Category talk:Events

From Noisebridge
Revision as of 17:05, 20 May 2014 by 178.217.187.39 (Talk)

Jump to: navigation, search

it'd be nice if everybody would tag 'events' with [[category:events]]

gba 00:22, 15 October 2008 (PDT)



Contents

Looking for help to set up an event: OOTSIDEBOX project presentation at NOISEBRIDGE

Hi There,

I'm Jean Noël and I'm looking for help to finalize the organization of this event on Sat november 23th: https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Www.OOTSIDEBOX.com_making_NOISE_in_California

I plan to have up to 20 particpants, 10 guys already confirmed that they will come. To find out more about OOTSIDEBOX project:

http://www.ootsidebox.com http://ootsidebox.blogspot.fr/2013/10/7-key-concepts-underlaying-design-of.html http://www.youtube.com/user/MrTROLLEEN

Waiting for reply...

Best Regards Jean Noel jnl.ootsidebox@gmail.com

FWD Events Re-Direction

There is no reason to mention that I post my events to noisebridge-discuss and noisebridge-announce, "invariably" or not.

No one benefits from that information on the event listing - I'm trying to keep my description lean. JeffreyATW (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

-- (saved separately in case of future undo's)

Thanks for using this Category_talk:Events section.
But no, a certain percentage of people invariably see the fairly brief wiki event description here before viewing the listserve posting (assuming they're subscribed to either listserve). They'll subsequently be able to use the Discuss/Announce re-direction in its current state to effectively see timely reminders of the bi-weekly FWD highlights.
As a beneficial use-case scenario for those of us (who shall remain nameless) solely wishing to glean highlights of bi-weekly FWD events, this very re-direction filters out the large amount of discussion "noise" even better than subscribing to the Discuss list in Daily Digest mode.

Let's please keep it that way.


JavaScript Edits

The simple idea here is that beginning programmers are more likely to pick up JS material through the more elementary Front-end Web Development material than they necessarily would be from the EcmaScript programming language, DOM, Object Oriented JavaScript, and Events covered in THIS particular advanced JavaScript class. The FWD instructor, JeffreyATW, even routinely provides live video streams of the class for the convenience of his students (see [1]).

All in all, EVERYONE benefits by directing inexperienced coders to learn JS and other FWD techniques from the Front-end Web Development class and directing more experienced web developers and programmers of other languages to the JavaScript class.

Nthmost electing Nuclear option

11:47, 16 May 2014‎ Nthmost (Talk | contribs)‎ m . . (0)‎ . . (Protected "Category:Events": Excessive vandalism (‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)))

Okay, what's done is done.

Can We Have an Actual Dialog Perhaps, Regarding the Nuclear option?

(Please continue to undercomment on the below discussion)

Naomi Theora, quite the disappointment that you remain bored and annoyed!

If you participated in administrating the wiki, you'd be bored and annoyed too. Would you like to participate? By the way, no one calls me "Naomi Theora", so don't call me that. --Nthmost (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As yet another anonymous Tor Coward ('tho not a troll as the recent person submitting huge saggy 8008s pr0n), I am in favor of not only KEEPING BENEFICIAL ANONYMOUS COMMENTS, but also keeping some of the wikis anonymously editable.

In that case, you already have what you wish. 98% of this wiki is still anonymously editable.
ed1: perhaps this just ain't so...

[Then you would be arguing a factual inaccuracy. I'm not sure why you would pick on a demonstrably provable statement like that.] --Nthmost (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


While there no doubt will be further wiki vandalism -- hopefully many fewer of those nasties aimed at Johny-Radio as of late >:O[ -- I still think the benefits of allowing limited anonymous edits outweigh the risks.

Easy for you to say when you're not the one putting out the fires. We'd really, really like to spend more of our time doing constructive things for Noisebridge. --Nthmost (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


Even as you are likely reading this now, Naomi Theora, Sat night's apres-MakerFaire Party remains listed on the Wiki Events section; after MakerFaire itself and well over a full day past the Party event's ending.

Anyone with a User account can edit that page. The question remains why it seems necessary for someone like yourself to remain "anonymous" in a particular manner, i.e. refusing to make a User account, when it is no less anonymous in the real sense of the word. --Nthmost (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
ed1: yet again pushing for named User-account creation and potential traceability issues...see below bulleted refs.


At the same time, we all (most of us anyway) Got Lives and are regularly busy working at our jobs. That obviously includes you, Naomi Theora, as well as other admins. Granting anonymous editing in situations such as the above would (a) greatly reduce efforts to have past listings linger on the main Wiki and (b) allow for much faster transitions from proposed Discuss list events into beneficial Wiki listings.

I'm not convinced by the urgency argument. See previous comment. --Nthmost (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
ed1: Nthmost unconvinced by any part of the above arguments?
ed1: Still no movement that the stale Party-listing gets de-listed.

Also see the Allow arguments at the Vote to prohibit anonymous edits you previously reviewed on the Discuss list.

Yeah, interesting thing about that page: I've learned though it that Noisebridge and Wikipedia are not alike in many respects. Wikipedia notably has thousands of admins, plus a page specifically devoted to finding admins who are willing to take the personal risks associated with taking action against "difficult" users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks

Noisebridge also has no imperative to allow anonymous editing via the "this is how we get quality editors" argument at Wikipedia. Noisebridge gets quality community members in several different ways. Wikipedia only has one way: editing. --Nthmost (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


In order to decrease the desire (yours?) to trace beneficial contributors, I've re-prioritized the Options at our disposal:

  • user and wiki pages' discussion (a.k.a. "talk") sections
  • creating an "admin-acceptable" user account, possibly by using Tor and an anonymized email address

.... ed1: "admin-acceptable" might also indicate admins' preference for accounts that are most readily traceable.

