On 19/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I do so wish people would stop trying to legislate cluefulness. Read [[m:Instruction creep]] until you understand why.
And I see someone has added a beautiful and oh so apposite quote to [[m:instruction creep]]:
Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity. When I was CTO of a web design firm, I noticed in staff meetings that we only ever talked about process when we were avoiding talking about people. "We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg fucked up." The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago.
- Wikis, Grafitti, and Process, Clay Shirky, 2003-08-01
- d.
We obviously need a defamation process to extend our defamation policy to meta policy examples so that Greg and other individuals accused of fucking up can not sue us for claiming they were responsible for alleged repetition of the allegedly stupid acts. In addition, the International Web Design Association has stated that suggesting that one of their member firms would ever allow instruction creep has caused material damage to their sales justifying a lawsuit to recover said damages.
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: On 19/08/06, David Gerard wrote:
I do so wish people would stop trying to legislate cluefulness. Read [[m:Instruction creep]] until you understand why.
And I see someone has added a beautiful and oh so apposite quote to [[m:instruction creep]]:
Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity. When I was CTO of a web design firm, I noticed in staff meetings that we only ever talked about process when we were avoiding talking about people. "We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg fucked up." The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago.
- Wikis, Grafitti, and Process, Clay Shirky, 2003-08-01
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I do so wish people would stop trying to legislate cluefulness. Read [[m:Instruction creep]] until you understand why.
And I see someone has added a beautiful and oh so apposite quote to [[m:instruction creep]]:
Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity. When I was CTO of a web design firm, I noticed in staff meetings that we only ever talked about process when we were avoiding talking about people. "We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg fucked up." The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago.
- Wikis, Grafitti, and Process, Clay Shirky, 2003-08-01
I like it! However, talking about people brings its own problems. If admin Joe is particularly sensitive about his efforts, and is full of self-righteous determination we avoid saying "Joe fucked up." because Joe is likely to whine and complain so much about about personal attacks that you would think that he's running Encyclopedia Britannica.
Ec
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:31:29 -0700 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I like it! However, talking about people brings its own problems. If admin Joe is particularly sensitive about his efforts, and is full of self-righteous determination we avoid saying "Joe fucked up." because Joe is likely to whine and complain so much about about personal attacks that you would think that he's running Encyclopedia Britannica.
Ec
Now that you bring it up...
Funny enough, Talking about people is forbidden by process. WP:NPA, WP:Civil, WP:AGF those policies prevent you from even thinking loudly that "Greg fucked up" and force you to pretend every screwball with a POV is a perfectly decent person with a great, encompassing understanding of not only the subject but also the whole concept of collaborative writing.
On 19/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
Funny enough, Talking about people is forbidden by process. WP:NPA, WP:Civil, WP:AGF those policies prevent you from even thinking loudly that "Greg fucked up" and force you to pretend every screwball with a POV is a perfectly decent person with a great, encompassing understanding of not only the subject but also the whole concept of collaborative writing.
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to be held by many on AFD - where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad *judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
- d.
On Aug 19, 2006, at 3:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 19/08/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
Funny enough, Talking about people is forbidden by process. WP:NPA, WP:Civil, WP:AGF those policies prevent you from even thinking loudly that "Greg fucked up" and force you to pretend every screwball with a POV is a perfectly decent person with a great, encompassing understanding of not only the subject but also the whole concept of collaborative writing.
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to be held by many on AFD
- where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely
wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad *judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
Speaking of which, did we ever change the capsule summary on AGF to "Never assume malice when brain-searing idiocy will suffice?"
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:29:30 -0400 Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking of which, did we ever change the capsule summary on AGF to "Never assume malice when brain-searing idiocy will suffice?"
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
I'm in favor of that, if you replace "Brain searing idiocy" with "brain searing idiocy and/or utter lunacy"
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:24:20 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to be held by many on AFD
- where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely
wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad *judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
- d.
Of course you are right - you don't "assume bad faith" by calling someone's misguided, wrongheaded and stupid action such. That's a matter of subjective perception (as you call it, evidence).
It is however WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that prevent you from calling it so.
Hint: You can always call someone a troll. It looks like that's not a personal attack or anything incivil, but a constructive criticism of someone's editing habit.
