Talk:IRC/Channels/Archives/2004

"but you must not indiscriminately publish full channel logs on the web."

I'm sorry, but what the hell is this doing here? Why isn't #wikipedia being treated as a public area? The mailing list archives are made indiscriminately avalible online. I see no reason channel logs should be in any way restricted. This is completely contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of openness. -- Nknight 04:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It has to do with the IPs not being easy to hide. On the wikis you can register and your IP will not be shown, whereas on IRC you have to get a cloak (and for a long time there were no cloaks). If someone knows your IP that could potentially figure out who you are in the real world. Many people think that that is an invasion of privacy. Dori | Talk 05:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Such draconian measures do nothing to protect the privacy of anyone. Freenode and #wikipedia are effectively public areas into which anyone can come and gather whatever information they want until they are specifically banned, which is unlikely to happen, as no one would have any way of knowing what they were doing.

Furthermore, with cloaks now avalible (btw, there are IRC networks out there that cloak everyone's IP by default), I find it laughable that the thought of trying to protect such information still exists. People need to be proactive in their own privacy and security, not rely on others because they can't be bothered to take a few minutes to protect themselves. Especially when relying on others is, in this case, demonstratibly futile.

On a final note, even if it weren't completely pointless, censoring IP addresses from logs is extraordinarily easy. I will be happy to provide PCREs to do just that to anyone that can provide me a sample containing a /whois, a user joining a channel, a user leaving a channel, and a user disconnecting in their particular log format. I can also provide generic REs to do it, but they run a small risk of deleting stuff they're not supposed to (the amount of damage they could do to a log is minimal anyway). -- Nknight 18:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I said cloaks weren't available before, and even now it takes a while to get them and they don't always work (i.e. you might not autoidentify if you exit and immediately rejoin). Weren't you the one arguing against forcing technical measures on general users? What's wrong with doing as much as we can to protect the privacy of people even if it's not enough? Dori | Talk 19:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That kind of argument is what gets used to support crap like the PATRIOT act. You're restricting other people in the pursuit of ineffective protections. -- Nknight 21:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now how does wanting to protect people's privacy compare to the PATRIOT act??? I am not restricting anything. You are free to have your own bot and log everything for your own use. Dori | Talk 00:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're preventing those that don't use IRC from knowing what goes on in #wikipedia, and it's because you want to make futile efforts to "protect" people. Any policy that restricts the flow of information is automatically suspect. Any policy in pursuit of a goal that it does nothing to help reach is simply policy for its own sake. Policy that is policy for its own sake and restricts the flow of information is never acceptable. -- Nknight 03:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you don't use IRC, you don't use IRC. It's that simple. Dori | Talk 03:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then we should remove the mailing list archives. If you don't use the mailing lists, you don't use the mailing lists. It's that simple. -- Nknight 03:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The mailing lists don't show IPs unless you subscribe. Dori | Talk 04:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason for the mailing lists to be showing IPs anyway, and if they are that needs to change, but this still goes straight back to my earlier argument: anyone can join #wikipedia, and anyone can subscribe to the mailing lists. Censoring information from a copy does no good if anyone can get the original, and forbidding copies entirely when anyone can get the original is simply ridiculous.

This also harkens back to my argument that cloaks are now avalible. You argue that they aren't foolproof, but I can't imagine a situation under which they wouldn't be absent user error or laziness (or services being down, but a user can easily tell if that's the case), something that others should not be penalized for. -- Nknight 04:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, the argument that people either use IRC or they don't also lends some support to my position. If people are really concerned about this, they can choose not to use IRC (thus not exposing their IP address). No one is forcing them to use it. -- Nknight 04:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

real reason

The real reason is that the participants use it for private discussion. Often, IRC content is not written with a wide audience in mind; participants are more likely to speak their mind than is the case on the Wiki. Since, for IRC posts, there is no implicit license grant using the GFDL or something similar, such posts are protected by copyright held by each author.

