(copied from earlier untruncated message that was bounced as too long, apologies for any duplication if that one later goes through)
(By the way NYBrad, what's the other issue? Now I'm curious.) Seraphimblade
I thought you'd never ask. This is the third time I've posted the exact same sentence and the first time someone's been curious (although I have mentioned the issue itself before, including in my RfA). However, I don't want to change the subject of this thread, which is important, so responses to this comment, if any, should go into a new one.
What I view as the other top priority issue facing the project is the extraordinarily high rate of turnover and burnout that we seem to suffer from, especially among top-level administrators and leading contributors. Turnover is part of any Internet project as any other part of life, but when I read the names of the participants in an RfA from say a year ago, or I look at the list of bureaucrats or former arbitrators or top featured article contributors or whoever, I am consistently amazed and saddened by how high a percentage of the names on the list have moved on. Sometimes after a spectacular departure, sometimes after vanishing without a trace. As highly as I think of our collective contributor and administrator base at present (and I do think that we have an incredibly strong talent base on this project, no matter how critical I or anyone might be of some or another aspect from time to time), just imagine how much greater we could be if a percentage of those people were still with us. I believe we need to identify the causes of Wikipedians' stress and burnout -- or in NPOV terms, of departures from the project -- and figure out if there is a way to reduce them.
Newyorkbrad
On 4/20/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
(copied from earlier untruncated message that was bounced as too long, apologies for any duplication if that one later goes through)
(By the way NYBrad, what's the other issue? Now I'm curious.) Seraphimblade
I thought you'd never ask. This is the third time I've posted the exact same sentence and the first time someone's been curious (although I have mentioned the issue itself before, including in my RfA). However, I don't want to change the subject of this thread, which is important, so responses to this comment, if any, should go into a new one.
What I view as the other top priority issue facing the project is the extraordinarily high rate of turnover and burnout that we seem to suffer from, especially among top-level administrators and leading contributors. Turnover is part of any Internet project as any other part of life, but when I read the names of the participants in an RfA from say a year ago, or I look at the list of bureaucrats or former arbitrators or top featured article contributors or whoever, I am consistently amazed and saddened by how high a percentage of the names on the list have moved on. Sometimes after a spectacular departure, sometimes after vanishing without a trace. As highly as I think of our collective contributor and administrator base at present (and I do think that we have an incredibly strong talent base on this project, no matter how critical I or anyone might be of some or another aspect from time to time), just imagine how much greater we could be if a percentage of those people were still with us. I believe we need to identify the causes of Wikipedians' stress and burnout -- or in NPOV terms, of departures from the project -- and figure out if there is a way to reduce them.
Newyorkbrad _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, before we start talking solutions, we probably should more clearly identify the problem. Maybe look through some of the obvious flameouts and see what led up to them, and try to contact those who left without a trace (maybe they left email enabled or the like?) and ask what led to their decision to leave. I certainly have noticed the same problem myself, though. If we can find some common threads as to why it's happening, maybe we can slow the rate down.
Seraphimblade
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
What I view as the other top priority issue facing the project is the extraordinarily high rate of turnover and burnout that we seem to suffer from, especially among top-level administrators and leading contributors.
My answer is easy - the neverending cr*pflood in one's face. Whether it's anon vandals or psychotic editors, it just never stops, the only way to escape it is to leave the project. I've reduced my watchlist to the most obscure articles imaginable, the freaks are still trying to trash them every day. The mantra is "anyone can edit", and we are definitely learning firsthand what *anyone* means, such as the millions who are quite literally not intelligent nor literate enough to make any useful contributions. On top of the stupid, there are the nutjobs - I don't care if the term isn't PC, that's what they are, and they take pride in doing as many crazy things as it takes to get what they want. I'm all for assuming good faith, but we're so afraid to get rid of those who are proven to be unhelpful that the good editors' only option to get away from them is to quit.
To contrast with another project with which I've been involved, GNU sets a high bar to entry, and a very high standard on behavior. Junior people have to run the gauntlet of code reviews just to get anything in (and ironically, there is a perpetual backlog of submissions). Behaviorwise, the occasional cross exchange is tolerated, but anything resembling the typical WP talk page diatribe would get the complainer kicked out permanently. There are people who've been actively working on GNU software for nearly 20 years now, nearly as long as it has existed.
Stan
I think you have a very good point there, and having looked through a lot of the flameouts, I believe that is in the majority of the cases the reason that people leave. Ironically, in more than one case, I've seen "good faith" get assumed on a troll's behalf while someone who's been around for a long time and generally demonstrated good judgment is interrogated for "biting" them by delivering the ultimatum they should be getting in that case-either stop the problem behavior, go away, or get helped to go away.
To that, I can actually see solutions.
-I've suggested that new users be disabled from creating mainspace pages (mainspace only would be best if it were technically feasible, this would still give them the ability to create their user pages, start up discussion on a talk page if the page hasn't yet been started, etc.) until they've been around for 4 days and made 50 edits (or perhaps 20 mainspace edits.) If someone can manage to make 20 mainspace edits, stick around for 4 days, and not get indef blocked, they're probably not an idiot or a vandal, and they've probably started to gain at least a limited understanding of content policy by working with existing articles. They probably also should be restricted from uploading images during this time. If they want to upload free-use ones, they should be doing that on Commons anyway. If they want to upload fair-use, they shouldn't be doing that first thing upon joining anyway.
Yes, this will deter a few good people from joining. It'll also deter a lot of bad ones, and knock down the neverending CSD backlog. If anything, it's more "bitey" to say "Well, that new page you made about your (best friend/grandfather/loved one that just died/favorite obscure (band|website)) is going to get summarily nuked" rather than "Hey, before you make a new article, we'd like to be sure you understand a little about how things work here. If you're convinced you've got it down already, wait a few days, or articles for creation is right this way." The CSD backlogs and newpage patrol burn out a -lot- of admins and patrollers, and are inordinate timesinks as well. We don't just need to ask ourselves "But what if we miss out on one good article that way?" We also need to ask ourselves "If the number of articles we must speedy is reduced to a quarter its size, what could those who are tagging and deleting them be doing with the time instead? What if we're missing out on thirty good articles that way, as well as a ton of improvements to existing ones, and burning out great editors in the process?"
-There's no reason for vandals to be given 3 or 4 warnings before the hammer comes down. They should get one, telling them their conduct is unacceptable, period, and if they pull it again they get a nice block. If they apologize nicely, and clearly understand why it happened and show intent to quit it, there's always an unblock button. In my experience, however, it's pretty rare that a vandal suddenly "comes around", except in a few cases of test editing where they go to the sandbox instead. Again, the question is "What if half the RC patrol could be dispatched to the cleanup and wikification backlogs instead?"