Dabljuh wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:24:20 +0100 "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to be held by many on AFD
- where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely
wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad *judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
- d.
Of course you are right - you don't "assume bad faith" by calling someone's misguided, wrongheaded and stupid action such. That's a matter of subjective perception (as you call it, evidence).
It is however WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that prevent you from calling it so.
It is not. "You're a fucking idiot" is both incivil, and a personal attack. "I think that this was a mistake" is neither. Show me the idiot (NPA applies to the wikis, not the MLs ;-)) claiming this, and I will, *ahem*, have a word. :-)
Hint: You can always call someone a troll. It looks like that's not a personal attack or anything incivil, but a constructive criticism of someone's editing habit.
Do that and I will personally block you. Calling someone a "troll" is the most hurtful thing you can say - the equivalent of "all users must assume bad faith on the part of this user in all actions". Calling someone a "troll" is never, /ever/, "constructive criticism". "You're being disruptive in doing <foo>, please stop" is the nearest you can get along that tangent, and it's no-where close.
Yours sincerely, -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
On 8/19/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Do that and I will personally block you. Calling someone a "troll" is
Are these threats by admins really necessary?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/19/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Do that and I will personally block you.
Are these threats by admins really necessary?
It's not a threat, but a promise. :-)
Seriously, it was a use of "you" in the plural. Not a threat, more an observation.
Yours sincerely, -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
On 8/19/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/19/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Do that and I will personally block you.
Are these threats by admins really necessary?
It's not a threat, but a promise. :-)
Then get to work - I think you have a few hundred admins to block :)
Seriously, it was a use of "you" in the plural. Not a threat, more an
observation.
Yours sincerely,
James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guettarda wrote:
On 8/19/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/19/06, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Do that and I will personally block you.
Are these threats by admins really necessary?
It's not a threat, but a promise. :-)
Then get to work - I think you have a few hundred admins to block :)
You are closer to the truth than you could ever imagine.
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to be held by many on AFD
- where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely
wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad *judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
Completely agreed; AGF means, in a nutshell, assume well-intended stupidity over malice.
Our policy of Civility requires that you make some effort to be reasonably polite about telling them that you think they're being stupid, of course. It doesn't mean you can't say it.
WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL do not mean that you can't call peoples' ideas for what they are.
-Matt
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Bollocks it does. This fallacious view seems to be held by many on AFD
- where saying someone's deletion nomination was completely
wrongheaded, misguided and stupid will get some idiot claiming that you have "assumed bad faith" of the nominator. No, I've assumed bad *judgement*, with the nomination as the evidence.
I recently said, on the Wiki: "I do not see how examining and ultimately concluding that an offered opinion is meritless is in any way a failure to assume good faith. I fully accept that a misguided opinion can be offered in good faith; however, what matters is whether the opinion has merit, not whether it is faithfully held."
This led to me being accused even more loudly of failing to assume good faith. Apparently "assume good faith" is now code for "speak not ill of anyone, nor of their ideas, nor their contributions".
Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia does note exist for the purpose of validating the feelings of our myriad contributors. It is not our responsibility to make everyone feel loved.
Kelly
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
Wikipedia is not therapy. Wikipedia does note exist for the purpose of validating the feelings of our myriad contributors. It is not our responsibility to make everyone feel loved.
But when we do make everyone feel loved, our work is much more pleasant and effective... for them and for us.
This is why it is always better to try to find the best in what someone has done, even when we disagree, and to try to disagree in a way which rewards and supports the intelligence and thoughtfulness of the other person.
This is a two way street, of course. It takes two to tango. If someone says something harsh, which appears to assume bad faith or whatever, a good response is to appreciate and support the elements of good faith in _that_, and respond positively to that, without endorsing the assumption of bad faith.
Like this:
Person A nominates something for deletion. For the sake of argument, let us assume this is completely brain dead.
Person B says "This nomination is wrongheaded, meritless, misguided, and stupid." Let assume that we, privately, think this is true.
What should A do? What should C, D, and E do?
They can say "You are assuming bad faith! AGF! AGF!" but this does not seem helpful.
