I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]]. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we going to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too? How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they wore in the audience.
Do we have any chance whatsoever of finding out what happens to any of these people? Will we know five years from now if they are even alive? Can any of these articles ever hope to become a featured article, if the sole criterion for inclusion is appearing (not even winning) a realilty show. This isnt Dr Joyce Brothers we are talking about (American TV personality who began her career winning the $64,000 Dollar Pyramid game show)--and I challenge anyone to tell me who she played against on the show. Even she is only included because of the role she played later as a TV shrink.
With 1.25 million articles, our criteria for inclusion must be a tad more stringent, before we end up tossing Notability out the window.
Danny
Well, notability is not policy, merely a (very argued-about) guideline that not everybody believes in anyway.
With that out of the way, I can't see any reason why the short amount of verifiable information about these contestants can't be inside the article for this season's So You Think You Can Dance, or inside [[So You Think You Can Dance 2006 contestants]], with redirects (or disambiguations) from the individual's names to sections within it. I think that these people are not sufficiently interesting outside the context of the competition, and that having seperate articles for them merely encourages unsourced, unverifiable cruft.
-Matt
On 23/07/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Well, notability is not policy, merely a (very argued-about) guideline that not everybody believes in anyway.
With that out of the way, I can't see any reason why the short amount of verifiable information about these contestants can't be inside the article for this season's So You Think You Can Dance, or inside [[So You Think You Can Dance 2006 contestants]], with redirects (or disambiguations) from the individual's names to sections within it. I think that these people are not sufficiently interesting outside the context of the competition, and that having seperate articles for them merely encourages unsourced, unverifiable cruft.
Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
Peter Ansell
--- Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors" according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Jul 22, 2006, at 9:25 PM, stevertigo wrote:
--- Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors" according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.
SV
Step up.
Fred
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Step up.
By this, I assume youre expressing your vote of confidence. Its much appreciated and certainly returned.
SV For sale: One Spider-Man costume. Good for climbing historically inflammatory institutions.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Step up.
By this, I assume youre expressing your vote of confidence. Its much appreciated and certainly returned.
To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum too. I think there are many editors who would like to lead in one way or another, in fact many of them are on this mailing list at least partly in the hopes of exerting some influence.
But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come to naught. It's as if you were to get elected as prime minister, but any recent immigrant could unilaterally nullify any action you took and blacken your name in the papers - who would even bother to run for the position?
WP's anarchy doesn't always work in the service of the goal of producing the free encyclopedia, but with so many anarchists ideologically committed to working against effective governance, it's hard even to discuss how the situation might be changed for the better.
Stan
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum too. I think there are many editors who would like to lead in one way or another, in fact many of them are on this mailing list at least partly in the hopes of exerting some influence.
I think the lack of leadership is good. It promotes community involvement and it proves to new users that they can help in a big way.
But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come to naught. It's as if you were to get elected as prime minister, but any recent immigrant could unilaterally nullify any action you took and blacken your name in the papers - who would even bother to run for the position?
I see the equality between the old boys and the newbies as one of Wikipedia's greatest assets for the reasons I state above. It prevents anyone from becoming over-mighty and abusing their power and damaging Wikipedia. Leaders shouldn't come to the job because of the perks and benefits - they should fight for it because they truly want it and believe in the project.
WP's anarchy doesn't always work in the service of the goal of producing the free encyclopedia, but with so many anarchists ideologically committed to working against effective governance, it's hard even to discuss how the situation might be changed for the better.
A bigger priority, IMO, is making the Foundation more democratic and answerable to the community while also preventing momentary trends and fads from destroying the project (such as might occur if the Foundation were too democratic).
Oldak Quill wrote:
I see the equality between the old boys and the newbies as one of Wikipedia's greatest assets for the reasons I state above. It prevents anyone from becoming over-mighty and abusing their power and damaging Wikipedia. Leaders shouldn't come to the job because of the perks and benefits - they should fight for it because they truly want it and believe in the project.
That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm going to keep doing it?
Stan
On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm going to keep doing it?
Stan
Apparently I'm satisfied if occasionally I make a point. But that's politics everywhere.
Fred
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm going to keep doing it?
Stan
I'm not saying there should be no reward. As you say, the reward is helping the project, getting a featured article, getting a policy through, or devising a new way to collaborate.
