On 23/07/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)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? :) Peter Ansell

On Jul 22, 2006, at 9:25 PM, stevertigo wrote: Step up. Fred

stevertigo 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. 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

Oldak Quill 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

On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote: 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. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

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

Stan Shebs wrote: 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

Stan Shebs wrote: When I look at the leadership vacuum, I don't see anything. ;-) 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. 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. 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

Jesse W wrote: 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

stevertigo wrote: I'll think of you next time I see someone crawling up the side of a burning building. :-) Ec

On 25/07/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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? -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

Peter Ansell wrote: 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 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. I would only have problems with this process when it stops being limited to honest emergencies. Ec

On 7/29/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

Oldak Quill wrote: 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. How do you propose to thwart the tyranny of the majority in a direct democracy? Looks like you still need to figure out how a monarchy works. :-) Ec

On 25/07/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

maru dubshinki wrote: 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

On 7/22/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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}} ;)

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:54:49 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: As long as we have reliable secondary sources, of course... Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Steve Bennett wrote: There are dozens of versions of "Idol" like [[SuperStar]]. It's much easier for singers to put out CDs than dancers. ;-) Ec