Better might be to try to find some kernel of usefulness in what the nominator was attempting to do. "While I agree with B that this nomination ought not to succeed, I commend A for trying to deal with the underlying issue of articles of this type. While I do not think this is the sort of example of things we should be deleting, I do agree that there are problems with this article. A, I wonder if you might consider working with me on an alternative approach..."
Or whatever suits that moment.
The idea here is that Assume Good Faith is really important, and WikiLove is really important. Being harsh and feeling sanctimonious about battling idiots is a temptation that all good people can fall into, especially when tired. But it dehumanizes others and causes them to behave worse, not better.
--Jimbo
On 8/20/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The idea here is that Assume Good Faith is really important, and WikiLove is really important. Being harsh and feeling sanctimonious about battling idiots is a temptation that all good people can fall into, especially when tired. But it dehumanizes others and causes them to behave worse, not better.
Hear, hear, hear.
Being sanctimonious with anyone never achieves *anything* good, other than the dubious value of team bonding amongst those mocking them.
Steve
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity. When I was CTO of a web design firm, I noticed in staff meetings that we only ever talked about process when we were avoiding talking about people. "We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg fucked up." The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago.
Cute. I think the solution is to write in the margin of the process "This was instituted because Greg fucked up". Then, when Greg leaves the company, you put the process into remission.
Steve
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And I see someone has added a beautiful and oh so apposite quote to [[m:instruction creep]]:
[snip]
- Wikis, Grafitti, and Process, Clay Shirky, 2003-08-01
Although I'm very much a part of the anti-process-bound crowd, I must ask: How many people were in Mr. Shirky's group?
Until it is demonstrated otherwise, it would be wise to assume that there is a difference between a group of a dozen carefully selected likeminded folks who are making a living doing something, and a project of thousands of constantly changing, self-selecting, unequally skilled people, who are largely just fooling around on the Internet.
I enjoy process when it quickly helps me figure out how to do something without reinventing the wheel on my own, and when it helps my work be more consistent with the rest of the project. I dislike it when it's used as a bludgeoning device by the weak minded to produce an easy attack against someone whos actions taken with deep understanding and careful consideration.
On 21/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/19/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And I see someone has added a beautiful and oh so apposite quote to [[m:instruction creep]]: - Wikis, Grafitti, and Process, Clay Shirky, 2003-08-01
I enjoy process when it quickly helps me figure out how to do something without reinventing the wheel on my own, and when it helps my work be more consistent with the rest of the project. I dislike it when it's used as a bludgeoning device by the weak minded to produce an easy attack against someone whos actions taken with deep understanding and careful consideration.
Perhaps an essay page: [[Wikipedia:Process is dangerous]]. "Process is important. But beware of two common fallacies: 1. that therefore more process is better; 2. that process can cure cluelessness. Product beats process."
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps an essay page: [[Wikipedia:Process is dangerous]]. "Process is important. But beware of two common fallacies: 1. that therefore more process is better; 2. that process can cure cluelessness. Product beats process."
I would like to read this process. I think the basic issues are relatively complex, because it's not as if *all* process is bad. It often really does serve a purpose. Maybe people need to think about the ramifications of not following any given process. If the ramifications are not bad, then the process could be scrapped, or downgraded to "howto" or something.
Steve
On 21/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to read this process. I think the basic issues are relatively complex, because it's not as if *all* process is bad. It often really does serve a purpose. Maybe people need to think about the ramifications of not following any given process. If the ramifications are not bad, then the process could be scrapped, or downgraded to "howto" or something.
Yeah. The problem comes when people write what should be editorial guidelines as if they are didactic instruction. The only purpose this serves is if you want to use it as a stick to beat people down afterwards - it makes it completely useless as an actual editorial guideline. There was a lot of this during the writing of WP:LIVING and it keeps creeping back. Because it's easier to lecture people than trust them, or something. The fallacy is the instruction creep fallacy, that if you write something down people will do it.
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. The problem comes when people write what should be editorial guidelines as if they are didactic instruction. The only purpose this serves is if you want to use it as a stick to beat people down afterwards - it makes it completely useless as an actual editorial guideline. There was a lot of this during the writing of WP:LIVING and it keeps creeping back. Because it's easier to lecture people than trust them, or something. The fallacy is the instruction creep fallacy, that if you write something down people will do it.