My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient, changing leadership are those who want to do something for the project, or believe the project should have some feature or device. Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be lazy.
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm going to keep doing it?
The point of leadership isnt the personal reward associated with authority, its the ability to navigate though obstacles and handle disputes. WP doesnt need a captain or an EIC, but it could benefit from having a kind of editorial council.
--- Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient, changing leadership are those who want to do something for the project, or believe the project should have some feature or device. Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be lazy.
I tend to agree, but again its besides the point. The association of sysops with janitors has left sysops untrusted with actual decision power, to resolve certain disputes. They wind up put in a place where their hands are tied by the influx. Council members could be given authority to:
1) settle particularly clear POV and disputes flatly, including article deletion and material inclusion disputes. 2) make a judgement on particular a POV issue and apply it. 3) make direct article edits or else give specific article instructions which to follow. 4) with other members, they can build a record of how particular disputes are dealt with.
Of course this body should be reasonalby large, perhaps 30 members, have all some serious skillz, and of course a dedication to and experience with NPOV. The body needs to be large enough to have some influence, have standards and review for membership, and yet it should be small enough to require consensus among the council, and thus avoid the direct that sysops get into.
They should use their authority sparingly, in particular to override any collusion of newbie "consensus" which has been shown to be disruptive element as WP has grown larger.
So an edit by a councilor* is supposed to get peoples attention, as it corrects something which needs correcting. When compared to the Arbcom, whos domain is largely ex-post fact punitivity, this body should deal with the material application of NPOV, and defer civility issues to the Arbcom.
-SV
* as opposed to a "counselor"
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient, changing leadership are those who want to do something for the project, or believe the project should have some feature or device. Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be lazy.
I tend to agree, but again its besides the point. The association of sysops with janitors has left sysops untrusted with actual decision power, to resolve certain disputes. They wind up put in a place where their hands are tied by the influx. Council members could be given authority to:
- settle particularly clear POV and disputes flatly, including article deletion and material inclusion disputes.
- make a judgement on particular a POV issue and apply it.
- make direct article edits or else give specific article instructions which to follow.
- with other members, they can build a record of how particular disputes are dealt with.
Of course this body should be reasonalby large, perhaps 30 members, have all some serious skillz, and of course a dedication to and experience with NPOV. The body needs to be large enough to have some influence, have standards and review for membership, and yet it should be small enough to require consensus among the council, and thus avoid the direct that sysops get into.
They should use their authority sparingly, in particular to override any collusion of newbie "consensus" which has been shown to be disruptive element as WP has grown larger.
So an edit by a councilor* is supposed to get peoples attention, as it corrects something which needs correcting. When compared to the Arbcom, whos domain is largely ex-post fact punitivity, this body should deal with the material application of NPOV, and defer civility issues to the Arbcom.
-SV
- as opposed to a "counselor"
I have long felt that something like this would be the only way to get decent versions of a number of very contentious articles. But, when you compare the "sort of government" that would imply compared to the present system which is some sort of mildly democratic anarchy with very occasional intervention by a monarch, I can't see the system emerging. I think it would alienate far to large a segment of the community and probably do more damage than good achieved.
Dalf
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm going to keep doing it?
Stan
I'm not saying there should be no reward. As you say, the reward is helping the project, getting a featured article, getting a policy through, or devising a new way to collaborate.
My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient, changing leadership are those who want to do something for the project, or believe the project should have some feature or device. Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be lazy.
Your repeated references to "perks" are revealing; leadership is not about the leader getting some kind of unfair advantage over others, it's about getting groups of people to work together, rather than at cross-purposes. Transient leadership is ineffective - think of the Italian government - instead of working out compromises, people who disagree simply wait for the leader to be gone and the group to disperse, then undo everything that they accomplished. We see this every day, in the endless circular arguments on notability, verifiability, userboxes, fair use, capitalization of species names, AfD, and on and on and on, which are in turn reflected in a continuous churn of edits that never actually add any new content. We could be a lot more effective at the ultimate goal if we actually encouraged people to make tough decisions, then backed them up rather than tore them down.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
That's a nice fantasy, but nobody works for no reward at all. For instance, we reward random editors by letting their contributions appear on a top-20 website; editors who continually have all their edits reverted eventually get the hint and go away. If every policy I propose gets shot down or subverted, how long do you think I'm going to keep doing it?