I am currently of the opinion that the Wikipedia project as a whole would benefit from more opportunities for private discussion, because of the limits of IRC, and I am in the process of putting a position article together on this. Others disagree, and indeed there are those few who believe that no communication amongst project members should ever be private. UninvitedCompany 18:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If participants want to use IRC for private discussion, they can use the facilities avalible on IRC for private discussion. #wikipedia is a public channel, just as the various mailing lists are public mailing lists. On IRC, you can /msg someone, or start a private channel. In email, you can send someone a private email. There is no distinction.

It is absolutely ridiculous to have a project-sanctioned open forum that anyone can participated in, and then claim that what goes on in that forum is private!

As for supposed copyright issues, I'm one of many people that strongly believes that should an issue like this ever come to a court, the court would determine that sending a message in a publically-visible forum constitutes implicit permission for that message to be redistributed indefinitely, because as it stands, permission MUST be given for distribution before it can leave the first router between you and the rest of the Internet!

I also find the argument that people might choose their words differently in an IRC channel to be ridiculous. They may well do so, but it's their own fault. When you say something online, you should assume it will follow you for the rest of your life. To not do so constitutes carelessness on the part of the user that others should not be punished for. -- Nknight 21:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. If someone gives a speech, or perhaps a concert, and you tape it, do you have the right to do as you wish with it since it was broadcast in a public forum? How about the television and radio programs that are broadcast? Wishful thinking. Dori | Talk 00:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. When a radio or television program is broadcast, it is not inherently redistributed by arbitrary third parties with no connection whatsoever to the initial broadcaster. Same for a speech or a concert. Packets on the Internet, however, can easily travel through the systems of a half dozen or more unregulated individuals and organizations with whom the originator has no relationship at all. In the case of a message sent to an IRC channel, once the packet reaches its destination, the server then redistributes the message contained within to everyone else on the channel, which can be dozens or hundreds of people. Either permission to redistribute (which is not the same as permission to modify, use in other works, sell, or otherwise commercially exploit) is implicit, or the Internet cannot continue to function as-is. -- Nknight 03:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your analogy does not hold. In the case of the packets, the senders want them to be forwarded to the appropriate place. That's not really the case for the IRC messages once they have been sent once to all the members in the room (i.e. saving them and putting them on a website would constitute retransmission without permission, but IANAL). Dori | Talk 03:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course it would constitute retransmission. The server sending the messages to all the clients constitutes retransmission as well. And the originator does not have the level of control you think he has over who gets the messages. A person can join the channel between the time the originator sends the packet and the server recieves it, causing message to go to an additional reciever that the originator did not "intend".

And what about people looking over someone's shoulder? Are we next going to say that you can't use #wikipedia if anyone else can read what's on your monitor? Or perhaps someone is IRCing from work, and company policy is that all external communications are monitored. Will we next say that person can't use #wikipedia from work? -- Nknight 03:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's the same as being within earshot/eyesight, not the same as taping up a broadcast and putting it up on a public network which is what saving the logs and posting them would be. Dori | Talk 04:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Worth remembering that IRC writings are not public broadcasts - it is a significant distinction, for it makes fair use considerably less likely. Jamesday 18:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Someone giving a concert or speech may nominally restrict who is within earshot, and under circumstances they can't, they can generally tell who is within earshot. If someone is looking over your shoulder while you're in #wikipedia, others in #wikipedia have no way of knowing that short of your telling them. -- Nknight 04:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that you visit the IRC channel sometime and observe the different, more productive and more friendly atmosphere there. That is a direct result of the lack of published logs, which gives plausible, if not assured, semi-privacy from Google searches and web archives future employers can look at. Simply, people talk more freely there than on the wiki and that is worth keeping. It's also of significant value when we're discussing abuse problems, like vandalbots, not to have the logs readily readable by the person we're working to stop. If your concern is improper conduct, I just checked and with nothing very special happening, there are 125 or so people in the channel, so it's far from a place to conspire to behave badly without being noticed. On the legal side, the conversations in the channel are not published: "any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work", "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication" [1]. The normal relaying and transient caching by the IRC network, just like the TV networks, are not problematic in copyright law - those activities are permitted and do not conflict with the rights of the authors. Jamesday 18:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Proposed "important discussion" policy

I recently joined the #wikipedia IRC channel (username Bencvt, by the way) because I perceived that important discussions do in fact occur via IRC (and on the mailing list, for that matter). This is a bad thing. The "Grunt decision" (heh, I love that phrase) was one of these decisions that occurred on IRC when it shouldn't have. This is no fault of Grunt's — or of any other single person either. The "But We Discussed It On IRC" phenomenon is a social disease in need of curing. We need to reverse the trend of making decisions about Wikipedia outside of the Wikipedia.