If you write something people, people will *do* it - as long as they're the people who came to you looking for instructions. Compare:
John: How should I clean the kitchen? I've never done it before. Mary: Start with the benchtops, then the stove, clean under the microwave, the fridge, then do the floors last.
with: Steve: Hey, you want me to clean the kitchen? Mary: Sure. Start with the benchtops, then the stove, clean under the microwave, the fridge, then do the floors last. Steve: Fuck off.
(I think that example pretty much explains everything)
Steve
On 21/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If you write something people, people will *do* it - as long as they're the people who came to you looking for instructions. Compare: John: How should I clean the kitchen? I've never done it before. Mary: Start with the benchtops, then the stove, clean under the microwave, the fridge, then do the floors last. with: Steve: Hey, you want me to clean the kitchen? Mary: Sure. Start with the benchtops, then the stove, clean under the microwave, the fridge, then do the floors last. Steve: Fuck off. (I think that example pretty much explains everything)
It does. Is there a "guidelines vs policy" page it can be added to?
(Whatever happened to my project to give the policy/guidelines collection a much-needed enema this year ...)
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Whatever happened to my project to give the policy/guidelines collection a much-needed enema this year ...)
I think we should schedule 6 monthly enemas. Every policy should be rewritten from scratch every 6 months, only incorporating the absolutely most critical and still relevant sections from the preceding version.
Steve
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Whatever happened to my project to give the policy/guidelines collection a much-needed enema this year ...)
I think we should schedule 6 monthly enemas. Every policy should be rewritten from scratch every 6 months, only incorporating the absolutely most critical and still relevant sections from the preceding version.
The policy pages I watch are fairly cruft immune.. because they are mostly meta policies, doctrine not process....
But there are certainly a lot of policies which do get crufted... but suggesting we nuke them ignores one of the primary causes of the crufting: They get crufted because there either isn't anyone with an interest in stopping it, or some malfunction in our community is allowing the one-rule-per-mistake-made crowd to have editorial control of the page.
Simply nuking the pages from orbit would not solve this.... and it would quickly drive the folks who've worked so carefully on our more balanced non-crufted policies totally insane as new users decide they can (ab)use that policy to rewrite our policies in their own image.
On 21/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
But there are certainly a lot of policies which do get crufted... but suggesting we nuke them ignores one of the primary causes of the crufting: They get crufted because there either isn't anyone with an interest in stopping it, or some malfunction in our community is allowing the one-rule-per-mistake-made crowd to have editorial control of the page.
There are some truly accomplished policy edit warriors.
Of course, they're failing to consider that being right is not enough - you need to be right and *convincing*.
Simply nuking the pages from orbit would not solve this.... and it would quickly drive the folks who've worked so carefully on our more balanced non-crufted policies totally insane as new users decide they can (ab)use that policy to rewrite our policies in their own image.
Of course. But there's one hell of a lot of bathwater out there.
- d.
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Whatever happened to my project to give the policy/guidelines collection a much-needed enema this year ...)
I think we should schedule 6 monthly enemas. Every policy should be rewritten from scratch every 6 months, only incorporating the absolutely most critical and still relevant sections from the preceding version.
I support the idea of a "policy retreat" where we get 15-20 of Wikipedia's leading community members together around a table somewhere and sort out the major issues that are bothering us at the moment. Launder, rinse, repeat.
Kelly
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea of a "policy retreat" where we get 15-20 of Wikipedia's leading community members together around a table somewhere and sort out the major issues that are bothering us at the moment. Launder, rinse, repeat.
Kelly
This would almost certianly result in more policy. Small groups appear to like doing that.
On 21/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea of a "policy retreat" where we get 15-20 of Wikipedia's leading community members together around a table somewhere and sort out the major issues that are bothering us at the moment. Launder, rinse, repeat.
This would almost certianly result in more policy. Small groups appear to like doing that.
Not if Kellly or I get anywhere near it. MUWAHAHAHAHA etc.
- d.
On 21/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea of a "policy retreat" where we get 15-20 of Wikipedia's leading community members together around a table somewhere and sort out the major issues that are bothering us at the moment. Launder, rinse, repeat.