-We need, as a community, to be a lot quicker to give the boot to trolls, edit warriors, and POV pushers. This goes triple if they're single-purpose. It's very rare that these people "come around", or do anything but drive good people off the project.
-We also need to come down a hell of a lot harder on people trying to own articles, or who are a little too liberal with reverting. Every time you make an edit, you can look right down below, and it'll tell you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." OWNership drives a -lot- of people off, and prevents articles from ever being improved. If at all possible, and there are no overriding concerns (such as BLP or complete factual inaccuracy) which demand immediate reversion, poor but relevant and good-faith edits should be sourced, improved, and integrated, not reverted. And those who revert well-sourced material relevant to an article because they don't like what it says should be shown no mercy whatsoever.
-We need to make cutting easier, and quit calling people who trim down, merge, and delete articles "vandals" or "deletionists". Cutting is a healthy, natural part of the editorial process. (Of course, this presumes that such cuts are made with a clear rationale.) Once again, people need to see that sentence in the edit window. If you don't want your work edited, possibly beyond recognition, possibly even removed, certainly without your approval, you're posting it in the wrong place.
-People who don't discuss a questionable action with the person who took it before heading to ANI or RFC or wherever else need a good troutslapping. Sometimes, the person may really have a good rationale (or bring to your attention something you didn't know), and the matter can be dropped. Other times, you may convince them (or bring to their attention something they didn't even know), and they'll happily reverse themselves. Of course, the same applies to those who refuse to discuss issues with those who do raise civil questions about their actions and explain the rationale behind them, therefore virtually guaranteeing escalation.
My apologies for the length. I do believe if we can solve these issues, we can significantly and realistically reduce burnout of good editors and admins. If we lose a few trolls, vandals, and vanity bios in the process, well, that's just an added bonus.
I agree with you Todd. I've noticed some things on top of that too (I appologize if I double up on some).
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this, but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor. - Arrogance by some seasoned editors: I know some people will probably want to lynch me, but there seems to be a lot of arrogance from some editors that have a lot of edits under their belt, as if they are supreme masters of Wikipedia, and what they say goes. Don't bother discussing or even arguing with them. A newer, inexperienced editor eventually gets pissed that user:x has declared themselves god, gets to do damn near what ever he/she wants, with no recourse. The newer user follow similar action: shot on sight. - Wiki-movements: such as kill buerocracy by whatever means possible, etc. - Lack of accountability for Admins: Although most admins do a fine job, there are times where issues arrise that if a complaintant has a legitimate argument, they have a snowballs chance in hell of any discipline actually occuring because Admin Joe makes X good actions. Just like any other organization, sometimes all it takes is one. - Damn near everything else Todd stated.
I think some of these issues can be resolved quickly: - Todd covered Newbie biting vs. Vetreran killing. - Arrogance: Just needs to stop. A reminder that this is a community and as such, everyone has the right/ability to enter into any discussion. I doesn't matter if you've been here 4 years, or 4 days, made 500,000 edis, or 500. Cases of arrogance or "I am king" attitudes need to also have a clear discipline schedule. - Wiki-movements... not much can be done as far as I can see, but they are annoying none the less. - Simply set up a Admin Complaint and Discipline structure: An editor makes a complaint against admin X to a specific location, uninvolved Admin Y (preferibly not his buddy) reviews and determines if it is legit (diffs would be needed). If it is legit, then it is added to the admin's "complaint count", and an action is taken based off a predetermined complaint schedule. - Overall: ENSTILL A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. Too much, editors are simply a name or IP address. Encourage entoracting between editors.
Just my 2 cents.
-Cascadia.
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90704202356l167243e9n27e0654ef5f4e4d9@mail.gmail.com...
I think you have a very good point there, and having looked through a lot of the flameouts, I believe that is in the majority of the cases the reason that people leave. Ironically, in more than one case, I've seen "good faith" get assumed on a troll's behalf while someone who's been around for a long time and generally demonstrated good judgment is interrogated for "biting" them by delivering the ultimatum they should be getting in that case-either stop the problem behavior, go away, or get helped to go away.
To that, I can actually see solutions.
-I've suggested that new users be disabled from creating mainspace pages (mainspace only would be best if it were technically feasible, this would still give them the ability to create their user pages, start up discussion on a talk page if the page hasn't yet been started, etc.) until they've been around for 4 days and made 50 edits (or perhaps 20 mainspace edits.) If someone can manage to make 20 mainspace edits, stick around for 4 days, and not get indef blocked, they're probably not an idiot or a vandal, and they've probably started to gain at least a limited understanding of content policy by working with existing articles. They probably also should be restricted from uploading images during this time. If they want to upload free-use ones, they should be doing that on Commons anyway. If they want to upload fair-use, they shouldn't be doing that first thing upon joining anyway.
Yes, this will deter a few good people from joining. It'll also deter a lot of bad ones, and knock down the neverending CSD backlog. If anything, it's more "bitey" to say "Well, that new page you made about your (best friend/grandfather/loved one that just died/favorite obscure (band|website)) is going to get summarily nuked" rather than "Hey, before you make a new article, we'd like to be sure you understand a little about how things work here. If you're convinced you've got it down already, wait a few days, or articles for creation is right this way." The CSD backlogs and newpage patrol burn out a -lot- of admins and patrollers, and are inordinate timesinks as well. We don't just need to ask ourselves "But what if we miss out on one good article that way?" We also need to ask ourselves "If the number of articles we must speedy is reduced to a quarter its size, what could those who are tagging and deleting them be doing with the time instead? What if we're missing out on thirty good articles that way, as well as a ton of improvements to existing ones, and burning out great editors in the process?"
-There's no reason for vandals to be given 3 or 4 warnings before the hammer comes down. They should get one, telling them their conduct is unacceptable, period, and if they pull it again they get a nice block. If they apologize nicely, and clearly understand why it happened and show intent to quit it, there's always an unblock button. In my experience, however, it's pretty rare that a vandal suddenly "comes around", except in a few cases of test editing where they go to the sandbox instead. Again, the question is "What if half the RC patrol could be dispatched to the cleanup and wikification backlogs instead?"
-We need, as a community, to be a lot quicker to give the boot to trolls, edit warriors, and POV pushers. This goes triple if they're single-purpose. It's very rare that these people "come around", or do anything but drive good people off the project.