I'm not saying there should be no reward. As you say, the reward is helping the project, getting a featured article, getting a policy through, or devising a new way to collaborate.
My point was that we don't want leaders who are leaders only because they enjoy the perks. Our current system ensures that our transient, changing leadership are those who want to do something for the project, or believe the project should have some feature or device. Institutionalised leadership tends lose sight of the project and be lazy.
Your repeated references to "perks" are revealing; leadership is not about the leader getting some kind of unfair advantage over others, it's about getting groups of people to work together, rather than at cross-purposes. Transient leadership is ineffective - think of the Italian government - instead of working out compromises, people who disagree simply wait for the leader to be gone and the group to disperse, then undo everything that they accomplished. We see this every day, in the endless circular arguments on notability, verifiability, userboxes, fair use, capitalization of species names, AfD, and on and on and on, which are in turn reflected in a continuous churn of edits that never actually add any new content. We could be a lot more effective at the ultimate goal if we actually encouraged people to make tough decisions, then backed them up rather than tore them down.
I fundamentally agree. Political leaders with an eye on the perks are too likely to have their decisions affected by this perspective. Leadership is a quality of personality, and not something that is automatically generated in the appointment process.
Transient leadership is one of the biggest failings in democratic systems. When the motivation for taking actions derives from the ability to get re-elected on the next ballot public policy suffers. The ability to view things beyond the next election is especially important in environmental matters.
Four years ago the compromise understanding about the capitalization of species names was that you could use either form as long as you allowed for a redirect of the other. I hadn't realized that people were still whining about that. :-)
There's a lot of support for tough decisions where those decisions support one's own POV. ;-)
Perhaps my biggest complaint about 3RR was the imposed artificiality. It serves well for cooling down an immediate battle, but offers no long range solution for settling a dispute. If you apply it often enough perhaps no-one will notice that all you have done is sweep the problem under the rug.
Ec
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum too. I think there are many editors who would like to lead in one way or another, in fact many of them are on this mailing list at least partly in the hopes of exerting some influence.
I think the lack of leadership is good. It promotes community involvement and it proves to new users that they can help in a big way.
Not really. Without prejudicing the specific tasks that leaders take on some measure of leadership is needed to prevent total chaos. Some newbies feel completely overwhelmed by the size of Wikipedia, and often need guidance to get them going.
But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come to naught. It's as if you were to get elected as prime minister, but any recent immigrant could unilaterally nullify any action you took and blacken your name in the papers - who would even bother to run for the position?
I see the equality between the old boys and the newbies as one of Wikipedia's greatest assets for the reasons I state above. It prevents anyone from becoming over-mighty and abusing their power and damaging Wikipedia. Leaders shouldn't come to the job because of the perks and benefits - they should fight for it because they truly want it and believe in the project.
Not all leaders adhere to the importance of equality. I admit that the dedicated vandal fighters can't keep that up too long without it affecting their view of human nature. I don't think that any of our leaders are in it for the tangible perks, but the intangible ones can still be a motivating power. Sometimes the worst leaders are the one who want it too much. Having them fight for for a leadership role because they truly want it is downright scary.. The good leaders are very patient.
WP's anarchy doesn't always work in the service of the goal of producing the free encyclopedia, but with so many anarchists ideologically committed to working against effective governance, it's hard even to discuss how the situation might be changed for the better.
A bigger priority, IMO, is making the Foundation more democratic and answerable to the community while also preventing momentary trends and fads from destroying the project (such as might occur if the Foundation were too democratic).
Yes, I support open accountability, but "democracy" has become the kind of buzz-word that worries me. It can't be imposed, and it can't be brought to people until they are ready to accept it and grasp it. A psephocracy is a mere shadow of democracy.
Ec
Stan Shebs wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Step up.
By this, I assume youre expressing your vote of confidence. Its much appreciated and certainly returned.
To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum too.
When I look at the leadership vacuum, I don't see anything. ;-)
I think there are many editors who would like to lead in one way or another, in fact many of them are on this mailing list at least partly in the hopes of exerting some influence.