This would almost certianly result in more policy. Small groups appear to like doing that.
Not if Kellly or I get anywhere near it. MUWAHAHAHAHA etc.
"Policy-forming retreat" is not code for "lock a dozen policy wonks in cabin and set on fire", David.
On 21/08/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea of a "policy retreat" where we get 15-20 of Wikipedia's leading community members together around a table somewhere and sort out the major issues that are bothering us at the moment. Launder, rinse, repeat.
This would almost certianly result in more policy. Small groups appear to like doing that.
Not if Kellly or I get anywhere near it. MUWAHAHAHAHA etc.
"Policy-forming retreat" is not code for "lock a dozen policy wonks in cabin and set on fire", David.
Next you'll want me to be a responsible company director or something.
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea of a "policy retreat" where we get 15-20 of Wikipedia's leading community members together around a table somewhere and sort out the major issues that are bothering us at
the
moment. Launder, rinse, repeat.
This would almost certianly result in more policy. Small groups
appear
to like doing that.
Not if Kellly or I get anywhere near it. MUWAHAHAHAHA etc.
"Policy-forming retreat" is not code for "lock a dozen policy wonks in cabin and set on fire", David.
Next you'll want me to be a responsible company director or something.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is this election coming up...
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Not if Kellly or I get anywhere near it. MUWAHAHAHAHA etc.
You are both part of the communications committee which appears to be creating more rules.
On 21/08/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Not if Kellly or I get anywhere near it. MUWAHAHAHAHA etc.
You are both part of the communications committee which appears to be creating more rules.
Yes and whuh?? in that order. Mind you, I never show up to meetings.
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes and whuh?? in that order. Mind you, I never show up to meetings.
Aparently I'll need your permission to put up arcom election notices and such. Rather than the previous rather informal system of putting them up whever people wouldn't yell at me more than I was prepared to put up with. I'm sure it will all work out in a few months. Things normaly do.
Although the story that appears to be doing the rounds today (wikipedia article on vandalism vandalised) suggests that other problems may be rather more intractible.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This would almost certianly result in more policy. Small groups appear to like doing that.
Not if Kellly or I get anywhere near it. MUWAHAHAHAHA etc.
There are certain people I think are indispensible in such a retreat. While I don't have to be there, we'd be wrong to do it without Kim Bruning and David Gerard. I'd like to have Seth there too.
Kelly
On 21/08/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I support the idea of a "policy retreat" where we get 15-20 of Wikipedia's leading community members together around a table somewhere and sort out the major issues that are bothering us at the moment. Launder, rinse, repeat.
ZOMG CABAL!!! I think we already have this; it's clear the community, or the noisiest portions thereof, can be batshit insane educated two-cornered stupid. Considering you got RFCed by morons over blatant copyright violations tagged "fair use" in userboxes ...
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It does. Is there a "guidelines vs policy" page it can be added to?
Policy something you should think very hard before not following. Guidelines are something to be ignored if they get between you and your objective. Any questions?
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Policy something you should think very hard before not following. Guidelines are something to be ignored if they get between you and your objective. Any questions?
'''and your objective'''.
Hmm.
On 8/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Policy something you should think very hard before not following. Guidelines are something to be ignored if they get between you and your objective. Any questions?
'''and your objective'''.
Hmm.
Improveing the quality of wikipedia.
On 8/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Policy something you should think very hard before not following. Guidelines are something to be ignored if they get between you and your objective. Any questions?
'''and your objective'''.
I don't like that phrasing. "And the project's objective", maybe. Otherwise if your objective is to disrupt, or to POV-push, or to ...
-Matt
On 8/21/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Policy something you should think very hard before not following. Guidelines are something to be ignored if they get between you and your objective. Any questions?
'''and your objective'''.
I don't like that phrasing. "And the project's objective", maybe. Otherwise if your objective is to disrupt, or to POV-push, or to ...
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Right.
In addition to those who are simply knowingly disruptive, there are also people who deeply and honestly feel that any attempt to, for example (their opinions not mine), continue to publish articles about this mythical Holocaust thing are an attempt to supress the superior white race.