-We also need to come down a hell of a lot harder on people trying to own articles, or who are a little too liberal with reverting. Every time you make an edit, you can look right down below, and it'll tell you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." OWNership drives a -lot- of people off, and prevents articles from ever being improved. If at all possible, and there are no overriding concerns (such as BLP or complete factual inaccuracy) which demand immediate reversion, poor but relevant and good-faith edits should be sourced, improved, and integrated, not reverted. And those who revert well-sourced material relevant to an article because they don't like what it says should be shown no mercy whatsoever.
-We need to make cutting easier, and quit calling people who trim down, merge, and delete articles "vandals" or "deletionists". Cutting is a healthy, natural part of the editorial process. (Of course, this presumes that such cuts are made with a clear rationale.) Once again, people need to see that sentence in the edit window. If you don't want your work edited, possibly beyond recognition, possibly even removed, certainly without your approval, you're posting it in the wrong place.
-People who don't discuss a questionable action with the person who took it before heading to ANI or RFC or wherever else need a good troutslapping. Sometimes, the person may really have a good rationale (or bring to your attention something you didn't know), and the matter can be dropped. Other times, you may convince them (or bring to their attention something they didn't even know), and they'll happily reverse themselves. Of course, the same applies to those who refuse to discuss issues with those who do raise civil questions about their actions and explain the rationale behind them, therefore virtually guaranteeing escalation.
My apologies for the length. I do believe if we can solve these issues, we can significantly and realistically reduce burnout of good editors and admins. If we lose a few trolls, vandals, and vanity bios in the process, well, that's just an added bonus.
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Overall: ENSTILL A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. Too much, editors are simply a name
or IP address. Encourage entoracting between editors.
-Cascadia.
Gosh, you know what would be nice? If there was some kind of program dedicated to fostering a sense of community and fostering interaction between editors!
Nah, it'd never work.
~~~~
on 4/21/07 10:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Overall: ENSTILL A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. Too much, editors are simply a name
or IP address. Encourage entoracting between editors.
-Cascadia.
Gosh, you know what would be nice? If there was some kind of program dedicated to fostering a sense of community and fostering interaction between editors!
Nah, it'd never work.
You mean an actual interactive, positive, creative, healthy Community CULTURE !?!
In your dreams ;-)
Marc Riddell
On 4/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/21/07 10:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Overall: ENSTILL A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. Too much, editors are simply a name
or IP address. Encourage entoracting between editors.
-Cascadia.
Gosh, you know what would be nice? If there was some kind of program dedicated to fostering a sense of community and fostering interaction between editors!
Nah, it'd never work.
You mean an actual interactive, positive, creative, healthy Community CULTURE !?!
In your dreams ;-)
Marc Riddell
And, (get this) they might actually have a place for editors, to talk to other editors, about *random /human/ stuff*!
Ah, just my imagination...
~~~~
On 4/21/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 2007, at 11:15 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
And, (get this) they might actually have a place for editors, to talk to other editors, about *random /human/ stuff*!
After the rousing success of Userboxes, I'm convinced.
-Phil
No, the general idea would just be a place where people can talk about their lives, and connect on a personal level. Kind of like a coffee lounge of sorts...
~~~~
I guess we could "hope" for that. :)
Newyorkbrad
On 4/21/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 2007, at 11:15 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
And, (get this) they might actually have a place for editors, to talk to other editors, about *random /human/ stuff*!
After the rousing success of Userboxes, I'm convinced.
-Phil
No, the general idea would just be a place where people can talk about their lives, and connect on a personal level. Kind of like a coffee lounge of sorts...
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/21/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Overall: ENSTILL A SENSE OF COMMUNITY. Too much, editors are simply a
name or IP address. Encourage entoracting between editors.
-Cascadia.
on 4/21/07 10:53 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Gosh, you know what would be nice? If there was some kind of program dedicated to fostering a sense of community and fostering interaction between editors!
Nah, it'd never work.
On 4/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
You mean an actual interactive, positive, creative, healthy Community CULTURE !?!
In your dreams ;-)
Marc Riddell
on 4/21/07 11:15 PM, gjzilla@gmail.com at gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
And, (get this) they might actually have a place for editors, to talk to other editors, about *random /human/ stuff*!
Ah, just my imagination...
No, the general idea would just be a place where people can talk about their lives, and connect on a personal level. Kind of like a coffee lounge of sorts...
Are you people teasing me, or what? :-)
If you are, nice job ;-)
If not, where do we start?
Marc Riddell
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this, but
it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.
e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your sockpuppet.
- d.
Think about it this way: In any organization where someone has power over others, going against policy and potentially breaking other's privacy is a firable offense.
If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of things much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
-Cascadia
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com...
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this,
but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.
e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your sockpuppet.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com...
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this,
but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.
e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your sockpuppet.
If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of things much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
Except for the detail that it wasn't anything like a "total screw up." Second accounts are barely tolerated at best, not a "right."
- d.
On 4/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com...
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this,
but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.
e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your sockpuppet.
If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of things much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
Except for the detail that it wasn't anything like a "total screw up." Second accounts are barely tolerated at best, not a "right."
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hey, here's part of something we need to realize, in that positive culture you're envisioning:
EVERYONE SCREWS UP.
That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of, well, effectively amateurs.
If someone messed up an edit and broke a page's formatting, you wouldn't call for them to be banned from editing. (I sure hope!) You'd bring it to their attention or fix it. By the same token, administrators will make the occasional mistake too. That doesn't mean they're terrible people, or even careless. It means they're human.
Now, that being said, there's a difference between an error and genuine abuse. Ryulong's actions didn't rise to the level of abuse by any stretch of the imagination. (I'm not sure I'd even necessarily call them an error.) In that case, there was some tension (and still is) between an allowed use of sockpuppets (to maintain privacy), and a prohibited one (to avoid community scrutiny). For all we knew, it could easily have been the same person who made -all- those accounts. There's no way to have the first clue if what any of them said are true. That's why "anonymous" socks are frowned upon.
That being said, given the sensitivity of the situation, I wish Ryulong would have discussed a bit before issuing the blocks. But that's a -minor- error if it is one at all. And part of building a good community is to accept that others -will- have a different viewpoint than you, and unless someone is being egregiously abusive, destructive, or totally refusing to explain themselves at all-learn to accept a good rationale even when you don't totally agree with it. The other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are.
Seraphimblade
First, Ryulong failed to follow policy. He did not assume good faith, nor did he follow WP:SOCK. He arbitrarily made up his mind that these socks were the same person, and they were trolling (neither of which was the case and should have been evident). On top of this, he blocked the socks with autoblock enabled, effectively giving the editors an ultimatum: Out themselves or quit the discussion.