This does happen, but sometimes if you hope too strongly to exert influence it can escape you. I have suggested some things in the past that have had a major result, but also many others that got nowhere. Part of leadership is recognizing one's own limitation, and circumsribing one's own leadership aspirations. We may have individuals who will be great and influential at orgainzing a specific topical project, but will totally lack the scope and vision that it takes to lead at a higher level where one must deal with the unexpected.
But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come to naught. It's as if you were to get elected as prime minister, but any recent immigrant could unilaterally nullify any action you took and blacken your name in the papers - who would even bother to run for the position?
It's not about the newbies. If your visions are too easily derailed by newbies you may have reached your level of incompetence. It's much more difficult to deal with established users who have gone off the rails. A major faction there are those who have made tremendous contributions as editors while at the same time they are unable to get along with anybody. We can all remember a few like that.
WP's anarchy doesn't always work in the service of the goal of producing the free encyclopedia, but with so many anarchists ideologically committed to working against effective governance, it's hard even to discuss how the situation might be changed for the better.
These "anarchists" are often bright questioning people. The average IQ among regularly active Wikipedians is probably well above average. To say that they are "ideologically committed to working against effective governance" is not accurate. That requires too much premeditation. I think that it would be more accurate to say that their observation of personal and world experience has spurred a cynicism that resists being governed.
Ec
On Jul 24, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come to naught.
Then don't. Make a fork. Only allow "like-minded editors" to edit it, and go for it. Heck, maybe it will work better than what we've got now. I, at least, would be glad to have the competition. And as for money issues, until/unless you get massive traffic, the hardware costs won't be too high. I'll chip in some (~$25) seed money, if you really need it.
This is not a joke. If you think you can make more progress in producing a free encyclopedia by working in an environment where "the newest of newbies" can't "come in and disrupt", then do it, and show us. Rent some hardware, install Mediawiki on it, copy over a recent database dump, apply whatever restrictions you think will help you, and get down to work. If it really works better than what we've got here, I'll bet many good editors will flock to it; if not, then we'll have a real-life example to point to when this discussion comes up again. And even if it just lets you, Stan Shebs, write a few more excellent articles, that's a win in itself. By all means - go to it!
<snip last paragraph>
Jesse Weinstein
Jesse W wrote:
On Jul 24, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come to naught.
Then don't. Make a fork.
An overreaction. It's like observing a flaw in your country's political system, and deciding that the only possible solution is to secede, set up a competing country, and hope everybody moves there.
But so far it's been possible to add admins, arbcom, policy pages, RC patrols, vandalbots, etc, without having to have a fork each time.
My goal in this particular discussion is to get people to think about a class of interactions they see going on every day, and ask themselves if that is as good as we want it, or if there are fixes to be tried. An experiment in this area could be as simple and easy as a wikiproject formally appointing a "lead editor" that the project participants sign up to support - hardly an earthshaking event that requires forking!
Stan
On 7/26/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
fixes to be tried. An experiment in this area could be as simple and easy as a wikiproject formally appointing a "lead editor" that the project participants sign up to support - hardly an earthshaking event that requires forking!
"Coordinator".
Steve
stevertigo wrote:
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Step up.
By this, I assume youre expressing your vote of confidence. Its much appreciated and certainly returned.
SV For sale: One Spider-Man costume. Good for climbing historically inflammatory institutions.
I'll think of you next time I see someone crawling up the side of a burning building. :-)
Ec
On 23/07/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors" according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.
SV
No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts, and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in its ability to make effective decisions.
The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers" model.
Peter Ansell
On 25/07/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts, and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in its ability to make effective decisions.
The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers" model.
Importantly, Wikipedia is not a nation state and can't be compared to one. Our "judiciary" simply settles a few fights and determines a few basic punishments: partial exclusion and total exclusion). Since Wikipedia is a digital project with only hundreds of active editors, representative democracy is not necessary. Direct democracy has thus far served our needs well, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Just out of interest, who are you suggesting plays the role of executive/cabinet?
On 25/07/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/07/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts, and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in its ability to make effective decisions.
The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers" model.
Importantly, Wikipedia is not a nation state and can't be compared to one. Our "judiciary" simply settles a few fights and determines a few basic punishments: partial exclusion and total exclusion). Since Wikipedia is a digital project with only hundreds of active editors, representative democracy is not necessary. Direct democracy has thus far served our needs well, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Just out of interest, who are you suggesting plays the role of executive/cabinet?
