openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: An example of what's wrong up with the wiki
Date Sun, 07 Aug 2011 17:16:33 GMT
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> As mentioned before I'm concerned with the concentration of power on
>> the wiki, with a few moderators/admins having arbitrary power over
>> content, even though they have not signed the iCLA, are not committers
>> and have not been appointed by the PPMC.  So there is arbitrary
>> authority, with no accountability.  Having a system like this
>> abdicates the PPMC's responsibility for providing oversight to our
>> Apache-hosted project websites.
>>
>> I posted a new FAQ on the wiki today.  This was to demonstrate that
>> anyone could post anything on the wiki, under any license.
>>
>> The post was quickly taken down and my account was permanently
>> blocked.
>
> You are talking about:
> # (Block log); 15:45 . . Ccornell (Talk | contribs) blocked Foobar
> (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation
> disabled, autoblock disabled) (Inserting nonsense/gibberish into
> pages: Creating nonsesne content not realted to OOo Account banned.)
> # (Deletion log); 15:44 . . Ccornell (Talk | contribs) deleted
> "Documentation/FAQ/General/What is a good rhyme about OpenOffice?"
> (Vandalism: content was: '{{DISPLAYTITLE: What is a good rhyme about
> OpenOffice.org?}} <section begin=question/> What is a good rhyme about
> OpenOffice.org? <section end=question/> <section…' (and the only
> contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Fo)
>
> right?
>
> So basically you tried to troll the wiki to prove a point:
>
> If your edit stay in place you claim that there is a problem...
> if your edit are taken down, you claim there is a problem...
>
> Damn if you do, damn if you don't.... implacable logic.
>

It is called reductio ad absurdum.  This is a form of logic.  I
demonstrated that the inconsistencies that exist in the way the wiki
is run today lead to contradictions.  I'd like us to move to system
for managing the wiki where these problems don't exist.

>> There was no discussion on the
>> ooo-dev or ooo-private about the content removal
>
> Do you suggest that every wiki reversal of 'Vandalism' (I mean, you
> created a User named FooBar... you might as well have chosen
> SuperTroll2000....)
> be subject do a Discussion on a mailing list... ?
>

I think we need to do far better than what was just done, when a
non-project member, one who just recently announced that they were
leaving the project, deleted a contribution from a committer, and then
banned the committer from the wiki.  That shows multiple levels of
problems, security and procedural.


> Norbert
>

Mime
View raw message