Ryulong then left, leaving his actions in place and having other admins clean up the mess. This wasn't just a simple mistake as everyone would like to believe. This was a serious issue. Too often on Wikipedia admins feel they can make such mistakes and everything will be OK when they appologize. The action should never have taken place, and the editors and admins involved made that quite evident.
No, I wouldn't call for someone from being banned from editing for breaking a pages formatting, but then again, this is a poor comparison. Breaking a pages formatting has no chance of hurting another iditor, Ryulong's did have that chance (depending on who you ask, the risk would be less or greater).
Admins need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that their adminship is not an ammunity, and "I'm sorry" is not a fix all, and should never be treated as such by anyone.
-Cascadia
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90704221744u43596fafk742a81f259206d3a@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com...
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said
this, but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.
e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your sockpuppet.
If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of things much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
Except for the detail that it wasn't anything like a "total screw up." Second accounts are barely tolerated at best, not a "right."
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hey, here's part of something we need to realize, in that positive culture you're envisioning:
EVERYONE SCREWS UP.
That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of, well, effectively amateurs.
If someone messed up an edit and broke a page's formatting, you wouldn't call for them to be banned from editing. (I sure hope!) You'd bring it to their attention or fix it. By the same token, administrators will make the occasional mistake too. That doesn't mean they're terrible people, or even careless. It means they're human.
Now, that being said, there's a difference between an error and genuine abuse. Ryulong's actions didn't rise to the level of abuse by any stretch of the imagination. (I'm not sure I'd even necessarily call them an error.) In that case, there was some tension (and still is) between an allowed use of sockpuppets (to maintain privacy), and a prohibited one (to avoid community scrutiny). For all we knew, it could easily have been the same person who made -all- those accounts. There's no way to have the first clue if what any of them said are true. That's why "anonymous" socks are frowned upon.
That being said, given the sensitivity of the situation, I wish Ryulong would have discussed a bit before issuing the blocks. But that's a -minor- error if it is one at all. And part of building a good community is to accept that others -will- have a different viewpoint than you, and unless someone is being egregiously abusive, destructive, or totally refusing to explain themselves at all-learn to accept a good rationale even when you don't totally agree with it. The other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are.
Seraphimblade
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/22/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
First, Ryulong failed to follow policy. He did not assume good faith, nor did he follow WP:SOCK. He arbitrarily made up his mind that these socks were the same person, and they were trolling (neither of which was the case and should have been evident). On top of this, he blocked the socks with autoblock enabled, effectively giving the editors an ultimatum: Out themselves or quit the discussion.
Ryulong then left, leaving his actions in place and having other admins clean up the mess. This wasn't just a simple mistake as everyone would like to believe. This was a serious issue. Too often on Wikipedia admins feel they can make such mistakes and everything will be OK when they appologize. The action should never have taken place, and the editors and admins involved made that quite evident.
No, I wouldn't call for someone from being banned from editing for breaking a pages formatting, but then again, this is a poor comparison. Breaking a pages formatting has no chance of hurting another iditor, Ryulong's did have that chance (depending on who you ask, the risk would be less or greater).
Admins need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that their adminship is not an ammunity, and "I'm sorry" is not a fix all, and should never be treated as such by anyone.
-Cascadia
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90704221744u43596fafk742a81f259206d3a@mail.gmail.com...
On 4/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com...
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said
this, but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.
e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your sockpuppet.
If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of things much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
Except for the detail that it wasn't anything like a "total screw up." Second accounts are barely tolerated at best, not a "right."
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hey, here's part of something we need to realize, in that positive culture you're envisioning:
EVERYONE SCREWS UP.
That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of, well, effectively amateurs.
If someone messed up an edit and broke a page's formatting, you wouldn't call for them to be banned from editing. (I sure hope!) You'd bring it to their attention or fix it. By the same token, administrators will make the occasional mistake too. That doesn't mean they're terrible people, or even careless. It means they're human.
Now, that being said, there's a difference between an error and genuine abuse. Ryulong's actions didn't rise to the level of abuse by any stretch of the imagination. (I'm not sure I'd even necessarily call them an error.) In that case, there was some tension (and still is) between an allowed use of sockpuppets (to maintain privacy), and a prohibited one (to avoid community scrutiny). For all we knew, it could easily have been the same person who made -all- those accounts. There's no way to have the first clue if what any of them said are true. That's why "anonymous" socks are frowned upon.
That being said, given the sensitivity of the situation, I wish Ryulong would have discussed a bit before issuing the blocks. But that's a -minor- error if it is one at all. And part of building a good community is to accept that others -will- have a different viewpoint than you, and unless someone is being egregiously abusive, destructive, or totally refusing to explain themselves at all-learn to accept a good rationale even when you don't totally agree with it. The other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are.
Seraphimblade
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, I think we should have a more general discussion here, rather than one specifically on Ryulong. (I think there was already a thread for that.) Yes, we do need to identify and correct errors, especially if the person in question is unwilling to acknowledge, correct, or stop making them.
But what about when the person does acknowledge the error, and fix and/or apologize for it? Why shouldn't "I'm sorry" be the end of the story? This is not a life or death situation, no action taken by an editor or admin is irreversible. We're not talking about open-heart surgery here, a screwup here is reversible at the push of a button.
I think the main issue here (to sum it up a lot more concisely than I did before), is that people take things both too seriously and not seriously enough. They're far too willing to resort to reverting, call for someone's head, etc.-and not at all willing enough to say "Well, you know, this guy has provided a good rationale, so while I still disagree, maybe we should try to work something out that satisfies all concerns rather than escalating." Usually, that -can- be done, and results in no heads getting taken off.
Seraphimblade
On 4/22/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
First, Ryulong failed to follow policy. He did not assume good faith,
nor
did he follow WP:SOCK. He arbitrarily made up his mind that these socks
were
the same person, and they were trolling (neither of which was the case
and
should have been evident). On top of this, he blocked the socks with autoblock enabled, effectively giving the editors an ultimatum: Out themselves or quit the discussion.
Ryulong then left, leaving his actions in place and having other admins clean up the mess. This wasn't just a simple mistake as everyone would
like
to believe. This was a serious issue. Too often on Wikipedia admins feel they can make such mistakes and everything will be OK when they
appologize.
The action should never have taken place, and the editors and admins involved made that quite evident.
No, I wouldn't call for someone from being banned from editing for
breaking
a pages formatting, but then again, this is a poor comparison. Breaking
a
pages formatting has no chance of hurting another iditor, Ryulong's did
have
that chance (depending on who you ask, the risk would be less or
greater).
