Mailing List Archive

I would be interested in assisting in this area if there were to be two
people doing the job.
Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)

Anthere wrote:

>The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
>and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
>them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
>sure that one day there will not be a problem.
>
>So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will
>offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating
>cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser
>and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if
>necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
>
>Additionnaly, this person might have a sort of "overview" over the way
>the checkuser system works and may give us suggestions of suitable
>modifications of policies. Or recommandations of software changes.
>
>We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
>to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
>consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
>of this").
>
>Any volunteers ?
>
>PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting,
>with an OTRS file.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> writes:

...

> We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
> to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
> consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
> of this").

> Any volunteers ?

Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a
month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help,
but in the second, I may run out of time.

And .. global checkuser oversight needs trust on a pretty high
level. Are you sure it would not be better to "appoint" a couple of
stewards?

--
// Wegge
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
> Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> ...
>
>
>>We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
>>to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
>>consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
>>of this").
>
>
>>Any volunteers ?
>
>
> Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a
> month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help,
> but in the second, I may run out of time.

oh, goodness. A few cases a month at best ! (well, at least for now).

> And .. global checkuser oversight needs trust on a pretty high
> level. Are you sure it would not be better to "appoint" a couple of
> stewards?


Technically, the person would need to be given checkuser access on all
projects/language to have access to logs.

I would consider a requirement that the person gives his/her real name
(at the minimum to the board, publicly would be much better).

I think people can candidate, and the board could appoint. Editors are
naturally invited to mention their support or oppose on candidates (if
one candidate looks inappropriate to you, please mention it).

Stewards are naturally invited to volunteer, but I would not necessarily
limit the choice to them.

Note that this does not result in a board decision prior-hand.
This comes from the fact I usually find myself doing it, and failing to
do it well due in great part to a lack of time. Angela does not want to
get involved in checkuser matters. Hence my tentative delegation ;-)

ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> writes:

> Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
> > Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
> >>to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
> >>consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
> >>of this").
> >
> >
> >>Any volunteers ?
> >
> >
> > Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a
> > month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help,
> > but in the second, I may run out of time.
>
> oh, goodness. A few cases a month at best ! (well, at least for now).

In that case, I'd be happy to help. If a formal presentation is
needed, please ask. For people who have no idea who I am, I can tell
that I'm admin on dawik and bureaucrat on dawiktionary. Username Wegge
in both cases.

...

--
// Wegge
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.
>
> So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will
> offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating
> cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser
> and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if
> necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.
>
> Additionnaly, this person might have a sort of "overview" over the way
> the checkuser system works and may give us suggestions of suitable
> modifications of policies. Or recommandations of software changes.
>
> We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able
> to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into
> consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care
> of this").
>
> Any volunteers ?

Given that we've talked about this in the past, yes, I would be
willing to serve in this capacity.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2006/6/16, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com>:
> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.
>
> So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will
> offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating
> cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser
> and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if
> necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.

I would be willing to do this; however, before getting into such a
function, I would want to be get some more
instruction/discussion/whatever you call it on what the rules are and
when lines are being overstepped, so that I have the capability to
make an autonomous decision in at least most of the cases; without
that, I don't think anything is really won.



--
Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.

More or less than complaints about abuse of admin powers?

> PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting,
> with an OTRS file.

A general abuse-l@wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful.
There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints,
checkuser or no.

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'll help. I'd need some training on it, though.

Erica
en.wikipedia User:Fang Aili

On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Samuel Klein wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
>
>
>
>>The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
>>and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
>>them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
>>sure that one day there will not be a problem.
>>
>>
>
>More or less than complaints about abuse of admin powers?
>
>
>
>>PS : if necessary, set up a general email address for abuse reporting,
>>with an OTRS file.
>>
>>
>
>A general abuse-l@wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful.
>There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints,
>checkuser or no.
>
>SJ
>
>
I second this sentiment. There is no reason why checkuser complaints
ought to be singled out as something unique and special compared to
other admin abuses.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:

>>A general abuse-l@wikimedia.org / OTRS queue might be broadly useful.
>>There are some similar processes for dealing with abuse complaints,
>>checkuser or no.
>>
>>SJ
>>
>>
>
> I second this sentiment. There is no reason why checkuser complaints
> ought to be singled out as something unique and special compared to
> other admin abuses.
>


I disagree.