I respect those people's right to hold an opinion, but their objective is not one I want them to be able to project onto their interactions with WP. The process of consensus and minority viewpoint representation is important to help ensure that those people don't get to have more influence on Wikipedia.
On 8/21/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Policy something you should think very hard before not following. Guidelines are something to be ignored if they get between you and your objective. Any questions?
'''and your objective'''.
I don't like that phrasing. "And the project's objective", maybe. Otherwise if your objective is to disrupt, or to POV-push, or to ...
-Matt
Err in that case the cynical side of me would rather you ignored our guidelines since it would make it less work to neutralise you.
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
'''and your objective'''.
I don't like that phrasing. "And the project's
objective", maybe.
Otherwise if your objective is to disrupt, or to
POV-push, or to ...
Err in that case the cynical side of me would rather you ignored our guidelines since it would make it less work to neutralise you.
From the articles I've worked on, all too often the people
are taking the YOUR-objective approach and treating the article as if it's theirs and any changes are a challenge to THEIR objective, which they now view as the article's objective. That makes it harder for the people trying to make the content better, and it certainly interferes with policy like NPOV, WP:V, and WP:CITE when you have people clinging onto what they feel is their hard, well-intentioned (i.e., "good") work instead of what's best for the article. ~~Pro-Lick
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
it's not as if *all* process is bad. It often really does serve a purpose. Maybe people need to think about the ramifications of not following any given process. If the ramifications are not bad, then the process could be scrapped, or downgraded to "howto" or something.
This is absolutely key. Policy is normally right. It has to be. Otherwise it is bad policy. If a policy *normally* gives the wrong result, it is bad policy. If it *sometimes* gives the bad result, it is fallible policy. And fallible, dear friends, is the best we're going to get.
We must be very careful to avoid process/policy is evil.
G'day Sam,
On 8/21/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
it's not as if *all* process is bad. It often really does serve a purpose. Maybe people need to think about the ramifications of not following any given process. If the ramifications are not bad, then the process could be scrapped, or downgraded to "howto" or something.
This is absolutely key. Policy is normally right. It has to be. Otherwise it is bad policy. If a policy *normally* gives the wrong result, it is bad policy. If it *sometimes* gives the bad result, it is fallible policy. And fallible, dear friends, is the best we're going to get.
Policy and process are sticks; the policy one is for hitting people with. NPA, CIVIL, AGF, etc. all exist because we sometimes need to hit someone over the head when they refuse to conform to "don't be a dick". NOR, CITE are there because "don't make shit up" isn't obvious enough and sometimes need to be accompanied by a whack to the noggin as well. Similar, but less obvious whacking has occurred in support of "we're an encyclopaedia" and "we're neutral". Funnily enough (or perhaps not), nobody's felt the need to create policies which help shore up "ignore all rules". Perhaps there's hope yet? The point, regardless, is this: policy is a stick for hitting people because they're too damn stupid to do the Right Thing. If you're already doing (or striving to do) the Right Thing, then policy doesn't have to apply to you.
Process, meanwhile, is a crutch. It's there to help editors through complicated actions. The AfD process, for example, theoretically attempts to help editors get bad articles deleted while making sure they don't delete stuff that ought not to be deleted (you might liken it to a crutch for Gulliver, and if he didn't have it he'd fall and collapse a row of Lilliputian houses). Just as with policy we have editors who don't need to be hit over the head, there are times when Wikipedians don't *need* a crutch.
We must always be careful not to confuse these two ... er ... metaphors (ahem). Policy is not a crutch, and leaning on it when you don't have to can lead to absurdity. Process is not a stick to hit people with, and giving someone a fair and unnecessary wallop behind the ears is not likely to improve their humour (unless they're a member of CVU, but that's another post entirely).
We must be very careful to avoid process/policy is evil.
I don't think it hurts, frankly. Policy is only as strong as the reasons behind it. The point of not following policy for its own sake is that you end up doing what a good policy would dictate even if that policy didn't exist ... and you ignore bad policies, whether they exist or not.
On 8/22/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Funnily enough (or perhaps not), nobody's felt the need to create policies which help shore up "ignore all rules". Perhaps there's hope yet?