Admins need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that
their
adminship is not an ammunity, and "I'm sorry" is not a fix all, and
should
never be treated as such by anyone.
-Cascadia
But it sure goes a long way. One of my favorite editors is a guy who called me a "hostile editor" the first time I interacted with him. Sadly, he just left Wikipedia, and was one of the best at doing careful research for BLPs, and he was willing to monitor and edit anyone, no matter how obscure, and no matter the hostile interference of people using Wikipedia for their own interests on the BLP. I don't remember if we actually apologized to each other, but we both certainly considered the article and Wikipedia more important than our differences--if anyone apoligized first, though, it was probably him.
KP
And, (get this) they might actually have a place for editors, to talk to other editors, about *random /human/ stuff*!
Ah, just my imagination...
No, the general idea would just be a place where people can talk about their lives, and connect on a personal level. Kind of like a coffee lounge of sorts...
Are you people teasing me, or what? :-)
If you are, nice job ;-)
If not, where do we start?
Marc Riddell
There already are millions of such places, they're called restaurants, parks, beaches, jungles, churches, birthday parties, protest marches, buses, airplanes, living rooms, cruise ships, sidewalks.... Today I spoke with people over the telephone, at the graveyard, in the grocery store, at the cafe....
KP
on 4/22/07 10:00 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
There already are millions of such places, they're called restaurants, parks, beaches, jungles, churches, birthday parties, protest marches, buses, airplanes, living rooms, cruise ships, sidewalks.... Today I spoke with people over the telephone, at the graveyard, in the grocery store, at the cafe....
But, speaking specifically about the people you interact with all the time on this List, that you wouldn't have a chance to meet in the above places, wouldn't you like to know what they think, and how they feel, about other things beside what relates to Wikipedia?
Marc
On 4/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/22/07 10:00 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
There already are millions of such places, they're called restaurants, parks, beaches, jungles, churches, birthday parties, protest marches,
buses,
airplanes, living rooms, cruise ships, sidewalks.... Today I spoke with people over the telephone, at the graveyard, in the grocery store, at
the
cafe....
But, speaking specifically about the people you interact with all the time on this List, that you wouldn't have a chance to meet in the above places, wouldn't you like to know what they think, and how they feel, about other things beside what relates to Wikipedia?
I'm not sure if we should judge any attempts to start this sort of thing, but there was a *very* active movement to create this sort of thing in 2006. I'm specifically thinking of userboxen and [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]]. Ironically, it was decided (by consensus, moreover, and among many of these projects' proponents) that both of these things actually hurt the community; the proliferation of boxen has slowed, and Esperanza was shut down.
I'm not sure why these attempts failed, but it may be that getting to know your fellow editors as humans isn't very conducive to creating a culture of mutual respect if you can't even respect them on a professional level. (The most active and vocal Esperanzeans also had some of the most active and vocal assumers of bad faith in their number.)
In the end, I think it's more about the kind of people who are attracted to the project - specifically, the messy deep dark bowels of the project such as RfA, AfD, and all things that attract trolls (e.g. articles on polemical issues like [[George W. Bush]]). Most reasonable people hang out around these areas for a while, decide they're not worth it, and either leave or find their own niche on WP (mine seems to have become Malaysian articles; it's an obscure, quiet and peaceful area of WP where I do my best to keep politicians' biographies free from libel - not very hard when there aren't many people editing them).
The nicest and most respectful people in the project tend to be those who avoid the polemical areas of WP. Trouble is, if nobody mans the polemical areas, who will? We can't surrender these things to the extremists - but the levelheaded centrists don't have the right temperament for handling them without burning out.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you can respect your fellow editors on a professional basis, it's redundant to get to know them on a personal level, although that would be nice. And if you can't respect them as colleagues (common for people involved in polemical things, where the other guy is *always* wrong), it's difficult to imagine you respecting them as people. That may be why Esperanza failed; because its base was generally people who couldn't respect their fellow editors as colleagues.
Johnleemk
On 23/04/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure why these attempts failed, but it may be that getting to know your fellow editors as humans isn't very conducive to creating a culture of mutual respect if you can't even respect them on a professional level. (The most active and vocal Esperanzeans also had some of the most active and vocal assumers of bad faith in their number.)
Much like the problem of wiki governance - 4300 frequent editors in any given month (and 43,000 less frequent editors) is somewhat more than 100-150. The usual solution is something to do with voting. But Wikipedia systems including anything resembling a vote seem to rapidly decay either into an insular committee of regulars or a lynch mob.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 23/04/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure why these attempts failed, but it may be that getting to know your fellow editors as humans isn't very conducive to creating a culture of mutual respect if you can't even respect them on a professional level. (The most active and vocal Esperanzeans also had some of the most active and vocal assumers of bad faith in their number.)
Much like the problem of wiki governance - 4300 frequent editors in any given month (and 43,000 less frequent editors) is somewhat more than 100-150. The usual solution is something to do with voting. But Wikipedia systems including anything resembling a vote seem to rapidly decay either into an insular committee of regulars or a lynch mob.
I think that one of the problems that derives from a voting system is the sense that once the vote is complete the results are set in stone. Votes become a technique for entrenching a point of view, and once the point of view has prevailed it becomes necessary to defend it.
I happen to believe that most votes should remain perpetually open. Once a predetermined threshhold has been reached the policy in question can be implemented, but the vote can continue and people can even change their votes. This helps to ensure that those who weren't editors when the original vote was taken can also have a say, as can those who simply didn't know the vote was originally happening.
Threshholds for reversals would still need to be established to prevent instabilities when votes regularly hover in the 49%-51% range, but as a progressive site we should always be exploring new ways of doing things.
Ec
On 4/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
But, speaking specifically about the people you interact with all the time on this List, that you wouldn't have a chance to meet in the above places, wouldn't you like to know what they think, and how they feel, about other things beside what relates to Wikipedia?
on 4/23/07 5:32 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if we should judge any attempts to start this sort of thing, but there was a *very* active movement to create this sort of thing in 2006. I'm specifically thinking of userboxen and [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]]. Ironically, it was decided (by consensus, moreover, and among many of these projects' proponents) that both of these things actually hurt the community; the proliferation of boxen has slowed, and Esperanza was shut down.
I'm not sure why these attempts failed, but it may be that getting to know your fellow editors as humans isn't very conducive to creating a culture of mutual respect if you can't even respect them on a professional level. (The most active and vocal Esperanzeans also had some of the most active and vocal assumers of bad faith in their number.)
