--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>You do not get my point. When policies are to be
changed, when the way
>things work are to be changed, this is when
you
should inform the
>communities in advance. Some careful marketing
communication is what is
>needed. Marketeers call it customer relations.
And
you /need /to inform
>your customers; when you do, you talk to all
your
customers when you
>don't you have to deal with them one at a
time and
you may find that
>customers do no longer give you their custom.
Given how busy you are,
you would
not even notice.
I disagree with this sentiment in general terms.
If
the "customers" are not making an effort
to watch
the
pages where policy decisions are disscused, they
should not expect to courted by those wishing to
change policy. The community that is actually
doing
the work of maintaining a project should have the
ability to set policy without going out of their
way
to court the fly-by-night users of the project. I
do
not think it is wise to try and alienate the less
active userbase, but it is unrealistic to wait for
their reaction before making any decisions.
This seems like a somewhat frigid approach. It's
true enough that
policies are developped by the most active members,
but many policies
should allow for viable alternatives. If a newcomer
has a different way
of doing things that does not conform with
established formatting norms
there should be room to develop those ideas without
his being pilloried
because he does things differently. "Ignore all
rules" should always
remain a viable policy. This does not mean that we
need to accept every
bit of idiocy that comes along. Nor does it mean
that core principles
must be abandoned. Good rules support existing
practice rather than
shape it. Poor rules, even by the most active
members, tend to be
ignored as people go ahead and do their own things.
Almost all rules should be open to change, because a
community thrives
on new ideas. Very few rules should be the subject
of persistent
enforcement.
I believe you misunderstand me here. I strongly
believe that most policies should be up for
reevaluation. Many things seem like great ideas, or
seem as though they would naturally go hand in hand
until you actually start *working* on them. Newcomers
who active on a project are certainly welcome in my
view. I see them as future established users. I
think you have hit the nail on the head with "Good
rules support existing practice rather than shape it."
The problem with the original suggestion is such
advertisement would atract people who have no
understanding of existing practice. That is my
concern. I feel anyone familar with existing practice
will be aware of policy disscussion through the normal
in-project channels.
The English
Wikisource recently made a major change
to
it's incluson guidelines (which involves the
eventual
deletion of around 200 pages). We held open
disscusion for over three weeks, and the material
is
now being slowly phased out without a mass
deletion.
Although there was a small amount of advertising
amoung people with a specific interest, the
participants in the disscusion did not vary from
the
regular editors. I cannot agree that it should
have
been advertised at large across projects. I am
very
happy with the way we have handled this situation
which quite at odds with your sentiments.
I presume you're referring to the source code
articles. With many of
these the contributors haven't been around for a
long time, and that's
probably an indicator of a failed sub-project.
Still, the safe and fair
approach is to give personal notice to any
contributors that are still
around, and leaving them ample time to respond.
You are correct although it also included the
exclusion of most all reference data. It was not due
to inactivity so much as impracticality of managing
it. But I do not see a need for great detail here.
It would not be
productive during a major policy
disscussion to issue an invitation to people who
have
no idea how a project operates on a day-to-day
basis.
The community which actually *works* on a project
needs to be the ones to set policy. If the people
you
consider "customers" find that the
community no
longer
serves their needs, they should work to carve out
such
a niche themselves. These projects are all
operating
with a limited amount of volunteers and I cannot
imagine any of them would ignore the corcerns of
people willing to get their hands dirty. But when
someone has the mindset that they are a "customer"
and
want to reallocate these existing voluteers to
take
care of their pet issues, well I won't be so
impolite
as to express what I think of that. Now they are
welcome to share these concerns. Many people can
vouch that I am willing to drop my current project
to
help them deal with issue I agree is important
when
they bring to my attention. But to say projects
should not attempt to set policy unless they
personally invite over all the people who are
standing
on the sidelines is ridiculous. Even if such
people
are the most informed, intelligent, reasonable
people
on earth, they will not be a useful addition to
policy
disscusions until they have worked within the
project
and achieved such understanding that can only be
gained by experience. The fact that infrequent
users
may not *like* the communities policy descision is
not
reason enough to hold off on any decision till
they
have been consulted.
I don't know about the applicability or implications
of the term
"customers", but I can certainly discuss the matter
without using it.
Most people have little interest in getting involved
in policy matters.
They may be interested in specific content areas,
and see unending
debates about policy as a total waste of time. They
continue to work
well on their specialty, and will only discuss
policy when their own
area is affected. That's fine. For them the
discussion _starts_ at
that point.
I very strongly believe in the autonomy of the
projects; I had a big
argument with a significant Wikipedian about that
during the earliest
days of Wikisource. Although it would be patently
ridiculous to invite
absolutely everyone to participate in some of these
discussions, it is
just as ridiculous and even unjust and arrogant to
suggest that informed
Wikimedians cannot make useful contributions to a
current debate.
Absence of input may not be a valid reason to hold
off decisions, but it
is a valid reason to hold off enforcement in
inappropriate circumstance.
Ec
I have not really experienced "unending debates about
policy". Most proposals actually need little debate
at all. Maybe that is a scale issue. I really am
open to hear anyone interested in Wikisource to come
add a voice to policy discussions. But I would expect
them to keep an eye on the Scriptorium. Most
everything that applies to Wikisource on a broader
sense is disscused there. Maybe I am wrong, but
imagine a large scale advertisment would attract
people who are more interested that Wikisource does
something they believe it should than *how* it does
something. I am very much interested in the more
pragmatic input which I believe requires some
familarity with how Wikisource operates.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com