CheckUser (with Oversight now) is the only action which may be done with
no possibility to revert.

If an admin blocks someone, you can unblock. If a bureaucrate wrongly
sysop someone, you may remove status etc...

When once a checkuser has messed, you may not remove information from
people memories.

Outing certain information may lead to a lawsuit. Blocking someone
probably not.

The tool is special because it could involve the Foundation and because
it is non reversible.

Ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Nathan Carter wrote:

>I would be interested in assisting in this area if there were to be two
>people doing the job.
>Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
>
>
Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread
to all wikis?

Might cc this thread to the various Wikipedia lists and the Wiki
Ambassaders or other language chapters looking for partners.

Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.

Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no
deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there
is or is not a problem. Three way spread with complicated opinions
probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is
really going on or a simple no conclusion.

regards,
lazyquasar

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/16/06, Michael R. Irwin <michael_irwin@verizon.net> wrote:
> Nathan Carter wrote:
>
> >I would be interested in assisting in this area if there were to be two
> >people doing the job.
> >Nathan Carter (Cartman02au)
> >
> >
> Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread
> to all wikis?

CheckUser is available on all Wikimedia projects.

> Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.
>
> Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no
> deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there
> is or is not a problem. Three way spread with complicated opinions
> probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is
> really going on or a simple no conclusion.

My personal recommendation is for a commission of five, one of whom
should be a Board member. Without a Board member, the commission can
only be advisory.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael R. Irwin wrote:

>Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread
>to all wikis?
>
>
It is used on all wikis. I know it has been used on Wikinews quite a bit
lately.

>Might cc this thread to the various Wikipedia lists and the Wiki
>Ambassaders or other language chapters looking for partners.
>
>
Great idea.

>Two is excellent for alternate viewpoints and highly increased reliability.
>
>Three is the first odd number which provides both redundancy and no
>deadlock capacity assuming each checker provides a firm yes or no there
>is or is not a problem. Three way spread with complicated opinions
>probably means more review is necessary to figure out what the hell is
>really going on or a simple no conclusion.
>
>regards,
>lazyquasar
>
>
>
Generally the idea of an ombudsperson is to work independently, that way
things can be resolved quickly, although having a group of people may
work if the issue is still in dispute.
Cheers,
Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, 2006-17-06 at 19:38 +1000, Nathan Carter wrote:

> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
>
> >Is Checkuser is kind of Wikipedia specific or has this function spread
> >to all wikis?
> >
> >
> It is used on all wikis. I know it has been used on Wikinews quite a bit
> lately.
>
Just to clarify, there have been two CheckUsers performed on Wikinews in
the past couple weeks (one involving a string of IPs used by a known
sockpuppeteer.) Nathan may be somewhat unaware of volume of requests on
en.Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case> or on
Meta
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_CheckUser_information/Archives/2006/01>.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi,

I think there is need for a brief explanation how Checkuser's interface is
like (after looking at some posts):
* CheckUser ability status is granted to an account either via CheckUser
rights in local projects or via global Steward status (any steward can give
himself local CheckUser rights).
* So checking a user works only in the project you have the right to do so.
* However the CheckUser log file is globally visible to *all* CheckUser people
in any project. For example I am CheckUser in Wikimedia Commons only but I
can see for example all Checkuser request of en.wikipedia as well (timestamp,
wiki, executing person and target person are stored).

> The board regularly receives some complaints about checkuser activity
> and what happened is either that no one look at the case, or look at
> them poorly. In 95% of case, the "abuse" is imaginary; but we can not be
> sure that one day there will not be a problem.

Well by far the most CheckUser requests are done in en.wikipedia (> 50% of all
project). The total number is ~100 requests daily just in order to give
non-CheckUsers an impression of the general usage. de.wikipedia has the most
conservative CheckUser use of all large Wikipedia projects (most IP sock
puppets are so obvious that there's no point making a CheckUser) and thus has
only perfomed a few Checkuser requests. de.wikipedia even doesn't have an own
CheckUser person.

> So, what I suggest is a sort of ombuds-wo-man for checkuser, who will
> offer a sympathetic ear to complainers, take charge of investigating
> cases for the board in an official manner, mediate between the checkuser
> and the complainer when the case is litigious, educate checkuser if
> necessary, and will report to the board in case where there IS a problem.

As the logfile is visible to all Checkusers there is already some review of
each other and I was more than once talking in private communication that I
personally do not feel comfortable with the regular use of Checkuser in
en.wikipedia (although I admit that have zero insight in the single cases).

Don't get me wrong: For example regarding the
nl.wikipedia-checkuser-abuse-thread I would say this was a perfect valid
application doing a Checkuser there.

So I think there's need not to have so many policies with strict automatic
application (and I think this is the main reason why en.wikipedia has so many
CheckUser requests) but just some trust that an admin blocking somebody as
sock puppet did the right thing (TM) and that people go ahead writing an
encyclopedia and not creating a wiki-nation.

So data security is very important and it should be made clear to all
ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more avoidable
meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia article).
IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be
adressed there locally in the main line.

Arnomane
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Daniel Arnold wrote:

>So data security is very important and it should be made clear to all
>ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more avoidable
>meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia article).
>IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be
>adressed there locally in the main line.
>
>Arnomane
>
>
I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrented
fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear
examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser
privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or
practice?

I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing
list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply
looking up the IP address of a user.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrente
> fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear
> examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser
> privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or
> practice?
>
> I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing
> list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply
> looking up the IP address of a user.

I have yet to see a bona fide case of CheckUser abuse. However, this
does not mean that we should fail to be vigilant for abuses. Trust,
yet verify.

Having a group of people who are positioned to advise the Board in
making policy in this area is a good idea in any case.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

<light-hearted response>
Indeed. Perhaps Jimmy Wales can be declared the WikiGod, and when he catches
someone abusing status like CheckUser, he'll smite them.
</light-hearted response>

On 6/21/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/21/06, Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning@netzero.net> wrote:
> > I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrente
> > fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear
> > examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser
> > privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or
> > practice?
> >
> > I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing
> > list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply
> > looking up the IP address of a user.
>
> I have yet to see a bona fide case of CheckUser abuse. However, this
> does not mean that we should fail to be vigilant for abuses. Trust,
> yet verify.
>
> Having a group of people who are positioned to advise the Board in
> making policy in this area is a good idea in any case.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/21/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it
> as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."
>
> Also politics. :D

Also Anthere trying to offload work (currently she investigates all
allegations of checkuser abuse herself).

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 16:07 schrieb Robert Scott Horning:
> I've heard a lot of fear mongering and what I percieve to be unwarrented
> fears about abuses to checkuser actions. Can you give some clear
> examples of what have been percieved as abuses of those with checkuser
> privileges, at least types of problems that have happened as a matter or
> practice?

I did never take the time investigating the background of any checkuser of
others. I just noticed some statistics:

en.wikipedia (and some other smaller projects as well) have overproportional
heavy use of CheckUser. de.wikipedia (the second largest one, which has like
en.wikipedia many trolls but probably has different approaches keeping them
down, which naturally also have their specific positive and negative side
effects) has no checkuser trace in the logfiles (a developer can make a
Checkuser directly at the servers without Checkuser logfile traces but
nonetheless it were only a few in case of de.wikipedia).

> I know I am speaking from an apparent minority opinion on this mailing
> list, but I fail to see what real damage is happening from simply
> looking up the IP address of a user.

My concerns are as follows: A Checkuser of an IP from let us say China or
Saudi Arabia can have *serious* impact if these informations come into the
wrong hands although the probability of a worst case scenario is quite low.

So if en.wp makes heavy regular use of checkuser why shouldn't zh.wp and ar.wp
do the same as well (and logfile data of a palestinian on he.wp is also a
potentially serious matter for example)? It is a question of caution and role
model function of en.wp.

