« Discussion Wikiversité:Prise de décision/Critères d'éligibilité des votants » : différence entre les versions
Contenu supprimé Contenu ajouté
Aucun résumé des modifications |
→Enjeu de la prise de décision : thanks, Jack |
||
Ligne 27 :
:Personally I would be pleased to let the newbies nominate some pages for deletion, for example in case of interwiki reasons.
:Moreover, the "main" versus "main + research" namespaces criterion is something I had chosen very quickly. If anyone would change it in the poll, I wouldn't modify my vote. [[Utilisateur:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:JackPotte|<font color="#FF6600">$</font>♠]]) 11 juillet 2015 à 23:32 (UTC)
::Thanks, Jack. On the encyclopedia projects, mainspace is clearly the core, the most important part of the project, and the idea of mainspace edits on an encyclopedia project, especially for Articles for Deletion (mainspace!) is that people should have experience. 50 edits is kind of a dumb way to measure that, editors typically remain relatively clueless long beyond that. However, the Wikiversity mission was more than "educational materials," thinking in terms of, say, supplemental classroom material or "lessons." It was also learning by doing, and it was understood that research, done at every university in many ways, is also important. Further, a user may develop a resource in user space, making hundreds of edits, and then move it to mainspace. One edit. Another user develops a resource in mainspace and makes fifty or a hundred edits in one day, as I've mentioned. The user has not learned to use prevue.
::We don't have a special Research namespace in en.wikiversity, rather, resources with original research, when anyone cares, are tagged as containing it. The policies are mostly gathering dust. This is what the early Wikiversitans largely did not understand in their enthusiasm: what it takes to maintain policies. However, we have developed actual practices that work. We delete very little, mostly spam and vandalism. If something doesn't seem like it will be useful to others, but if there is any chance it might be useful to the user, we move it to user space. Now, those edits were made in mainspace, but will now show up in contributions as being made in user space. On en.wikiversity, we readily organize resources, and nobody suffers a loss because we decide that a resource belongs in user space, say. It turns out that people hate having their stuff be deleted, but don't get upset if the librarian asks us to keep our writings in our university dorm room.
::There is an elite group of users who are enable to make decisions about user rights: bureaucrats. What is called voting is not controlling them, but merely advising them. There is no harm in their being advised by even IP users. My own preference would be that any elite user, with special privileges, could not be anonymous, but this, of course, is a minority position. I consider that some of the wiki problems arise due to lack of responsibility, made easier by anonymity. We tend to draw bureaucrats from admin ranks, which is a bit analogous to having custodians (en.wikiversity) or librarians (fr.wikiversity) choose administrative staff. --[[Utilisateur:Abd|Abd]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Abd|discussion]]) 12 juillet 2015 à 00:57 (UTC)
| |||