My suggestion is to add the following policy/guideline to Wikipedia:IRC channels and m:IRC channels:

The #wikipedia IRC channel exists for Wikipedians to interact via chat in real time. The channel does not exist for policy discussion or important decisions, except when used as a way to hold live meetings, such as by the Board of Trustees. For the community's sake, we need a record of who, what, why, when, and how major decisions are made. In general, the correct place to make decisions is on talk pages. Please keep Wikipedia policy discussions on Wikipedia itself.

IRC may be used to inform people about events that are happening on Wikipedia, but it should not be used for serious discussions on how to respond to those events. If an IRC chat does evolve into a more serious discussion, the discussion should be moved to an appropriate talk page on Wikipedia itself. Participants should post an IRC log of the initial discussion on the talk page (please filter out unrelated chat and provide a link to m:IRC channels#Nicknames to identify participants). If a discussion looks like it may turn "serious", err on the side of caution and move it to Wikipedia.

Previous wording: In general, IRC should be for discussion, not decisions. For the community's sake, we need a record of who, what, why, when, and how major decisions are made. If and when an "important decision" is made on IRC, it is the responsibility of those implementing the decision to document it by posting an IRC log on an appropriate talk page. What constitutes an "important decision" is a matter of judgement — use your best and err on the side of caution. Also: if any of the participants' IRC nicknames are different from their Wikipedia username, always add a link to m:IRC channels#Nicknames.

By the way, I didn't vote for or against Grunt's bureaucratship. I think he's a great admin (I voted in support of him for that job [2]), but for this vote I was still considering whether we really need more bureaucrats, so I didn't vote. I'm now of the opinion that we probably don't; see my comments on the bureaucrat policy vote back on en. Does anyone have comments about the proposed IRC decision policy? • Benc • 04:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opposed to any policy that endorses in any way discussing issues on IRC that translates into making a decision on Wikipedia without the usual open (and openly viewable) discussion on the project and talk pages. The Ugen64 debacle is not the first example I have seen of discussions on IRC leading to actions on Wikipedia, and the object or proponents or opponents of the action have no idea where it came from. The quick back-and-forth of IRC leads to a "damn the process, let's do it" lynch-mob mentality. Obviouslywe can't prevent people from discussing whatever, but if there is the slightest controversy to it, they better post the substance here first before attempting an action. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that important decisions should not be discussed on IRC. The intent of this proposed policy was not to give a nod and a wink to anyone wanting to form a lynch mob on IRC — quite the opposite! This policy means to prevent these less-than-public, lightning-fast, and potentially controversial decisions.

I've reworded the proposed policy significantly... tell me what you think about it now? • Benc • 22:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cecropia on this. We're getting way too infatuated with quick decision-making. I know, I know, we all want to see things get done. And I'm not saying we shouldn't move quickly when harm is being done (vandalism, etc.). But when we're discussing an issue that isn't urgent on the face of it -- whether to promote a bureaucrat, say -- there's no good reason to hold the discussion on IRC and then copy the IRC log to a Wiki page after the fact to provide a record of what happened. I have no problem with people talking things over on IRC, but the simple fact is a lot of us don't have the luxury of IRC (slow connection time, library computer restrictions, etc.), and many of us can't be here 24 hours to catch things as they happen. We need to accept that we're a worldwide community, and so we need to let parts of the world that are asleep not get left out of important policy discussions because they lasted 7 minutes on IRC. And I should clarify, I don't know if Grun'ts promotion is exactly an "important policy discussion", although I think it was important enough to warrant more and slower consideration than it got on IRC. But I do think the trend to letting discussions and decisions happen more and mroe frequently on IRC is one to reverse. It's not a huge problem today, but it may become one soon. Speaking as someone who almost never pokes his head into the channel, I have to say the words I dread most around here are "oh, that? We talked it over on IRC" (well, I dread them third most, after "YOU WIKI SYSOPS R A CABBAL!!!@!" and "Willy on Wheels!"). As the community continues to grow, I think we need to talk about what role the channel will play -- as long as the channel remains "unofficial", I think its role needs to stay relatively minor. A way for Wikipedians to chat with each other, relieve stress, and learn about furries, perhaps, but not a vehicle for decision-making. That's my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 05:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, I fully agree that "oh, that? We talked it over on IRC" is one of the stupidest, most counter-productive things to say. I didn't word the proposed policy strongly enough, and have done so now... could you take a second look?