I do not see why Wikipedia operates with a totally new type of community model that can't be at least compared to a proven durable model.
Wikipedia is a digital project with over a thousand active editors. That makes it a decent size community in my books. Direct democracy may have gotten it this far but the problems with it are not going to go away by simply saying that it will work for the foreseeable future. There are numerous people on this list who have complaints about the current structure, of which sockpuppeting is just one of them.
On the executive/cabinet role, I thought it was obvious that the [[WP:OFFICE]] setup sets the base rules and makes day to day effective immediately judgements when it thinks they are necessary.
Peter Ansell
Peter Ansell wrote:
I do not see why Wikipedia operates with a totally new type of community model that can't be at least compared to a proven durable model.
Being big and online is what makes it different. Many representative models have their origins in times when travel over long distances was not easy, and any practical kind of instant communication was not yet invented
Wikipedia is a digital project with over a thousand active editors. That makes it a decent size community in my books. Direct democracy may have gotten it this far but the problems with it are not going to go away by simply saying that it will work for the foreseeable future. There are numerous people on this list who have complaints about the current structure, of which sockpuppeting is just one of them.
In a fair analysis of the situation sockpuppetry is a distraction. One needs to begin in good faith from the presumption that most editors will not engage in such practices. Some people will remain who will nevertheless do whatever it takes to get their point accepted, but dealing with them is still a secondary issue.
Direct democracy fails when it overwhelms the large body of citizenry. If the average citizen of Wikimedia has to vote on so many issues that he has time for nothing else the experience is not a worthwhile one, and his vote will not be guided by an informed and reasoned process. If an issue comes forth now that has no apparent relation to what I am doing I will properly ignore it, but the downside may come two years from now when my editing is affected and I am faced with a series of cemented rules that make no sense.
Both direct and representative democracy have their shortcomings. A truly democratic system should be temporal as well as spatial. In other words there cna be no final determinative vote on almost anything because those votes make no allowance for the views of those who have not yet joined us.
For example, copyright law, as we know it, is largely the product of the efforts of lobbyists with a vested interests; the potential user of the material does not even know about changes which adversely affect his interests until it is too late to easily do anything about it. Someone who does not stand to receive financial benefits is not going to be able send a representative to monitor the negotiations of the WIPO cartel ... even assuming that he would be allowed into the room in the first place.
On the executive/cabinet role, I thought it was obvious that the [[WP:OFFICE]] setup sets the base rules and makes day to day effective immediately judgements when it thinks they are necessary.
I would only have problems with this process when it stops being limited to honest emergencies.
Ec
On 29/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Both direct and representative democracy have their shortcomings. A truly democratic system should be temporal as well as spatial. In other words there cna be no final determinative vote on almost anything because those votes make no allowance for the views of those who have not yet joined us.
That was a joke right? You can't just wait forever because someone "might" come. Policies in the real world have to be made in some finite timespace. Half of wikipedia's problems may indeed come from the fact that policies are argued over endlessly, through opinions like yours that the more argument/time and effort spent, the better the situation will "possibly be". Ever heard of the concept of diminishing returns, and/or the concept of negative return on investment.
Peter Ansell
On 7/29/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
That was a joke right? You can't just wait forever because someone "might" come. Policies in the real world have to be made in some finite timespace. Half of wikipedia's problems may indeed come from the fact that policies are argued over endlessly, through opinions like yours that the more argument/time and effort spent, the better the situation will "possibly be". Ever heard of the concept of diminishing returns, and/or the concept of negative return on investment.
With the exception of certain core policies laid down by Jimbo / the Foundation, all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines are subject to review and possible change. Where's the gain in being crippled by policy made by a contributing pool of maybe ten people three years ago that you can't change?
IMO, policies should always be changeable - but should default to not changing unless real support for a change materialises, not just because one or two argumentative people don't agree.
-Matt
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 29/07/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Both direct and representative democracy have their shortcomings. A truly democratic system should be temporal as well as spatial. In other words there cna be no final determinative vote on almost anything because those votes make no allowance for the views of those who have not yet joined us.
