>Consensus doesn't scale.
We've recently seen the numbers from Gmaxwell and Kim Bruning that
show that this is not at all the case with articles - except a couple
of hundred articles (out of 900k+) which appear to be pathological.
*Mostly*, people leave articles to others who know about the area, and
those who know about an area mostly manage to thrash out a consensus.
The failures of consensus in article editing get a lot of attention
but they are the *exception*.
>With policy, this hinders change greatly, but it's unlikely to be a
>major problem in the near future. With wheel warring or serious edit
>wars, however, the fact that consensus doesn't scale is wasting a lot of
>our time here. It takes being hauled in front of the arbcom to get any
>results.
Yeah. It's getting policy consensus to scale that's tricky. Continuous
reference to basic principles - "we're here to write an encyclopedia",
"NPOV", "don't be a dick", etc - may be a useful touchstone for either
deriving a lot of the crufted policy from first principles or getting
rid of it.
- d.
How much truth is there to this:
The Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) organization is
worried about parents letting their children into a website that is a
known gathering for pedophiles. Any pedophile can easily obtain a
child's IP address and use it to locate the child's place of
residence outside of the internet. Pedophiles may also solicit
children for sex or attempt to contact them through using WikiPedia
as a medium, or even find out their e-mail address or instant
messenger screen name.
Since WikiPedia allows pedophiles to edit WikiPedia pages and view
the IP addresses of children freely, we recommend that you use
filtering software to block WikiPedia from access in your household
or school.
The internet is already a dangerous lurking ground for pedophiles;
statistics show that about 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex
online, and with the growth of the unregulated WikiPedia, that number
can only skyrocket.
Since WikiPedia refuses to address the issue of pedophiles within its
ranks and the allowance of random editing to pages, we can only
recommend parents to withhold access to WikiPedia.org for the time
being.
Excerpts from http://news.baou.com/main.php?
action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20679
What can we practically do that would reduce any real risk? (I
exclude fighting among ourselves in a destructive way)
Fred
David Gerard wrote:
>However, anyone reading this who's been on Wikipedia more than six
>months and is flabbergasted at the levels of STUPID surrounding the
>entire {{user pedophile}} incident should consider themselves a hot
>draft prospect ...
Or draw their own conclusions. For the record, I have requested to have my
admin rights removed after holding and using them for two years and a half.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/stuff . This is not intended
as an act of flaming public protest; I quite simply don't want to be seen as
a representative of a community in which the standards of conduct have
dropped to that level. Ceterum censeo that common sense is the
encyclopedist's prime virtue.
Kosebamse
--
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen f�r GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner
I don't think this rises to an ArbCom situation, but I'm not sure what
the current mores are on Wikipedia. I put something relatively rude on
my userpage (I put up a version of the "Counter Vandalism Unit"
userbox with the text "The Cunctator is a non-member of the Retarded
Fascism Unit").
Drini removed the box without any warning or discussion.
I put it back, asking him not to edit my page.
Drini removed the box again without any warning or discussion.
I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
protected my userpage.
Drini removed the box again without any warning.
I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.
Ever since the Kelly Martin fiasco, I've had serious misgivings about the wisdom of User Conduct RFCs as a method of dealing with disputes. I'm not alone in this: many scathing comments about the RFC process were posted at the [[Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll]]. Generally, there seems to be a feeling that RFCs are merely fora for the venting of grievances, that the lack of any consequences makes people fail to take the process seriously, and that RFC is often viewed as simply a preliminary step to an arbitration case. I've decided to see if this can be reformed. After an aborted attempt to nominate [[WP:RFC/USER]] for MFD (consensus: bad idea), I've created a straw poll. See [[Wikipedia:User RFC reform]]. Any comments are appreciated.
-C. horridus
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:27:40 -0500
> From: The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] CVU -> WP:CVP? (was The Counter Vandalism
> Unit? Whaa?
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <dfd0b40602061127p3578b884h9d9fea68d913390d(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> This is getting somewhere--now if we can come up with a positive,
> rather than negative name, we'd be perfect.
>
> Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> cabal").
>
Well, for the record, I?m working wit ha few people on [[WP:CUV]] (NOT CVU)
not looking for repalce CVU, since that is NOT our goals, but rather
to provide an alternate venue and central resource without the
fighting imagery
ZOE IS A TERRORIST SYMPATHIER, BLOCKS AMERICAN PATRIOT FOR REPORTING TERRORIST
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:25:43 -0500
> From: The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <dfd0b40602060725s466867c0p338a18bd57250ead(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I don't think this rises to an ArbCom situation, but I'm not sure what
> the current mores are on Wikipedia. I put something relatively rude on
> my userpage (I put up a version of the "Counter Vandalism Unit"
> userbox with the text "The Cunctator is a non-member of the Retarded
> Fascism Unit").
>
> Drini removed the box without any warning or discussion.
>
> I put it back, asking him not to edit my page.
>
> Drini removed the box again without any warning or discussion.
>
> I put it back, leaving a message at his user_talk asking him not to
> edit my page and to discuss the matter at my user_talk page, and
> protected my userpage.
>
> Drini removed the box again without any warning.
>
> I don't really mind, but my understanding is that Drini's actions were
> rude as well. I'd like to be able to express my opinions on my
> homepage with a reasonable lack of censorship.
>
>
ok, let's get things straight:
1. I did remove the rude userbox 21:13, 4 February 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_Cunctator&diff=3819471…
2. Then you put it back: 19:50, 5 February 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_Cunctator&diff=3834952…
3. And left the note on my page: 20:01, 5 February 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrini&diff=38351177&o…
4: I proceeded to remove it again... 20:53, 5 February 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_Cunctator&diff=3835885…
5. ...explaining VERY politely my reasons on his talk page 20:59, 5
February 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThe_Cunctator&diff=38…
6. Then he puts it back: 03:45, 6 February 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AThe_Cunctator&diff=3841169…
(and he never replied me back)
(....) fast forward
7. He puts a less rude version 15:11, 6 February 2006 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Cunctator&diff=next&oldi…
and even though he namecalls me a jerk
8. He apologizes later 15:17, 6 February 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrini&diff=38469269&o…
I'm sorry if I came as rude, and I didn't mean to editwar. I was just
being firm in that such namecalling was uncalled for.
For the record I also commented what I was doing on WP:AN/I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not…
which by he way, was inmediately attacked by several new accounts.
Well, that's what happened.