Just curious, Naomi Theora, are you even going so far as to consider deleting this Discussion Talk section as you did for your [Talk page]; due not only to the obvious chance of open vandalism as well as for reasons of your self-described boredom/annoyance/tiredness??

Because if you are, then that would clearly shut down yet another extra means of gaining constructive input.

No, of course not. Even if this discussion veered towards the abusive (which it somewhat has, but I'm letting it go), I'm not in the business of shutting down dialog.
ed1: well... I never, harumph harumph! (tone policing)

I AM, however, finding that it takes some bold action to get people talking about issues people have been avoiding.


As for my Talk page: there was only pr0n on my Talk page and nothing even remotely constructive in that page's History. It made sense to Delete it. --Nthmost (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And No b/c you inevitably bring this up, this particular anonymous Tor Coward is completely unable to attend the weekly SF meetings at night in person nor the various night workgroup sessions you've recently established.

(Again, please continue to undercomment on the above discussion)


That's fine. That's why I'm continuing this discussion HERE, where you are, rather than insisting it occur elsewhere, like the mailing list or something. We shouldn't be pushing all discussion though the Meetings either. --Nthmost (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear 188.138.9.49

Are you going to respond to the questions I have posed about how best to protect everyone's interests? Or are you just going to keep shouting in the wiki edit history and reviving things I wrote that I decided to delete?

--Nthmost (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Attention: It is super important to 188.138.9.49 that the following text stay on this page:
Apparently so

Dearly misguided,

It would be easier to take suggestions if they actually, you know, came to our attention in some way. I'm not going to keep watching these Talk pages [correction: apparently I am --Nthmost (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)]. The only reason I'm even here is that someone noticed a bunch of anonymous trollish edits coming from a particular IP address and sent me a link.

Options at your disposal:

  • creating a user account, possibly by using Tor and an anonymized email address.
  • user and wiki pages' discussion (a.k.a. "talk") sections
  • the nb-discuss list
  • Slack
  • emailing someone personally
  • the rack list

The so-called "nuclear option" (which isn't very "nuclear" at all; "nuclear" would be to wipe the whole wiki VM and start over) is temporary and only applies to a few pages. Feel free to troll elsewhere -- somewhere that doesn't matter as much to the continued well-being of the community.

It's of benefit to no-one to erase or make malicious subtle edits to event listings. If you're doing this, go do something productive for a change. --Nthmost (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Current Nthmost edit leaves in-place an uber-untidy description redundancy [oh, sorry. err, why didn't you just edit it yourself? See questions below. --Nthmost (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]

and Nthmost shows zero signs of "temporarily" relenting on the Nuclear option applying to the most valid editable wiki pages.

[The "nuclear option" would be disallowing editing from non-admins, which hasn't been done and will not be done. --Nthmost (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]

Regardless of Nthmost's devious plans to eliminate anonymous edits (as below), let us hope that we all can contribute anonymous comments and beneficial comments that won't get so maliciously and quickly erased!

[My apologies; honestly didn't mean to disrespect anyone's voice. Trust that it wasn't malice, at least. Besides, if I were really trying to be devious, I would have created a new admin account and protected the front page with THAT, so that people wouldn't know it was me. --Nthmost (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]

... or Nthmost and her powerful committee-members can continue to blithely ignore suggestions like these
Whatever......

[Help me out here: how would YOU solve the problem of keeping the admins from getting burnt out defending the Event listings and other important noisebridge things from opportunistic destructive (not even interesting) trolling? --Nthmost (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)]


[By the way,

  • *I took the above suggestion and made the edit.*

The current protection level is "block new and unregistered users from editing".

Is there some reason why making an account and editing a page is out of the question? I am honestly trying to understand.

ed1: Maybe b/c of the issue of continued tracing by the "Bad Cop(s)"??

OK, that's something. Thank you (whomever) for finally providing a concrete rationale. --Nthmost (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Anyone who wished to remain "anonymous" could easily still use a Tor node, create a throwaway email address to use for wiki editing, and make a meaninglessly-named user account. The point of protecting against anonymous editing is to create a friction to opportunistic destructive trolling.

I'm not try to be a dictator,
ed1: Of course not

I'm trying to protect everyone's interests. This is just an experiment and feedback is welcome (despite my initial knee-jerk reaction, which is why I deleted this section before.)

ed1: Of course this is "just an experiment"

I'll leave it here, since it's important to you.


--Nthmost (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Other opinions

Anonymous edits should be banned. It's not difficult to make an account. The anonymous wiki vandalism wastes everyone's time. You can still be a member of the community and not sign everything with your Firstname and Lastname.

Anonymous edits should not be banned. Anonymous contributors would rather avoid creating traceable accounts. Some -- though of course not all -- of these anonymous contributors have zero interest in vandalizing the wiki and wasting their and admins' time. Believe it or not, such anonymous contributors may wish to remain good "members of the community" without any desire to become openly (or secretly) flushed out by the Noisebridge BoDs and/or admins.

Why do you think editing anonymously is anonymous at all? The edit appears under your 'ip address' . This is like people who think bitcoin is anonymous.

Well, it's kind of a numbers game, honestly. Are there enough "good anons" to balance out the hit we take from "bad anons"? How would we even know? Admins only experience this ratio via the hit on their own time. Right now, the ratio doesn't look terrible, but it's veering towards bad.

Anyway, I'm turning off the protection to these pages now that Maker Faire is over. --Nthmost (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools