文化类综艺节目成为一股清流爆款胜在内容好

Sat Apr 22 11:25:05 UTC 2006

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if we did not make entirely 
a mistake (me definitly included)

History of checkuser (please take a seat and have a tea, it will be long)

1) originally, Brion took care of ip checking upon requests. He did the 
checks apparently only when he knew the one asking (=trusted). It was 
done directly in the database (so, required developer status and meant 
no log of checks)

2) when requests became more numerous, Tim Starling and perhaps others 
started to help

3) came a moment when not only requests were too numerous (and 
developers probably tired of doing this), but on top, some editors had 
the developer status only to make ip checks (I understood it was the 
case of Taw at least). There was apparently a will to clean up who had 
access, and to limit it to those who were *really* developing

At this point, it was largely admitted that the job was the one of a 
developer. A *technical* job. Though I know at least one person had 
access to the db last summer or fall to do this and is not to my 
knowledge a developer (Elian, can you confirm this ?)

4) Tim developped the tool. Apparently, the first to have access to it 
were Taw and David. Both developers. All was fine.

5) This is the moment where it slipped.
First David started saying that more people would be needed for the 
english wikipedia checks. Requests generally came from the arbcom quite 
naturally. Without the tool, the arbcom would have asked Brion or Tim to 
do the checks. With the tool, it was quite a natural direction.... to 
request access for the arbcom members. And here was the first mistake !

On top, other languages (who were previously asking Brion or Tim, and 
had no more developers available to do this at that moment) started 
asking for access. And what was insisted upon was the "confidentiality" 
side, much more than the "technicality" side. Second mistake.

But quite clearly.... the technical consideration is just as important 
than the confidentiality consideration.

I plead guilty for part of this. I also think the arbcom of last summer 
has a responsability in this, since it was asking for the arbcom to have 
access, regardless of technical ability of its members. And for what is 
worth, I think Jimbo also has a responsability in this, since he himself 
decided all english arbcom members would have access.

Then, there was a third mistake I think (it is not an accusation, just 
an analysis). It was to make a tool dividing projects and languages. 
Originally, we had a common set of volunteers to help us all. And this 
was good. I am pretty sure some people did not know Brion intimately 
enough to *trust* him, but they were told he was fine by people they 
trusted, and they went to ask him with no fear. And Jimbo had no fear 
either.

Now, people have checkuser status only on one project/one language. Just 
as if Brion had help ip checking on the french wiktionary, whilst Tim 
was dedicated to the english wikipedia and Taw to the polish wikibooks. 
It makes NO sense whatsoever. The *only* unigue advantage of the current 
system is to understand the language of the project the checkuser make 
the job.

And as a result of this mix-up... because of the need to "trust" the 
checkuser, we have zizanie (does that exist in english ?). We have 
internal fight and rancor).

The small languages are complaining they are left aside

The non-wikipedia projects are complaining they are left aside

The stewards are complaining they do not have the technical ability to 
do this

And the checkusers with the technical ability... pretty much offer to 
help anyone who needs help.

What that suggest me is this

We should not have checkusers with the tool access on a one project/one 
language, but a POOL of COMMON checkusers. Those should all have good 
technical abilities. Those would have access everywhere. They would be 
listed on meta with their language ability. The biggest projects would 
be used to always ask to their favorites. The small languages will try 
to find the one with a basic knowledge of their language if they wish.

But all in all, checkusers should be a common good, just as our 
developers right now are (and, hell, just as your board members are).

Ant

nas是什么	水杯用什么材质的好	假饵适合钓什么鱼	天冬是什么	蹦迪是什么意思
开火车是什么意思	备孕吃什么好	吃什么最补血而且最快	夜场是什么工作	生活是什么
坐久了脚肿是什么原因	死精吃什么能调理成活精	气胸病是什么原因引起的	儿童口臭什么原因引起的	7月30日什么星座
莫须有是什么意思	老三篇是什么意思	8是什么意思	脂肪肝能吃什么水果	13岁属什么生肖

反复感冒是什么原因引起的hcv8jop9ns7r.cn	爽约是什么意思clwhiglsz.com	人的本性是什么hcv8jop1ns9r.cn	熟练的反义词是什么hcv8jop9ns1r.cn	卧室放什么花最好健康hcv8jop3ns8r.cn
胃胀吃什么药效果最好hcv8jop9ns1r.cn	十二生肖本领强是什么生肖hcv9jop4ns7r.cn	农历和阳历有什么区别hcv8jop6ns4r.cn	10度左右穿什么衣服合适hcv8jop9ns5r.cn	怕热易出汗是什么原因hcv8jop3ns7r.cn
梦见狗追我是什么意思cl108k.com	填充鼻子最好的材料是什么hcv9jop2ns4r.cn	吃什么能补头发xjhesheng.com	心律不齐是什么病fenrenren.com	什么什么不舍hcv9jop7ns0r.cn
男人胡子长得快是什么原因hcv8jop4ns8r.cn	八婆什么意思sanhestory.com	大便绿色什么原因hcv9jop1ns7r.cn	什么人不能吃马齿苋helloaicloud.com	蜂王浆是什么hcv9jop2ns1r.cn

文化类综艺节目成为一股清流 爆款胜在内容好

文化类综艺节目成为一股清流爆款胜在内容好