In the end, I think it's more about the kind of people who are attracted to the project - specifically, the messy deep dark bowels of the project such as RfA, AfD, and all things that attract trolls (e.g. articles on polemical issues like [[George W. Bush]]). Most reasonable people hang out around these areas for a while, decide they're not worth it, and either leave or find their own niche on WP (mine seems to have become Malaysian articles; it's an obscure, quiet and peaceful area of WP where I do my best to keep politicians' biographies free from libel - not very hard when there aren't many people editing them).
The nicest and most respectful people in the project tend to be those who avoid the polemical areas of WP. Trouble is, if nobody mans the polemical areas, who will? We can't surrender these things to the extremists - but the levelheaded centrists don't have the right temperament for handling them without burning out.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you can respect your fellow editors on a professional basis, it's redundant to get to know them on a personal level, although that would be nice. And if you can't respect them as colleagues (common for people involved in polemical things, where the other guy is *always* wrong), it's difficult to imagine you respecting them as people. That may be why Esperanza failed; because its base was generally people who couldn't respect their fellow editors as colleagues.
Thanks, John, for your thoughts and some history on this; I¹m learning.
I¹m sorry to hear that past attempts at this have failed. It's not a huge deal for me, but I just think an opportunity is being missed here.
During the course of interacting with others on the List regarding things WP, I have come to respect how many of these persons think and express themselves. My curiosity then takes over, and I begin to wonder what these same persons think and feel about the broader issues of the day. And, quite frankly, just felt I would like to get to know them a little better.
Also, I have found that when persons open themselves up to each other (even just a little) it makes it more difficult (for the healthy ones anyway) to disregard and disrespect each other any time they communicate.
Just thinking out loud here, but perhaps much of the gridlock and downright abusive language and other negative behaviors would be lessened if more people here felt and understood they were dealing with actual persons.
*A man is walking along and falls into a hole. He calls for help. A priest comes by, hears his cries, writes him a prayer, tosses it down to him and goes on. Soon a doctor comes by, hears his cries, writes him a prescription, tosses it down to him and goes on. Soon after another man comes along, hears his cries, and jumps into the hole with him. ³What the hell are you doing? ³ the man in the hole says. ³I¹ve been in here before³ the other man replies, ³and I know the way out.³
Marc
John Lee wrote:
On 4/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
But, speaking specifically about the people you interact with all the time
on this List, that you wouldn't have a chance to meet in the above places, wouldn't you like to know what they think, and how they feel, about other things beside what relates to Wikipedia?
I'm not sure if we should judge any attempts to start this sort of thing, but there was a *very* active movement to create this sort of thing in 2006. I'm specifically thinking of userboxen and [[Wikipedia:Esperanza]]. Ironically, it was decided (by consensus, moreover, and among many of these projects' proponents) that both of these things actually hurt the community; the proliferation of boxen has slowed, and Esperanza was shut down.
I'm not sure why these attempts failed, but it may be that getting to know your fellow editors as humans isn't very conducive to creating a culture of mutual respect if you can't even respect them on a professional level. (The most active and vocal Esperanzeans also had some of the most active and vocal assumers of bad faith in their number.)
While I very much support the principle behind Marc's ideas, I have doubts about whether it would work. I don't think that userboxes have anything to do with this; you can't put meaningful discussion into a tiny box. Esperanza seems like it could do this, but I only found out about it when people were campaigning to have it deleted; from the little that I have read about it saying that it would hurt the community seems a bit over the top.
Respect on a professional level is a meaningless concept when most of the people involved are not professionals. While mutual respect remains important, professional respect has implications that go beyond that; those implications include a tendency for group think which the less competent professionals can use as a life raft. Based on what you say it seems as though Esperanza was poisoned by a bad faith which can be very difficult for the more gentle and fragile participants to stop. It's not easy for the more introverted to tell those with agressively bad faith that they can't behave like that.
I think that time and stress have more to do with the failure of such projects. We can all easily agree that if we could be on Wikipedia 24/7 we would not run out of things to do. Not least among these tasks would be fixing what we believe was screwed up by the other guy. For those that believe they are right the corrections are obvious, and concrete actions seem so much more constructive than listening to vague complaints that never appear soluble. We are socially wired to believe that such encounters are unproductive time wasters.
In the end, I think it's more about the kind of people who are attracted to the project - specifically, the messy deep dark bowels of the project such as RfA, AfD, and all things that attract trolls (e.g. articles on polemical issues like [[George W. Bush]]). Most reasonable people hang out around these areas for a while, decide they're not worth it, and either leave or find their own niche on WP (mine seems to have become Malaysian articles; it's an obscure, quiet and peaceful area of WP where I do my best to keep politicians' biographies free from libel - not very hard when there aren't many people editing them).
Absolutely. And we certainly have more reasonable people doing this than unreasonable people who hang out at these problem sites. Reasonable people like to avoid local convenience stores that have become hang outs for teenage gangs. The effort required to replace these gangs can be overwhelming.
The nicest and most respectful people in the project tend to be those who avoid the polemical areas of WP. Trouble is, if nobody mans the polemical areas, who will? We can't surrender these things to the extremists - but the levelheaded centrists don't have the right temperament for handling them without burning out.
Exactly.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you can respect your fellow editors on a professional basis, it's redundant to get to know them on a personal level, although that would be nice. And if you can't respect them as colleagues (common for people involved in polemical things, where the other guy is *always* wrong), it's difficult to imagine you respecting them as people. That may be why Esperanza failed; because its base was generally people who couldn't respect their fellow editors as colleagues.
Getting together on a personal level can be reinvigorating. Going to meetups and sharing views does a lot for building respect. It can be easier to find a common understanding when the only thing standing between you is a couple of beers on the table. The redundancy may very well be there, but it's not a valid excuse to avoid meeting. The meetings themselves may not have direct accomplishments, but building foundations is not essential for putting a building up; it's only important for ensuring that it doesn't fall down next week.
I've personally found benefit to attending Wikimania, and during the time that I was there I didn't make a single entry to the database.
Ec
on 4/23/07 2:09 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Getting together on a personal level can be reinvigorating. Going to meetups and sharing views does a lot for building respect. It can be easier to find a common understanding when the only thing standing between you is a couple of beers on the table.
I've personally found benefit to attending Wikimania, and during the time that I was there I didn't make a single entry to the database.
Ray,
I took a look at Esperanza's Main Page, and its MfD discussion. I didn't have to read either one very far to understand why the project failed. It had set itself up as a separate Community from the Main WP one. That may not have been its intention, but that is how it came across to many - and to me.