By the way, any admin or bureaucrat promotion is an "important decision". Wikipedia is nothing without its Wikipedians — admins and 'crats are (ideally) our hardest-working, most trusted Wikipedians. We need to make very sure we're doing the right thing when we promote. • Benc • 22:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I don't use IRC, and don't wish to join. For the purposes of transparency and inclusiveness, I would prefer that decisions are made here, not on IRC. Isomorphic 13:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having moved this discussion over from en: I now add my own comments. Whether we use Benc's proposed statement or something else, I believe this page needs language reminding people that IRC should not be used for making decisions (other than, say, the Board of Trustees using IRC as a "place" to hold meetings). In spite of the fact that I don't use IRC, I can by now cite several significant decisions that I know were made on IRC. There are undoubtedly more that I don't know about, and more importantly, have no way of finding out about. Transparency is a huge problem with IRC, and while I do not mind IRC as an unofficial part of Wikipedia society, I agree with Jwrosenzweig that a trend exists here which we need to reverse. --Michael Snow 16:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad we're all thinking along similar lines here. I believe I can wholeheartedly support Benc's new proposal -- looks very good to me. I hope others will add their own perspectives, of course, but it looks to me as though a consensus is quickly being established. It would be nice, though, to have a few IRC regulars offer their perspective (though I don't know who that would be, and if anyone above is, in fact, an IRC regular). Jwrosenzweig 22:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like the new proposal, but I've modified and hopefully condensed it further. --Michael Snow 21:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea that people who do not use IRC could attempt to enforce bizarre policies on those who do use the channel. You can not ban "serious discussions" from taking place there. You can ask people to also discuss such matters on the wiki, but trying to censor conversations on IRC is simply not going to work. Angela 21:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, "Participants should post an IRC log of the initial discussion on the talk page" is in complete opposition to the channel's policy that IRC logs should not be published. Angela 21:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What a load of absolute tosh. You can't stop people discussing Wikipedia by making a policy about it anyway, and the need to do so indicates more than a problem with the IRC channel. Maybe Wikipedia itself needs to rethink how policy issues are handled, or (shock, horror) advise people in positions of power to perhaps use some common sense once in a while. —Kate | Talk 21:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any such policy, for reasons stated by others. Andrevan 21:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. The person making the decision about Grunt got it wrong. It happens - we all make mistakes from time to time. I don't care much whether it was discussed it with parents, school friend or anyone else. "I discussed whatever with whoever, however" is what happens when humans interact. Asking and discussing beats not asking... but the person also seems to have chosen to hear the support while choosing not to hear the cautions about the action. The choice to decide to listen to one and not the other was that of the human involved. That decision happened in the mind of that human. The venue didn't matter - the human decision did. Like everyone else, my asking others for their views does not relieve me of the responsibility for making decisions for myself. At the time I started writing this post there were 130 people in #wikipedia. Jamesday 22:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, IRC is a communication medium, end of topic. 69.194.185.0 22:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The flood of responses above is exactly the sort of phenomenon we non-IRC-users have learned to recognize as the product of an IRC discussion affecting the direction of events on the wiki. Just so you know. In this circumstance it's appropriate because the discussion is continuing, and I think the underlying concern is more about actions being taken based on IRC (bans, promotions, and the like). --Michael Snow 16:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed "important discussion" policy v2

