crap in Dead or Alive - the responsibility cannot rest on the shoulders of one individual.
A committee, a jury if you will, is always needed in operations of this insane magnitude.
If he continues to be rogue and censor the desires and ultimate consensus of 'The People', he needs his access removing by those people.
In an organisation this large one man cannot be above the board or overule the democratic decisions of them. It's simply not acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 12, 2014 9:19:56 GMT -5
mataeus Of course. Everyone on Wikipedia is outraged. There have been many, many, calls for his desysopping(removal of his admin privs- which won't actually do anything). The highest authority on enwp, the Arbitration Committee, can't touch him because he's authorized by the Executive Director of the WMF. I'm personally trying to get his local admin privileges revoked on a technical basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by tenbsmith on Aug 12, 2014 12:51:34 GMT -5
This is very interesting. I followed the original link lixxx provided but have these questions:
Why does ArbCom want Mediaviewer off by default?
And, what is Möller's motivation wanting it on?
@cory, maybe a game with a series of missions where the player must build consensus to complete the mission. After several successful missions, there's a new mission where upon successfully creating the coalition, some external power steps in and undoes all the work... chaos ensues and the player must come up with a new mechanism to complete the mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 12, 2014 13:10:53 GMT -5
tenbsmith: ArbCom is neutral in opinion- they don't offically have an opinion- their job is to enforce English Wikipedia policy, so if there is a policy formed that ignoring local consensus is against policy, explicitly, ArbCom can order bureaucrats to remove Möller's local privileges. (of course, that won't actually get anything done, because Möller is globally in the "staff" group.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Staff, note they have the "Edit all user rights (userrights)" permission) Möller wants it on to make the board happy "hey look, I got this done" and make donors happy(look at all the work we've done, now can we have some money?"
|
|
|
|
Post by tenbsmith on Aug 12, 2014 13:14:17 GMT -5
Thanks lixxx, let me rephrase my first question: What was the rationale for setting the Mediaviewer to off by default?
|
|
|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 12, 2014 13:16:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rabidbite on Aug 12, 2014 13:57:40 GMT -5
Möller wants it on to make the board happy "hey look, I got this done" and make donors happy(look at all the work we've done, now can we have some money?" Just to play devil's advocate: Isn't that reason EXTREMELY important? No money. No wiki. rabid |
|
|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 12, 2014 16:11:21 GMT -5
rabidbite: the thing is, the money he spent on developing MediaViewer is more money they'll make from donations because of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabidbite on Aug 12, 2014 23:48:55 GMT -5
rabidbite: the thing is, the money he spent on developing MediaViewer is more money they'll make from donations because of it. I'm sorry, but I don't fully understand your reply. I will tell you my best guess as to what you said: The money spent on MediaViewer is more than the money that will be made from the USE of MediaViewer. Is that it? rabid |
|
|
|
Post by lixxx235 on Aug 13, 2014 12:02:39 GMT -5
rabidbite, I'm saying the extra money they'll get from saying "hey look, we made mediaviewer, now give us money" rather than just "give us money" is less than the money they spent on developing MediaViewer. By far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob on Aug 13, 2014 12:14:35 GMT -5
Das ist irgendwie schon reichlich witzig...
Kinda funny, isn't it?
Shows me again how WP tries to destroy itself, by spending money on somewhat useless things, then trying to get a ... Tenth? Perhaps not even that... back, and this bit of money will most likely be spent on more of these actions...
|
|