This is nowhere near what I am thinking about. What I see would be a Mailing List set up exactly like the WikiEN-l one we now participate in; the only difference would be in the subject matter discussed.
I would love to go to a Wikimania event, but time and scheduling make that impossible for me. I would, therefore, love to see a Wikimania-type List where the same type of environment and communication could take place for anyone and everyone who cares to participate.
This is what I'm getting at.
Marc
On 4/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/23/07 2:09 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Getting together on a personal level can be reinvigorating. Going to meetups and sharing views does a lot for building respect. It can be easier to find a common understanding when the only thing standing between you is a couple of beers on the table.
I've personally found benefit to attending Wikimania, and during the time that I was there I didn't make a single entry to the database.
Ray,
I took a look at Esperanza's Main Page, and its MfD discussion. I didn't have to read either one very far to understand why the project failed. It had set itself up as a separate Community from the Main WP one. That may not have been its intention, but that is how it came across to many - and to me.
This is nowhere near what I am thinking about. What I see would be a Mailing List set up exactly like the WikiEN-l one we now participate in; the only difference would be in the subject matter discussed.
I would love to go to a Wikimania event, but time and scheduling make that impossible for me. I would, therefore, love to see a Wikimania-type List where the same type of environment and communication could take place for anyone and everyone who cares to participate.
This is what I'm getting at.
Marc
-- If you're restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.
Oh, I see, in cyber space. All I could think initially was, OMG, where the hell would I find the time? I play on the web to get away from people, and then there are all the suggestions like sitting around and chatting over a few beers--many of the editors I work with are well under 18, and/or fundamentalist muslims. Certainly the geologists could be counted upon to take up their share of the beers, though.
I liked these comments by another poster (sorry it's hard for me to keep stuff straight):
The nicest and most respectful people in the project tend to be those who avoid the polemical areas of WP. Trouble is, if nobody mans the polemical areas, who will?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you can respect your fellow editors
on
a professional basis, it's redundant to get to know them on a personal level, although that would be nice.
I do get curious about people, but usually find out they are well-outside of my socializing comfort zone (which has little room for expansion as I have a huge family and am very active outside of family). Even on Wikipedia many of the editors I interact with are hugely involved in areas I never go near. But, yes, I do get curious.
KP
On 4/23/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
In the end, I think it's more about the kind of people who are attracted to the project - specifically, the messy deep dark bowels of the project such as RfA, AfD, and all things that attract trolls (e.g. articles on polemical issues like [[George W. Bush]]). Most reasonable people hang out around these areas for a while, decide they're not worth it, and either leave or find their own niche on WP (mine seems to have become Malaysian articles; it's an obscure, quiet and peaceful area of WP where I do my best to keep politicians' biographies free from libel - not very hard when there aren't many people editing them).
The nicest and most respectful people in the project tend to be those who avoid the polemical areas of WP. Trouble is, if nobody mans the polemical areas, who will? We can't surrender these things to the extremists - but the levelheaded centrists don't have the right temperament for handling them without burning out.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sounds to me that there's a solution there too. There's plenty of a "silent majority" to take those over and then some. Those who are generally good editors but occasionally lose their head and let bias take over or get into an edit war should be forgiven. Those who POV push or edit war frequently, on the other hand, need to get told to shape up or leave, and if they don't do either need to get helped to leave. And we need to be a hell of a lot quicker about it. If someone hasn't quit edit warring after their fifth 3RR block, the sixth isn't going to do it either.
Seraphimblade
On 23/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Ryulong then left, leaving his actions in place and having other admins clean up the mess.
Perhaps we could interject a little detail here.
He made the blocks. He posted that he had done so to the admin noticeboard, to make it public, and notified the relevant discussion page. Then he left, to go to a meeting.
He "left" for *four and a half hours*. Two hundred and seventy-six minutes. Within two hours the matter had been discussed and they had all been unblocked, with multiple people leaving him explanatory messages. I'm failing to see how this is gross negligence of duty - he did what he was doing, he notified the appropriate places for people to fix it if they felt he'd done wrong, then he went to do some work.
You seem to be demanding that editors don't do anything that might be contentious if they're going offline shortly. After all, someone might kick up a fuss and you'd have to resolve it, but oh noes! you might not be around until later! the world will collapse without immediate solutions!
On 23/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
No, I wouldn't call for someone from being banned from editing for breaking a pages formatting, but then again, this is a poor comparison. Breaking a pages formatting has no chance of hurting another iditor, Ryulong's did have that chance (depending on who you ask, the risk would be less or greater). Admins need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that their adminship is not an ammunity, and "I'm sorry" is not a fix all, and should never be treated as such by anyone.
Your ridiculous repeated statement that blocking your sockpuppet is enough reason to resign from being an admin shows an overwhelming sense of entitlement.
- d.
Overwhelming sense of entitlement?
David, you're missing my point in this whole thing. I am asking that admins be held accountable for their actions. For someone who was autoblocked for around an hour because someone decided to 'f'- policy and autoblock, thus forcing editors to either quit the discussion or out themselves in an attempt to be unblocked is a very troubling incident to them. Without being held accountable for his actions, he effectivly sends the message to all that an admin can block someone for any reason, even if their actions are well within the bounds of policy, have someone else unblock it and cause an uproar, and simply say I'm sorry and everything's OK. The only accountability is the collective memory of those involved who will remember his actions, and use it when/if the next time he makes a major mistake.
My personal opinion would be for desysoping, but ANY sort of accountability measure (a 24 hour block, something) would have been satisfying.
Whether or not we're professionals or not, volunteers or paid editors, it doesn't matter. In any organization, there must be a system of accountability that works, and that imposes even temporary discipline on the acting person.
-Cascadia
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704230103k6a9a7ef5p27e6492a72b14490@mail.gmail.com...
On 23/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
No, I wouldn't call for someone from being banned from editing for breaking a pages formatting, but then again, this is a poor comparison. Breaking a pages formatting has no chance of hurting another iditor, Ryulong's did have that chance (depending on who you ask, the risk would be less or greater). Admins need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that their adminship is not an ammunity, and "I'm sorry" is not a fix all, and should never be treated as such by anyone.
Your ridiculous repeated statement that blocking your sockpuppet is enough reason to resign from being an admin shows an overwhelming sense of entitlement.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/23/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
Overwhelming sense of entitlement?