Oh they tried. WP:SNOW is the obvious example.
On 8/22/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Policy and process are sticks; the policy one is for hitting people with. NPA, CIVIL, AGF, etc. all exist because we sometimes need to hit someone over the head when they refuse to conform to "don't be a dick".
No, no, no. Some people use them that way. I use AGF as a guiding principle, to remind me how to behave. I have no idea how you would make a stick out of it.
NOR, CITE are there because "don't make shit up" isn't obvious enough and sometimes need to be accompanied by a whack to the noggin as well.
No. NOR is critical for defining what kind of reference work we are, and setting limits on how far people can go. Not all rules have to be used as sticks to be effective.
Similar, but less obvious whacking has occurred in support of "we're an encyclopaedia" and "we're neutral". Funnily enough (or perhaps not), nobody's felt the need to create policies which help shore up "ignore all rules". Perhaps there's hope yet? The point, regardless, is this: policy is a stick for hitting people because they're too damn stupid to do the Right Thing. If you're already doing (or striving to do) the Right Thing, then policy doesn't have to apply to you.
No. Policy is there to define what the right thing is, because it's not always obvious! I very frequently see discussions between people like "Are we allowed to say this in the article? Doesn't that violate NOR?" then someone replies "Hmm, should be okay according to section x.y...I think?". No sticks.
Process, meanwhile, is a crutch. It's there to help editors through complicated actions. The AfD process, for example, theoretically
In the sense that every useful tool ever invented is a "crutch".
row of Lilliputian houses). Just as with policy we have editors who don't need to be hit over the head, there are times when Wikipedians don't *need* a crutch.
Definitely. There are very very few cases where a process absolutely *must* be followed. In most cases, alternate sequencing of events arriving at the same destination work equally well, even if they confuse spectators :)
We must always be careful not to confuse these two ... er ... metaphors (ahem). Policy is not a crutch, and leaning on it when you don't have to can lead to absurdity. Process is not a stick to hit people with,
The absurdity is the two people in perfect health criticising each other because they're not leaning on the crutch enough. That happens. Like when a vote gets closed early due to overwhelming inevitability and someone complains that it's supposed to get 7 days or whatever. No crutch needed.
and giving someone a fair and unnecessary wallop behind the ears is not likely to improve their humour (unless they're a member of CVU, but that's another post entirely).
I honestly don't see a lot of this kind of behaviour, but I do stay away from most controversial/busy articles.
Steve
On 8/21/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Although I'm very much a part of the anti-process-bound crowd, I must ask: How many people were in Mr. Shirky's group?
Until it is demonstrated otherwise, it would be wise to assume that there is a difference between a group of a dozen carefully selected likeminded folks who are making a living doing something, and a project of thousands of constantly changing, self-selecting, unequally skilled people, who are largely just fooling around on the Internet.
I enjoy process when it quickly helps me figure out how to do something without reinventing the wheel on my own, and when it helps my work be more consistent with the rest of the project. I dislike it when it's used as a bludgeoning device by the weak minded to produce an easy attack against someone whos actions taken with deep understanding and careful consideration.
At my Wikimania presentation ("Does Consensus Scale?") one participant brought up the consensus building methodolgy used at Apache; someone else during Wikimania (Lessig, perhaps) mentioned IETF "rough consensus". My counterpoint to both of these suggestions (and which I made at Wikimania) is that if I were to walk into an IETF meeting or an Apache Software Foundation discussion and expect to have a say in the discussion, I would likely be shown the door. Both of those organizations invite people into their discussions on an invitation-only basis: you don't get to have a voice until there is consensus that you should. This is the exact opposite of Wikipedia: at Wikipedia you get to have a voice until there is a consensus that you shouldn't. And it is my opinion that this aspect of Wikipedia's consensus building methodology simply doesn't scale.
The old saw is "have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out". I am beginning to think that, at least on the English Wikipedia, our collective mind is too open.
So, yes, when it comes to shaping policy on the English Wikipedia, I support cabalism. I think it would do better than our current system, which is basically a ochlocratic dystopia.