That was a joke right? You can't just wait forever because someone "might" come. Policies in the real world have to be made in some finite timespace. Half of wikipedia's problems may indeed come from the fact that policies are argued over endlessly, through opinions like yours that the more argument/time and effort spent, the better the situation will "possibly be". Ever heard of the concept of diminishing returns, and/or the concept of negative return on investment.
No joke about it. In the real world controversial policies can be decided by votes where there are winners and losers. The the winners fight like hell to protect the status quo. Sure, decisions need to be made, and nothing that I said supported waiting forever. When support reaches a certain level a policy is adopted, but people can continue adding their views, or even changing them. When that threshold reaches an other predetermined level the policy is changed. I also said nothing about anybody spending more time argument and effort than they already have. If you already made your point in the early stages why would you feel obliged to keep arguing. Policies with a broad community support are unlikely to ever change anyways, but there will be more incentive to develop policies co-operatively rather than by the old win lose model..
Diminishing and negative returns have nothing to do with this.
Ec
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 25/07/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts, and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in its ability to make effective decisions.
The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers" model.
Importantly, Wikipedia is not a nation state and can't be compared to one.
Surely we would not want to be compared to an obsolete concept. Corporations have learned to transcend the boundaries of nation states for the greater benefit of the corporations. Offsetting those forces is not easy.
Our "judiciary" simply settles a few fights and determines a few basic punishments: partial exclusion and total exclusion). Since Wikipedia is a digital project with only hundreds of active editors, representative democracy is not necessary. Direct democracy has thus far served our needs well, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
How do you propose to thwart the tyranny of the majority in a direct democracy?
Just out of interest, who are you suggesting plays the role of executive/cabinet?
Looks like you still need to figure out how a monarchy works. :-)
Ec
On 7/24/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/07/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't more people focus on the core policies like verfiability more when they attempt to address so called "notability" issues? :)
Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors" according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.
SV
No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts, and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in its ability to make effective decisions.
The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers" model.
Peter Ansell
Wouldn't any democracy-variant simply invite even more sock-puppeting? I think perhaps voting through one's edits is the only feasible method, as edits require effort and so put up a barrier to entry (which in the real world is supplied by the minor barrier that one cannot easily replicate oneself). Which is essentially what we already do.
~maru
On 25/07/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/24/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/07/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Because Wikipedia has no leadership. It has 1000 sysops who are just "janitors" according to the dominant view, no editorial core, and a founder who has had argued enough with trolls and has gone wandering off into the land of politics.
SV
No management expert will ever tell you that a group of 1000 people will ever get anywhere in strategy terms very fast. It is simply too large to facilitate effective communication and quick agreement on issues. As you say, there is a core community group missing. There is the board and related personnel at the top (aka, OFFICE) , followed by a small group of judges(aka, bcrats) who dont make policy so much as rule on it, and then there are the so called "janitors" (aka, sysops).
Following the highly successful national model with Cabinet, Courts, and Parliament, it is the parliament that is missing. Right now, and possibly from the wiki culture, the parliament is traditionally the whole community with anyone who wants to have a say being able to do so. I would contend that the size of such a parliament is limited in its ability to make effective decisions.
The current heirarchy does not place any special policy related privileges on the sysop layer, and I am not about to say that it should, but in ignoring the Parliament layer it is missing an essential branch in the proven three prong, "separation of powers" model.
Peter Ansell
Wouldn't any democracy-variant simply invite even more sock-puppeting? I think perhaps voting through one's edits is the only feasible method, as edits require effort and so put up a barrier to entry (which in the real world is supplied by the minor barrier that one cannot easily replicate oneself). Which is essentially what we already do.
Why would a representative type democracy invite more sock puppeting than the direct democracy that is currently ruling? Apart from the choosing representatives, of which sockpuppeting may already be a problem, it would reduce the load and enable people to get on with improving the project without having to worry about vandals and other nasties twenty four seven.
I agree that a good edit history is important, and for the purposes I am stating it would not be immune. The current model where the "janitors" are in a sense at a mutual respect for each other while not having mandates to practically improve anything, since they are elected on the basis of their civility and lack of vandalism basically.
By giving a group of people a practical mandate to improve the basis of the community and provide it with life from the basic policies outward. This is mostly what I was stating in my first small email that was responded to in tone and started this discussion.