David, you're missing my point in this whole thing. I am asking that admins be held accountable for their actions. For someone who was autoblocked for around an hour because someone decided to 'f'- policy and autoblock, thus forcing editors to either quit the discussion or out themselves in an attempt to be unblocked is a very troubling incident to them. Without being held accountable for his actions, he effectivly sends the message to all that an admin can block someone for any reason, even if their actions are well within the bounds of policy, have someone else unblock it and cause an uproar, and simply say I'm sorry and everything's OK. The only accountability is the collective memory of those involved who will remember his actions, and use it when/if the next time he makes a major mistake.
My personal opinion would be for desysoping, but ANY sort of accountability measure (a 24 hour block, something) would have been satisfying.
Whether or not we're professionals or not, volunteers or paid editors, it doesn't matter. In any organization, there must be a system of accountability that works, and that imposes even temporary discipline on the acting person.
-Cascadia
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704230103k6a9a7ef5p27e6492a72b14490@mail.gmail.com...
On 23/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
No, I wouldn't call for someone from being banned from editing for breaking a pages formatting, but then again, this is a poor comparison. Breaking a pages formatting has no chance of hurting another iditor, Ryulong's did have that chance (depending on who you ask, the risk would be less or greater). Admins need to take responsibility for their actions and realize that their adminship is not an ammunity, and "I'm sorry" is not a fix all, and should never be treated as such by anyone.
Your ridiculous repeated statement that blocking your sockpuppet is enough reason to resign from being an admin shows an overwhelming sense of entitlement.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Neither blocks nor desysopping are punitive measures, only preventative. But is there any way we can get back around to the original purpose here, which was to discuss the high burnout rate and ways to slow it down?
on 4/23/07 10:10 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
But is there any way we can get back around to the original purpose here, which was to discuss the high burnout rate and ways to slow it down?
Todd,
I mean this in the most positive of ways: To honestly and effectively discuss accomplishing what you are talking about, is going to require a shift of thinking and focus for some - from the maintenance and well-being of the encyclopedia to the same of that of its people. When the product is the only thing that really matters to a company, then the persons who produce that product are going to suffer - and it remains a terrible place to work.
Marc Riddell
On 4/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/23/07 10:10 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
But is there any way we can get back around to the original purpose here, which was to discuss the high burnout rate and ways to slow it down?
Todd,
I mean this in the most positive of ways: To honestly and effectively discuss accomplishing what you are talking about, is going to require a shift of thinking and focus for some - from the maintenance and well-being of the encyclopedia to the same of that of its people. When the product is the only thing that really matters to a company, then the persons who produce that product are going to suffer - and it remains a terrible place to work.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm with you there. But the discussion's got to start somewhere.
Seraphimblade
on 4/23/07 10:10 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
But is there any way we can get back around to the original purpose here, which was to discuss the high burnout rate and ways to slow it down?
On 4/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Todd,
I mean this in the most positive of ways: To honestly and effectively discuss accomplishing what you are talking about, is going to require a shift of thinking and focus for some - from the maintenance and well-being of the encyclopedia to the same of that of its people. When the product is the only thing that really matters to a company, then the persons who produce that product are going to suffer - and it remains a terrible place to work.
Marc Riddell
on 4/23/07 11:37 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with you there. But the discussion's got to start somewhere.
Todd,
The problem of Admin burnout has grown to the point where an ongoing, general discussion would be inadequate to arrive at a workable solution. Is there any really serious question whether the problem does, indeed, exist? I don't think so. What is needed is the formation of an organized group (a study group if you will) to examine the problem, and to come back with practical solutions. I know, anytime there is a suggestion of forming a "group" within the WP Community, it is usually followed by a hue and cry of "this is exclusionist thinking", blah, blah, blah. This is too serious a problem for that kind of reaction. It's time to put away the paranoia this kind of proposal incites, and see and deal with this problem with some compassion, maturity and professionalism.
Wikipedia started as a village, grew into a town, and is now a major city. At the core of each one of these is the people. At times we all need encouragement, nurturing and support, and providing that to each other is what community is all about.
My thoughts,
Marc
On 4/23/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
First, Ryulong failed to follow policy. He did not assume good faith
Ah, AGF, the first resort of the damned.
on 4/22/07 8:44 PM, Todd Allen at toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
EVERYONE SCREWS UP.
That's just a fact of life. Even highly-trained professionals make the occasional error. We should certainly expect that from a crew of, well, effectively amateurs.
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
Albert Einstein
Contributed by: Marc Riddell
Never stated it was a right, I stated it was well within the bounds of the current policy. If you don't like that policy, propose changes.
-Cascadia
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704221648m4c47c634s2cb6daa102f8cb6b@mail.gmail.com...
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140704220818n7330f43cya6890397a0d06f22@mail.gmail.com...
On 22/04/07, Cascadia cascadia@privatenoc.com wrote:
- Be too nice to the newbie, shoot the veteran: I know Todd said this,
but it happens too much- We're so afraid of biting people that we'll throw the book at a seasoned editor.
e.g. when you demanded Ryulong resign from adminship for blocking your sockpuppet.
If an admin is going to hold the position, they need to be on top of things much better. Personally, if I was an admin, after such a total screw up, I would have resigned and reapplied in a few months. Why? Because it would be admiting I had completely screwed up, and that I was willing to own up to the mistake and take full responsibility for my actions.
Except for the detail that it wasn't anything like a "total screw up." Second accounts are barely tolerated at best, not a "right."
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 4/20/07 11:20 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) at newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
What I view as the other top priority issue facing the project is the extraordinarily high rate of turnover and burnout that we seem to suffer from, especially among top-level administrators and leading contributors. Turnover is part of any Internet project as any other part of life, but when I read the names of the participants in an RfA from say a year ago, or I look at the list of bureaucrats or former arbitrators or top featured article contributors or whoever, I am consistently amazed and saddened by how high a percentage of the names on the list have moved on. Sometimes after a spectacular departure, sometimes after vanishing without a trace. As highly as I think of our collective contributor and administrator base at present (and I do think that we have an incredibly strong talent base on this project, no matter how critical I or anyone might be of some or another aspect from time to time), just imagine how much greater we could be if a percentage of those people were still with us. I believe we need to identify the causes of Wikipedians' stress and burnout -- or in NPOV terms, of departures from the project -- and figure out if there is a way to reduce them.
Brad,
CULTURE! CULTURE! CULTURE! CULT! What you are talking about presents to the very culture of Wikipedia itself. The quality of a culture can be measured, in part, by what that culture produces. Yet every time I have tried to bring this up the subject has been met with silence, or dismissed as a "fuzzy liberal's POV". The fact is - if a serious look at this aspect of the project is not undertaken in earnest, it is facing a future of increasing mediocrity, deteriorating credibility - and ultimate failure.
Marc Riddell (also referred to by some as Cassandra)