Kelly
On Monday 21 August 2006 16:57, Kelly Martin wrote:
At my Wikimania presentation ("Does Consensus Scale?") one participant brought up the consensus building methodolgy used at Apache; someone else during Wikimania (Lessig, perhaps) mentioned IETF "rough consensus". My counterpoint to both of these suggestions (and which I made at Wikimania) is that if I were to walk into an IETF meeting or an Apache Software Foundation discussion and expect to have a say in the discussion, I would likely be shown the door. Both of those
(I'm still sad my presentation was scheduled at the same time as yours.)
[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/how-communities-work-well 2006 Aug 23 | How online communities work well
In 1999, while I was a fellow at the Berkman Center, I wrote a paper on [5]Why the Internet is Good; in it, I noted 10 factors in Internet community policy formation (e.g., IETF) that contribute to their success. When I consider other open content communities I still find this framework to be useful, even in the case of the Wikipedia. * Open Participation: IETF (mostly), WP (more so). No one is really excluded from the IETF, but you do have to pay the meeting attendance fee and the interest in this sort of technical things. Nearly any literate person might have an interest in the Wikipedia. * No Kings, but Elders?: IETF (mostly), WP (slightly less so). Both the IETF and the Wikipedia have meritocratic governance structures, which I now call [6]paramount leadership. I think the main difference here is that many Wikipedians can live very happily without ever encounter in questions of governance; they can work on their own particular interests and make substantive contributions they are. At the IETF, everyone is striving for a single standard. * Consensus and Competitive Scaling: IETF (partly), WP (partly). In my 1999 essay I speak about the difficulties of consensus scaling but note it can work when combined with many the later factors: "This is because of competitive scaling: a small group of people get to produce their best work under consensus, and then compete, coordinate, cooperate, and learn with other groups." In the standards arena it is possible for small groups of people to work on informally competing specifications, and let the best one win. (I talk further about this in [7]design by committee and the possibilities of red/blue team design.) * Implementation and Enforcement: IETF (mostly), WP (not really). At the Wikipedia it can be difficult to dispassionately test whether a given policy is unambiguously better than another policy. And the technical domain when has the capability to implement alternatives and see whether they work. * Limitation of Scope: IETF (yes), WP (yes). Just as "a Working Group to be extremely rigorous in defining and enforcing the scope of its activity" the Wikipedia community has been strict in specifying what their mission is, an Encyclopedia, and is not. * Funded Mandates and Lack of Fiat: IETF (mostly), WP (mostly). "The implementation and operational use of a technical policy demonstrate an interest and ability to deploy the policy at large." * Uniform Enforcement: IETF (mostly), WP (mostly). * Descriptive Policy: IETF (mostly), WP (mostly). * Policy Deprecation: IETF (partly), WP (not much). "It is useful for a policy that is no longer in operation to be stricken from the books; it simplifies the understanding one must have about one's regulatory environment." This is basically Shirky's observation about the formation of policy. * Metrics: IETF (mostly), WP (less so). This is tied to the implementation issue, but in the technical domain it can be very nice to know that a particular algorithm works 20% faster than the old way of doing things. The realm of natural language and human meaning is less amenable to these types of metrics. ... References ... 5. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/reagle/regulation-19990326.html#_Native 6. http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/ethno/leadership.html#heading12 7. http://goatee.net/2003/07.html#_02we-a
]]
At 14:59 +0100 19/8/06, David Gerard wrote:
On 19/08/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I do so wish people would stop trying to legislate cluefulness. Read [[m:Instruction creep]] until you understand why.
And I see someone has added a beautiful and oh so apposite quote to [[m:instruction creep]]:
Process is an embedded reaction to prior stupidity. When I was CTOof a web design firm, I noticed in staff meetings that we only ever talked about process when we were avoiding talking about people. "We need a process to ensure that the client does not get half-finished design sketches" is code for "Greg fucked up." The problem, of course, is that much of this process nevertheless gets put in place, meaning that an organization slowly forms around avoiding the dumbest behaviors of its mediocre employees, resulting in layers of gunk that keep its best employees from doing interesting work, because they too have to sign The Form Designed to Keep You From Doing The Stupid Thing That One Guy Did Three Years Ago.
- Wikis, Grafitti, and Process, Clay Shirky, 2003-08-01
- d.
So, who is Greg's manager?
Gordo