So I don't suggest to en.wp stop checkuser but use it more seriously. Just
block an IP or recently created vandal account unilaterally if you think it's
a sock puppet without investigating deeper (hey you're admin you have to *be
bold* sometimes) and only perform a checkuser afterwards in case there was a
real demand from several third persons.

That way you also avoid creating a large bueraucracy on blocking of small
fishes like IPs and short lived accounts and have more time for far more
important matters.

Checkuser should mainly be a weapon against sock puppets of people that are
involved deeper in the project (let's say several accounts of a single person
that abuses them for quite some time in a sophisticated way with a mixture
out of valid and POV edits).

Just my 2 cents...

Arnomane
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/21/06, Daniel Arnold <arnomane@gmx.de> wrote:
> en.wikipedia (and some other smaller projects as well) have overproportional
> heavy use of CheckUser.

I disagree. en.wikipedia receives far more traffic than any other
wiki. en.wikipedia receives more edits than any other wiki. I expect
it would follow that en.wikipedia receives a similarly high proportion
of trolling and sockpuppetry.

You quoted "> 50%" of checkuser uses are on en.wikipedia. Looking at
traffic figures (Alexa), this seems about right.

Perhaps it is more de.wikipedia using CheckUser proportionally very
little rather than en.wikipedia using it proportionally very much.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/21/06, Daniel Arnold <arnomane@gmx.de> wrote:
> So I don't suggest to en.wp stop checkuser but use it more seriously. Just
> block an IP or recently created vandal account unilaterally if you think it's
> a sock puppet without investigating deeper (hey you're admin you have to *be
> bold* sometimes) and only perform a checkuser afterwards in case there was a
> real demand from several third persons.
>
> That way you also avoid creating a large bueraucracy on blocking of small
> fishes like IPs and short lived accounts and have more time for far more
> important matters.

I really think you should refrain from commenting on how checkuser
should be used on en.wp when you clearly don't have any real
information about how we currently use it or even our own policies on
the matter. You're not even subscribed to the checkuser list.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> On 6/21/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it
>>as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."

Arnomane criticized
> So data security is very important and it should be made clear to all
> ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more
avoidable
> meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia article).
> IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be
> adressed there locally in the main line.
>
> Arnomane

>And Robert also questionned
>If the abuse hasn't happened, where is the move to create such a
>position in the first place? A quest for political power?

-- Robert Scott Horning


Will that create more meta work ?
No. It will delegate meta work or move meta work to another person. I am
currently doing the job.

Is it a quest for political power ?
No. Given that *I* suggested this position, I can clarify that I am not
seeking more power.

Is it a quest to be ready in case it actually happens ?
It is not a quest. I sure hope abuse will *never* happen. But better to
be ready when it actually happens. And better that I drop doing the job
rather than doing it poorly.

Last point. I asked the board his opinion about the whole issue. Angela
suggested that we could update the privacy policy, which was pretty old
stuff since it did not take into account the checkuser tool ;-)
A new version was still pending. It is now adopted.


ant

> Also Anthere trying to offload work (currently she investigates all
> allegations of checkuser abuse herself).
>
> Kelly

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Am Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 21:50 schrieb Sam Korn:
> You quoted "> 50%" of checkuser uses are on en.wikipedia. Looking at
> traffic figures (Alexa), this seems about right.
>
> Perhaps it is more de.wikipedia using CheckUser proportionally very
> little rather than en.wikipedia using it proportionally very much.

Well I didn't suggest that en.wp did abuse Checkuser and I also think that
en.wp people didn't abuse it. I am very confident that every single Checkuser
can be justified afterwards.

But what I was suggesting was an alternate aproach which has it pros and cons
as well. I don't think in black-white categories.

I am learning as well. The reason why de.wp does not really use Checkuser is
probably a cultural phenomena which can be understood best by the way how
computer technology is being percieved in Germany/Austria/Switzerland. Every
new technology gets anxiously reviewed by society but later after people
deliberated about the technology they use it very extensive with a clear
roadmap what they want to to with it; perhapes this explains why German is so
overproportionally represented online but why in contrast new ideas in the
internet mainly come from the US where people just play around with cool new
stuff - take these comments with a grain of salt this is just a
non-scientific personal observation.

Arnomane
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l