[WikiEN-l] WR's secret forum and list

[Relata Refero]

On Dec 11, 2007 1:06 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Relata Refero wrote:
> > The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error
> > of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account
> > was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was
> > unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an
> > (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several
> > respected editors.
>
> The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
>
> Private lists, whether informal and ad hoc, or formalized, are generally
> a good thing.  They allow admins to discuss things openly without fear
> of the press or random trolls getting involved.  They can allow for
> thoughtfully coordinated action to deal with a problem.  They allow for
> the possibility of peer oversight.
>

I think most of us agree that on occasion, private discussion is very
helpful. I don't want to get into the semantics of the secret -vs-
private thing, merely pointing out that a
list that is not generally known to exist, and that people had gone to
some (perhaps not very great) effort to avoid mentioning, is probably,
in addition, slightly secret in the strict dictionary definition of
the term. Neither of them are pejorative as far as I'm concerned, so
I'm a little puzzled by the back-and-forth about the precise words.
I'm glad that other than that single, somewhat irrelevant word, you do
realise that Nick's concern is valid.

What I am concerned about is that if decisions are made off-wiki by a
particular group of administrators, which administrators then
separately agree with each other on-wiki without revealing that the
matter has already been discussed by them, to the casual reader
on-wiki it creates the appearance of greater consensus than in fact
exists. This is perhaps a problem when private lists are not generally
known to be discussing a particular matter, or are secret.

> The
> correct response is: don't make controversial blocks based on secret
> evidence... the riskier the block the more need for broad feedback
> first... don't block in cases of this sort without asking the party in
> question first what is going on... don't block in cases of this sort
> when there is no immediate emergency... etc.
>

Quite so, with an additional emphasis on 'broad'.

RR