Sometimes, people discuss Wikipedia in real life - for example at wikimeets. This results in decisions being made without the involvement of the community. It is imperative that we stop this cabalism immediately. I therefore propose that we forbid anyone to discuss Wikipedia in real life. Important discussions must take place only on talk pages. —Kate | Talk 21:30, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Why not just propose we forbid anyone to have a real life? Angela 21:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We don't like our users to think or feel anyway -- that's what we use bots for. ✏ Sverdrup 22:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "You can make decisions on IRC, but it doesn't mean anything on the wiki" policy

The #wikipedia IRC channel exists for Wikipedians to interact via chat in real time and for discussion of anything Wikipedia-related. The channel has a no logging policy, meaning users are free to discuss important matters without fear of their comments being published.

However, please be aware that IRC is not always representative of the larger Wikipedia community. For this reason, if discussions lead to policy decisions being made, these must be presented on the wiki and agreed upon by the community before they become official policy. This does not apply to decisions which could otherwise be taken by individuals. Individual actions are, as always, the responsibility of that individual regardless of whether or not their decision was influenced by an IRC channel or any other form of communication.

Users of the IRC channels are advised to not justify their actions on the wiki in terms of what happened on IRC. Users of the wiki are advised to view "we discussed it on IRC"-type comments as no more a valid reason for an action than "I thought about it for myself".

I would be more likely to support this sort of statement, which seems to me a truer reflection of how IRC is used. Angela 22:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Something in this direction is ok (but not this yet, I think). It might be nice if people could actually get useful advice on individual descisions on #wikipedia more often. This happens sometimes, but not very often. It's nice to be able to doublecheck if your hunches as to what to do are actually right, and to get advice on WITFP (Where Is The Fine Policy), and things like that. Kim Bruning 23:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Agree with Kim. While this is much more sane than the initial proposal, I still feel it's rather extreme. IRC exists to facilitate communication between memebers, and as such I do not see why there should be a difference between advice that I get from Jimbo on IRC and advice that I get from him on my talk page, as a reading of this policy would seem to imply. I think that all we need to do is say something to the effect that "#wikipedia and the associated channels about Wikipedia on Freenode are not officially affiliated with Wikipedia and the MediaWiki foundation. " Why do we need a long, specific-type disclaimer? If you must extend it... Possibly extend it to "Discussions and consensus achieved on IRC do not constitute the approval of the general Wikipedia community in cases where community approval is necessary." But to dismiss it all as wholly irrelevant is not the way to go. -Fennec 03:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The difference between getting advice from Jimbo on #wikipedia and getting on your Talk page is that on the Talk page, anyone can read it (unless you delete your Talk page) but on #wikipedia, only the 200 or so people on the channel at that momement can read it. If that matters depends on the advice. 134.10.21.179 05:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That wording works perfectly fine for me. I seem to have ruffled a few feathers by my original proposal. Calm down. At no point has anyone suggested that we ban or censor any discussions, on IRC or elsewhere. This proposed policy did not originate from insane tin-foil-hat-wearing anti-cabalists. Relax.

I think the IRC is a great communicative and collaborative tool. However, it is not and should not be a requirement that a Wikipedian wishing to participate in discussions be forced to join a channel. We have talk pages; they are the primary discussion tool. The point of the proposed policy was to ensure that the IRC channel remains "unofficial", and remains in a secondary role to policy talk pages (e.g., en:Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy.) When a relatively small group of Wikipedians create and implement policy using IRC instead of talk pages, answering all objections with "oh, we discussed it with so-and-so on IRC" — there's a problem. I haven't seen a blatant example of this, but the attitude exists among a fair number of new users.

This is what the proposed guideline is trying to prevent. That's it. No censorship, no fascism. The guideline is trying to maintain a basic level of accountability and equality for those Wikipedians who chose to not use IRC.

If copying chat logs or meeting minutes on to talk pages doesn't float your boat, fine. Angela's disclaimer looks just fine. We just need something on Wikipedia that makes it crystal clear that the IRC channel is "unofficial" and that the statement "we discussed it on IRC" does not add extra weight to arguments. Benc 06:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Benc, the purpose of this discussion and proposal was to better define the relationship between IRC and Wikipedia, not to censor IRC. To the extent that the initial proposal sounded like censorship, I regret that and I'm glad the IRC denizens have finally shown up to register their input. The revised policy looks like an improvement to me and provides some guidance that I believe is long overdue. --Michael Snow 16:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A similar story from a non-english project might help? Japanese Wikipedia has a policy of regarding IRC as an unofficial place for decision-making. The decision on BBS and Wikipedia is considered official. There is IRC-cabal allegation from time to time, and that seem to undermine the spirit of openness of participation and transparency of decision-making.

But at the same time, as Jamesday points out, IRC is better than no communication. In case of emergency or some other situations, IRC-based decision-making should be recommended than unilateral action (this part is more of my personal opinion based on some experience, not a policy on ja). Of course, responsible judgment and proper reporting to the community would be still vitally important, but that is just like the decisions made on the wiki.

Similarly, Japanese Wikipedia has a mailinglist as a press contact. It is said that those receiving press inquiries and interview requests through the list should report to the community on Wikipedia, to share the news and to make better decisions. Yet at least having a mailinglist is considered better than just to have one person as a contact, or letting one visible wikipedian being contacted by journalists individually.

Re: Fennec's point, the BBS Japanese Wikipedia community is using is not affiliated with, or hosted by, the Foundation. Nor is the press contact mailinglist. Tomos 14:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would support such a policy. Andrevan 18:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is this on meta? Is the intention to make this universal across all individual wikis? For en, this is already formulated on en:Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which says that "Policy issues may be formulated and debated on talk pages, the Meta-Wikipedia (http://meta.wikipedia.com/), and the mailing lists." I see no mention of IRC. Anthony DiPierro 22:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is only about #wikipedia and the English Wikipedia. Angela 01:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Simplified version

#Wikipedia is an unofficial, unlogged, IRC channel that exists for Wikipedians to chat in real time about Wikipedia. Discussions and consensus achieved on IRC do not constitute approval of the general Wikipedia community, meaning policy decisions need to be agreed on the wiki before they become official policy and the statement "we discussed it on IRC" should not be used to add extra weight to arguments. For reasons of accountability and equality, talk pages remain the primary discussion tool.

Does this one cover it without needing to be so long or sound so extreme? Angela 01:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought the primary discussion tool was the mailing list. Anthony DiPierro 16:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Best version so far, in my opinion. I think we might consider discussion on the mailing list analogous to IRC, except that where IRC is unofficial and unlogged, the mailing list is official and logged. Jimbo has occasionally used it to declare policy, but given his position in the community that's within his rights (he can declare policy on Slashdot if he wants to). However, general policy discussions on the mailing list can't be the basis for enforcing policy on the wiki any more than the same kind of discussions on IRC. Otherwise we'd have banned a lot more people by now, among other things. --Michael Snow 05:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I could have sworn I've heard Jimbo declare before that the mailing list is the official place for discussion about Wikipedia. It's certainly in his (perhaps outdated) Statement of principles that "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself." [emphasis in original] Also, I should note that the above text says that talk pages should "remain" the primary discussion tool. While these discussions might not become policy by the fact that they are discussed on the mailing list (which I'm not sure I agree reflects historical precedent), I was still under the impression that the mailing list was the official primary discussion tool. Anthony DiPierro 20:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that statement of principles is nearly three years old at minimum (it predates full preservation of page history). Back then, community tools like the Meta site and the Wikipedia namespace were far less developed, plus important decisions like banning and adminship were handled entirely on the mailing list. By its nature, although the mailing list is documented (unlike IRC), it does not serve well as a place to leave a reasonably fixed record of the current state of policy. That can be done on the wiki; policy should be recorded on appropriate pages, and it follows naturally from this that discussion regarding a specific policy belongs primarily on the associated talk page. And this doesn't necessarily prevent the mailing list focusing on discussions "about the nature of Wikipedia", a meta-subject so broad it is difficult to contain within a single policy or wiki page. --Michael Snow 19:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed the box, which was recently added by an anon. If it is going to be added, it needs a discussion that has had some activity in the past year first. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)