Amir: your original idea is lovely. Reviving it for a moment: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru> wrote: > > Now, I found it. Indeed, I exaggerated (not several hundreds, just a > hundred, and not overnight, but over two or three days, but the idea is > > The poll: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2008-07#Global_sysops_.28poll.29_.28closed.29
Yet we now have global sysops. It did take a bit of perseverance. If we selected for and named Facilitators on the projects for their mediation skills, we might have a few thousand of those in addition to our administrators as a pool of people fully competent to carry out any of the suggestions we're discussing -- they all seem plausible and possible to get passed to me. Amir writes: > Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given > liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible. <snip> > In fact it's quite likely that communities will want to give as little > permissions as possible to users. Can you explain the apparent paradox above? I would be more strongly in favor of this proposal if it was clear to me how splitting up permissions would give access to them to more people. For instance, I think the ability to see and read deleted articles should be available to basically everyone. > Ziko van Dijk's "Tell us about your Wikipedia" project [1] in 2008 was > advertised through sitenotice on Meta and it was quite successful. > ...low-hanging fruit. > [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tell_us_about_your_Wikipedia Indeed. SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
