Talk:Wikimedia: Difference between revisions
responses to pro-sysop nonsense; these things exist and have names, and are relevant to the conduct of Wikipedia and the GFDL_Corpus, therefore, there is no unilateral "Right to Delete" by Moeller
m (comments on deletes) |
(responses to pro-sysop nonsense; these things exist and have names, and are relevant to the conduct of Wikipedia and the GFDL_Corpus, therefore, there is no unilateral "Right to Delete" by Moeller) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop vandalism") | *(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Sysop vandalism") | ||
::Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive [[trolls]] | ::Sysop power structure is de facto in place and serves the majority of users just well driving off vandals and too agressive-possessive [[trolls]] | ||
:::That is not an excuse to make it impossible for anyone to discuss such issues as [[WIPE syndrome]], [[troll-friendly]], [[sysop power structure]] or [[sysop vandalism]]. The only reason to do this is to ensure that no one ever has vocabulary to question these decisions. | |||
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Developer vigilantism") | *(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Developer vigilantism") | ||
::Hmmh? | ::Hmmh? | ||
:::[[developer vigilantiism]] (yes it is one of those rare words like "skiing" that has an "ii" in it) was actually noted by [[Brion Vibber]] originally. Obviously [[Erik Moeller]] (the name he himself has attached to Eloquence) is in favour of such vigilantiism, and wishes Vibber's issue never to be discussed. | |||
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "GFDL text corpus") | *(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "GFDL text corpus") | ||
::The whole concept of [[GFDL text corpus]] is errored in it's assumption that all [[GFDL]]'d material somehow belongs to a "corpus" that does not distinguish between places of editorship such as [[Wikipedia]], [[Wikinfo]] and [[Disinfopedia]]. All these places have been complained to be "corrupt" simply because they excersise editorial restraint so that all the noise does not render the signal useless, which is exactly what we intend to do a little for [[Research Wiki]] and more for [[Publish Wiki]]. | ::The whole concept of [[GFDL text corpus]] is errored in it's assumption that all [[GFDL]]'d material somehow belongs to a "corpus" that does not distinguish between places of editorship such as [[Wikipedia]], [[Wikinfo]] and [[Disinfopedia]]. All these places have been complained to be "corrupt" simply because they excersise editorial restraint so that all the noise does not render the signal useless, which is exactly what we intend to do a little for [[Research Wiki]] and more for [[Publish Wiki]]. | ||
:::That is legally wrong. [[GFDL Corpus]] does legally exist - it is that body of (almost entirely text) which permits cut and paste copying with no [[copyright]] inhibitions. Now, there are other requirements that apply to a [[GFDL corpus access provider]], and yes, there are editorial standards specific to those providers or their product. It is only when those providers fail to enforce the standards required to ensure them, that they become corrupt in the sense of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. For instance to [[desysop]] the [[sysop vandalism|sysop vandal]] or [[developer vigilantiism|developer vigilante]], or put controls on [[sysop vigilantiism|sysop vigilante]]s. It is [[Wikimedia]]'s total failure to do this which has led to them being "corrupt". | |||
:::In any case, the issue is clearly complex enough to require discussion. If you go to [http://wikinfo.org/wiki.phtml?title=GFDL_corpus en: Wikinfo: GFDL corpus] you find they are not so dedicated to destroying the idea of one corpus with some unified standards. But they are not trying to monopolize and control the corpus - notice that Moeller himself is actually the Wikimedia representative for "content relationships", meaning, in a conflict of interest when some [[standard]]s neither Wikimedia nor he himself define are discussed. | |||
*(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Trollherd") | *(diff) (hist) . . Meta:Deletion log; 23:32 . . Eloquence (Talk) (deleted "Trollherd") | ||
::Trollherd is not relevant to Wikipedia mission in Eloquence's mind. Whether this is bad judgement is up to oneself to decide. | ::Trollherd is not relevant to Wikipedia mission in Eloquence's mind. Whether this is bad judgement is up to oneself to decide. | ||
:::This is not the process of deletion followed generally on meta. This is a [[usurper]], usurping. | |||
See [[m:Meta:Deletion log]] | See [[m:Meta:Deletion log]] | ||