>>> 2) Should I respond to his email or ignore it?
>>
>>
>> I would probably answer and try to cool him off :-)
>
>He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Maybe he has misread
>one or two lawbooks, or watched too many court shows on TV. I would be
>inclined to simply tell him to "put up or shut up".
>
>Ec
Part of me is itching to do just that. Another part is saying that
contacting someone like this is stupid.
Theresa
Chris,
I think your time-out idea worked out great. I made some new friends,
and general animosity in the talk pages is down. Five of us are even
discussing a plan for working together:
Ed (thinks he's neutral but really just as biased as anyone else)
HistoryBuffer (pro-facts and pro-fairness)
IZAK (intolerant of injustice)
Jay (doubly just pro-facts and pro-fairness :-)
Pir (really, honestly, genuinely pro-facts and pro-fairness :-)
Edmund Poor (mondo prude)
> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:00:43 -0700
> From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>
> Other than that, since this proposal exactly matches the one I made a day
> or two back I support it entirely. :)
Oh dear. Well, that's what happens when I skim voluminous digests rapidly
without paying enough attention, I guess. My apologies. Well, Harry S. Truman
once said, "It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets
the credit."
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>I completely agree with this view. We are loosing too many good authors
>due to these problems. Bored with reverting the same propaganda and POV
>again and again, having to repeat discussions every two months when the
>next guy arrives who insists on bringing up an already solved point.
>It's not only Adam Carr, there are many others who silently leave wikipedia.
Actually, the problems that Elisabeth and others are pointing to are
actually quite different and in fact opposite in nature.
Problem #1: "The same propaganda and POV again and again." For it to
be "the same" propaganda, presumably it must be coming from the same
individual or small group of individuals.
Problem #2: New people who "insist on bringing up an already solved
point." But if new people keep coming and concluding that the point
is problematic, maybe it isn't really "solved." And if new people
keep raising objections, obviously this problem ISN'T coming from an
individual or a small group.
On the one hand, it's a problem when the same OLD people keep
inserting their POV over and over again. On the other hand, it's a
problem when NEW people keep challenging the "correct" version as
defined by self-declared guardians of the article. See the
contradiction?
The problems stated here are, of course, seen quite differently by
the supposed malefactors. From their perspective, problem #1 would be
(and often is) stated as, "Other people are enforcing their POV and
censoring mine."
For those accused of #2, the problem is perceived as "A clique has
formed that refuses to brook any challenge to its imagined
'ownership' of the article."
I think the real problem, though, is something more deeply structural
that is imbedded in the very design of the WIkipedia. In this regard,
I recommend reading Clay Shirky's essay, "A Group Is Its Own Worst
Enemy":
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Shirky mentions Wikipedia several times, calling it "the most
interesting conversational artifact I know of, where product is a
result of process." More interestingly, though, he examines the
nature of human group dynamics and makes a number of observations.
For example:
>"The likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into
>a flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one
>as time increases." As a group commits to its existence as a group,
>and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance
>that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to
>defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very high.
My personal corollary to this observation is that the TYPE of group
plays an important role in determining how large the group gets
before this dynamic kicks in. Here are a couple of examples:
*Listservs become overwhelming to subscribers if they contain a large
number of postings. Once they reach that point, therefore, an
equilibrium sets in. As the number of postings (and flames)
increases, the number of people who drop out in frustration begins to
equal the number of new people joining the list. At this point its
growth stagnates, and in the absence of moderation, trolls or cliques
tend to take over and drive out everyone else.
*The same dynamic occurs with usenet groups and bulletin boards, but
typically the number of postings needed to reach the equilibrium
point is higher than with listservs. (With bulletin boards, people
have more ability to pick and choose what they read than with
listservs, so the number of postings can be higher before the
experience gets overwhelming.)
By comparison with these other types of groups, one of the great
strengths of wikis is that they accommodate much larger groups than
other internet communities. What experience is showing, however, is
that wikis too have an equilibrium point (even though it is markedly
higher than the equilibrium point for listservs or bulletin boards).
On Wikipedia, the equilibrium point has already been reached with
respect to a number of topics that are popular or controversial.
As for what should be done about this, I don't know. It seems that
some system is needed that enables more moderation while sticking to
the NPOV principle.
--Sheldon Rampton
How about providing this minimal amount of mechanism:
a) A way of marking a particular edit as a "milestone."
b) The ability to mark an edit as a milestone would be suitably
restricted to people, probably sysops, who would agree to be governed
by discussion, consensus, policy, etc. TBD.
c) When a page with milestone(s) on it was displayed, _you would still
see and edit the latest version,_ but a not-too-conspicuous indicator
would appear to show that there was a milestone and clicking on it
would display the milestone.
d) NPOV and such notices could contain a suggestion that you might want
to read the latest milestone.
This would change the current situation minimally--newcomers would
still see and edit the latest page regardless of whether there were
"milestones." In situations where there was a serious "months-after"
effect, it would be easy to revert to the last milestone and then hash
things out via the usual edit wars... I can imagine a "Votes for
Reversion to Milestone" conference.
In other words, once a milestone is marked, don't lock it or obviously
prefer it--just make it available.
The assumption is that in the vast majority of cases, once a milestone
is reached, further edits would still be progressive improvements.
In other words, just provide a way of putting bookmarks into the
existing "history" file and a tab which, instead of bringing up the
whole history, brings up the latest milestone.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Do proud men
Dump on Ed, or
Dupe Dr. Moon?
No dud, Mr. Poe:
Duped Moron
Rode on dump!
--Edmund Poor (Proud Demon, Roped on mud)
> >And that explains why I'm an "ode pro".
>
> >Rod Poe
>
> Or dope?
>
> Theresa
In February 2002, I tried to salvage the Nupedia (RIP) by rewriting the
software completely (sounds familiar?), adding features like "fixed"
texts editable by administrators etc., while preserving the look'n'feel
of it. I registered it as "NuNupedia" with sourceforge, and even set up
a demo site at
http://nunupedia.sourceforge.net/main.phtml
Since Nupedia in its original variant and, thus, my recreation were
quickly made obsolete by what today is Wikipedia/MediaWiki, I hereby ask
if *anyone* has even the slightest interest in keeping that zombie
around any longer. If not, I will ask the sourceforge people to delete it.
Magnus
I like DPB's idea of gentle milestones. It would give contributors
something to aim for, like:
* Let's work together co-operatively and try to create the next
milestone version.
It would also make it easier to do a "diff" between the current version,
and the one which (months *ago*) was agreed upon as a consensus version:
* On the article's History Page, just click the "cur" link on the
milestone version.
If the milestone idea gains traction, what's the next step? Submit the
idea directly to the developers, or create some sort of vote page at the
website and wait 2 weeks?
Ed Poor
Bureaucrat