Peter Ansell
About perks: Being an admin makes you a target of death threats, whackjobs like Daniel Brandt, and continued harassment by people off their rocker without anything to do.
The only thing perky about being an admin is deleting/protecting stuff. And that's only a perk if you enjoy that kind of thing. Well, that is, as long as you're not the target of a malicious RfC at the moment.
mboverload
maru dubshinki wrote:
Wouldn't any democracy-variant simply invite even more sock-puppeting? I think perhaps voting through one's edits is the only feasible method, as edits require effort and so put up a barrier to entry (which in the real world is supplied by the minor barrier that one cannot easily replicate oneself). Which is essentially what we already do.
The effects of sock-puppetry are perhaps bes neutralized by marginalization. As long as you have votes where one or two ballots can alter the result they will always matter.
Ec
Three easy things: 1. Keep it verifiable. 2. Keep the included info encyclopedic (no hobbies or pets) 3. Apply rules as in WP:FICT for fictional characters. If they're not important enough on their own, gather them in one article and use redirects.
Mgm
On 7/22/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Well, notability is not policy, merely a (very argued-about) guideline that not everybody believes in anyway.
With that out of the way, I can't see any reason why the short amount of verifiable information about these contestants can't be inside the article for this season's So You Think You Can Dance, or inside [[So You Think You Can Dance 2006 contestants]], with redirects (or disambiguations) from the individual's names to sections within it. I think that these people are not sufficiently interesting outside the context of the competition, and that having seperate articles for them merely encourages unsourced, unverifiable cruft.
-Matt
Actually there's nothing wrong with this category, assuming that the people in the category are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. It's probably a useful tool to find articles to {{prod}} or {{afd}} ;)
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]]. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we going to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too? How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they wore in the audience.
Do we have any chance whatsoever of finding out what happens to any of these people? Will we know five years from now if they are even alive? Can any of these articles ever hope to become a featured article, if the sole criterion for inclusion is appearing (not even winning) a realilty show. This isnt Dr Joyce Brothers we are talking about (American TV personality who began her career winning the $64,000 Dollar Pyramid game show)--and I challenge anyone to tell me who she played against on the show. Even she is only included because of the role she played later as a TV shrink.
She was on "The $64,000 Question", not the "$64,000 Pyramid" I remember watching the shows when she was on. Her topic was psychology, and she didn't play against anybody. Was that intended to be a trick question?
Separate articles for each contestant seems beyond the pale, but lists of the contestants will thrill the heart of tivia buffs.
Ec
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:54:49 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Separate articles for each contestant seems beyond the pale, but lists of the contestants will thrill the heart of tivia buffs.
As long as we have reliable secondary sources, of course...
Guy (JzG)
On 7/23/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]]. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we going to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too? How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they wore in the audience.
I don't know about So You Think You Can Dance, but I say that the final twelve contestants on Australian Idol etc are probably noteworthy. Definitely the final three or four, who generally end up at least getting a single out or something.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 7/23/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I just came across [[Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants]]. This has gone beyond ridiculous. Are we so hard pressed for article? Are we going to have a category for contestants on the Price is Right or Jeopardy too? How about a nice table for people who were on Let's Make a Deal, which lists whether they chose door number one, two or three, and what costume they wore in the audience.
I don't know about So You Think You Can Dance, but I say that the final twelve contestants on Australian Idol etc are probably noteworthy. Definitely the final three or four, who generally end up at least getting a single out or something.
There are dozens of versions of "Idol" like [[SuperStar]]. It's much easier for singers to put out CDs than dancers. ;-)
Ec
On 7/23/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Do we have any chance whatsoever of finding out what happens to any of these people? Will we know five years from now if they are even alive? Can any of these articles ever hope to become a featured article, if the sole criterion for inclusion is appearing (not even winning) a realilty show. This isnt Dr Joyce Brothers we are talking about (American TV personality who began her career winning the $64,000 Dollar Pyramid game show)--and I challenge anyone to tell me who she played against on the show. Even she is only included because of the role she played later as a TV shrink.
I've often thought it would be useful to ask the question: will we find out about it when they die? Are they important or famous enough that there will be an obituary anywhere (even in the specialist press)? Obviously this is somewhat crystal-ball-gazing, but if someone's death goes unnoticed, we'll be left with biographical articles lacking basic details...