User talk:Jonas D. Rand/Transparency

Comments

• Oppose

, but not logging of IRC (too much space needed) - I am profoundly dyslexic and often have to have multiple previews of my posts prior to hitting "submit". IRC is too fast for me in this regard: I also sometimes have to read things multiple times before fully grasping it. Wikipedia is a web encyclopedia first and foremost! Our readers access it via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. They do not access it via IRC: why should we, then, hold discussions on it? fr33kman ^{t - c} 04:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See, told you I was dyslexic! I didn't understand the proposal until having read it four times! ;-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 04:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment: - remember that each IRC channel has it's own policies and rules over conduct. These include (and I quote) "civility, appropriate topics, and language". People can be 'kicked' if discussing inappropriate things and IRC channels often offer a very quick way to contact stewards who would otherwise take a few hours to reach. Say hypothetically, that I started deleting pages. Leaving a message on a stewards page wouldn't guarantee a reply, however, IRC would. You're concerned about editors "build[ing] a powerful network to control certain articles". Let's disable the e-mail functions as well! If editors want to "secretly ... work together with one agenda", wouldn't e-mail be further threats to our dear Wikipedia? Publishing IRC channels wouldn't do anything to prevent the large conspiratorial groups plotting the downfall of SEWP. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not calling for the abolition of WP IRC channels, just their public logging. I cannot think of a reason for the e-mail function, since web-based IRC clients are available if one does not have a client and wants to appeal a block. If people want to make friends online, there's always MySpace, and the chat channels. I am not saying a conspiratorial plot is being planned (I have suspicions, though), just that it is possible. If you can (seriously) come up with a reason for e-mailing people via WP, other than the unblock requests when one is banned from IRC, please bring it up. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, an obvious one jumps to mind: to appeal your ban from IRC. Remember that the main difference between e-mail and IRC is speed. IRC messages are received instantly, and the receiver of the message can view them (if online) immediately. E-mail poses the problem of incorrect e-mails, ***spam***, accidental deletion, not being viewed until too late.

However, other than the above factor, they are the same. E-mails are just as 'dangerous' as IRC if you're intent on finding and exposing an anti-Wiki faction. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 05:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about simple: but on en: I have used email to contact editors that are involeved in a mediation I'm doing: probabley not always the best way, but sometimes I have found that I need to talk to someone without there being a record (usually becasue I don't want coments I'm making to one side to be used by the other.) I wouldn't want IRC banned, it's usful to those that use it, but I'd ike to see "community" discusions happen on wiki: I'd actually be very uncormforatable with the thouht that they are occuring without my knwoledge (even if I'm not going to comment on them). [I've left the spelling errors in my text to show how I can't really use IRC: they make me feel like an idiot and the speel check FireFox offers me makes up for it] fr33kman ^{t - c} 05:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did not appeal my ban on IRC. It was brought up by Eptalon when I talked to him on IRC about something else, namely that Yegoyan was the same as User:Artaxiad, User:Haya, and User:Hye, and that I didn't know why he had so many accounts. I talked to him via e-mail before about it because I was banned here. Eptalon said "Different question: What could we expect if we simply unblocked you?". I appealed some time(s) before on IRC, but I couldn't appeal on-wiki without breaking the sockpuppetry rules. I did that while talking on a private chat with Eptalon because eptalon received the e-mails about Yegoyan personally and nobody else would understand that message. It wasn't to keep it confidential. He spontaneously mentioned my block. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also have used e-mail, very recently, on the English Wikipedia, to talk to editors, as I can contact them directly. I am willing to have the editors I e-mailed publish those e-mails on-wiki. The last time, I was "banned" on IRC. I don't know much about how banning works, so I stay away after I am "banned". — Jonas (talk · proposal) 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone has an IRC client installed, not everyone can install an IRC client. I didn't use IRC until recently because I forgot it was installed. I had not used it in years up until last week! Emails are better for people who cannot work IRC. Its not as user friendly as MSN or Yahoo or emails. A simple click on "email this user" type your message and send, is a hell of a lot easier than, download IRC client, install, figure out how to work, find appropriate IRC channell, type message, wait..." Kennedy ^(talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure about this, to be honest. Trying to apply on-wiki rules to IRC, I think, is a bad idea, and an idea such as public logging is something I'm really opposed to. By all means, formal processes, do them on wiki, they should be already, but the rest of this is not needed. ס ^Talk 03:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - there may for example be some off-wiki decisions for example around checkuser. The issue about qualifications is not well thought through as per the Essjay controversy. The only thing that is transparent is a user's contribution history and that is the only thing they should be judged on. Claims of expertise are irrelevant - the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability overrides - anybody should be able to verify an assertion. --Matilda (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No way. One, the Simple English Wikipedia's IRC channel is used mostly for general chat about simple, and many other unrelated subjects. With the StaticFalcon incident, I believe those involved have resolved it between themselves. As for verifying academic credentials, to where? The only time an editor should be forced to reveal identities is when they are applying for tools that affect privacy. As Matilda says, the contributions speak for themselves; whether someone claims academic status is irrelevant. Essjay was caught because he was employed by the foundation itself, and he used his false credentials to further his arguments in content disputes. It's not the same here, and this is why the foundation manages credentials of its employees. It takes the voluntary spirit out of editing completely; if the foundation needs to verify information of any kind, it can request it. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Had Essjay identified himself as Ryan Jordan, professor, identified his "university", and been as active as he was, someone would have realized that there was no professor by that name, probably when he tried to use the fake credentials to win a dispute. Wikipedia readers, and even some Wikipedians, are not as loyal to power as the average Wiki-Admin. Jonas D. Rand ^T 05:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Tag-team editing is fine IMO, if it's good faith. If it's to vandalize, then yes, they should be punished per WP:BAN. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 18:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

GP, I am concerned about your advocacy for tag-team editing. It is not ethically sound to do such a thing. I am specifically referring to networks of editors who communicate and plot off-wiki, who edit together to advance their collective viewpoint on one or more issues. This is what I want to prevent. It is beyond preventable on English Wikipedia, with such off-wiki communication channels like #wikipedia, and other loyalist editors to back up a clique (SlimVirgin and Crum375 being backed up by Jayjg comes to mind) exist there as well. I want to prevent this on SimpleWiki. Jonas D. Rand ^T 05:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that too. But I mean if you had tag-team editors working together to produce an article that followed the rules, then I have no problem with it. Sorry for the confusion. :) --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)