When we were developing BLP, there was no committee, no poll, no seeking of specific authorization from Jimbo. It was clearly a good proposal, clearly needed in some form, and everyone who posted about it wanted it in broad terms. It was then just a question of filling in the details and making sure it was consistent with the other policies.
Sarah
In the case of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], Jimbo was very much behind it, and had a good head of steam on. Perhaps this was not visible to folks who were not a part of the arbitration committee, but that was the case. Thus you knew you had Jimbo behind you.
This can be contrasted with [[Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises]] which has languished without any serious attention, other than a Free Republic activist's. While I tried to interest Jimbo and Brad, I was unsuccessful with either of them.
Fred
On 3/21/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
When we were developing BLP, there was no committee, no poll, no seeking of specific authorization from Jimbo. It was clearly a good proposal, clearly needed in some form, and everyone who posted about it wanted it in broad terms. It was then just a question of filling in the details and making sure it was consistent with the other policies.
In the case of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], Jimbo was very much behind it, and had a good head of steam on. Perhaps this was not visible to folks who were not a part of the arbitration committee, but that was the case. Thus you knew you had Jimbo behind you.
This can be contrasted with [[Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises]] which has languished without any serious attention, other than a Free Republic activist's. While I tried to interest Jimbo and Brad, I was unsuccessful with either of them.
Okay, but this leaves us with a real problem. We're not psychic, so we can't know who supports a policy or who objects unless they say something about it. Hundreds of editors contributed to the debate about ATT -- it wasn't a secret! -- and almost all (in fact, my recollection is all) were supportive of the merge, though people had different ideas about the details. But the merge of three untidy pages into one page was completely supported. We had exactly the same broad consensus that we had for BLP.
We can't have a situation where the ArbCom or Jimbo are determining policy in ways that aren't visible to the rest of us, because how are we meant to intuit what they want? We told them about ATT, no one got back with an objection, hundreds of editors (experienced and respected editors among them) explicitly agreed with the merge over a period of five months, and those editors started linking to and quoting from the new policy page *before it went live*, which is the best endorsement of all. In fact, that's *why* it went live, because people clearly, clearly liked it.
I can understand not wanting a situation where a large group of editors, maybe new editors or inexperienced ones, comes up with a new policy that blindsides people, and we need safeguards in place against that. So I completely understand that concern.
But where you have a group of experienced editors carefully merging two pages, making sure there are no changes, seeking input from other experienced editors, with hundreds of editors offering opinions over five months, that's a totally different situation, and the outcome of that process ought to be respected.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
Okay, but this leaves us with a real problem. We're not psychic, so we can't know who supports a policy or who objects unless they say something about it. Hundreds of editors contributed to the debate about ATT -- it wasn't a secret! -- and almost all (in fact, my recollection is all) were supportive of the merge, though people had different ideas about the details. But the merge of three untidy pages into one page was completely supported. We had exactly the same broad consensus that we had for BLP.
But there's the problem - such a fundamental change, one could attest, WASN'T known. I wasn't under a rock for the five months that this was discussed, and I had WP:V and WP:RS on my watchlist, yet I had no clue. How does that happen, exactly?
We keep harkening back to BLP, which was really kind of rushed and kind of blindsided a lot of people. My hopes that we've learned from that are erased since a) we seem to be doing it again, and b) there's an implication that it has wide support, which I functionally dispute because I feel a lot of the support comes from the "Well, Jimbo wanted it camp." It's there, we're using it, and I've simply removed myself from most living bios to not deal with the bullshit it's created, but we have to be very, very careful of what we call "wide support" when there's a good chance that people simply don't know about it. When highly active editors are surprised to see something happen, there's a problem with how the consensus was gathered.
-Jeff
On 3/21/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Okay, but this leaves us with a real problem. We're not psychic, so we can't know who supports a policy or who objects unless they say something about it. Hundreds of editors contributed to the debate about ATT -- it wasn't a secret! -- and almost all (in fact, my recollection is all) were supportive of the merge, though people had different ideas about the details. But the merge of three untidy pages into one page was completely supported. We had exactly the same broad consensus that we had for BLP.
But there's the problem - such a fundamental change, one could attest, WASN'T known. I wasn't under a rock for the five months that this was discussed, and I had WP:V and WP:RS on my watchlist, yet I had no clue. How does that happen, exactly?
I can't say why you didn't know about it, Jeff. It was talked about in many different places; around 170 editors had edited it by the time it went live, and nearly 300 had posted on the talk page. Plus it was mentioned several times on V and NOR talk -- e.g. when editors would post with a complaint about the policies, someone would say check out the proposal at ATT which deals with this. It really *was* widely discussed.
But I have to ask you: you mentioned a "fundamental change." What exactly was the fundamental change?
We keep harkening back to BLP, which was really kind of rushed and kind of blindsided a lot of people.
No, it didn't. Quite the reverse.
I think editors to some extent have to be responsible for keeping themselves informed. We can post in all the right places, but we can't ensure people notice it, read it, remember it, fully understand what it means, and we can't be blamed if some don't. Hundreds of editors *did* know about it, and they don't have psychic powers. With the best will in the world, we can't expect volunteers to post over and over and over and over to make sure that every corner of the empire is covered and that every single editor has seen something.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
I can't say why you didn't know about it, Jeff. It was talked about in many different places; around 170 editors had edited it by the time it went live, and nearly 300 had posted on the talk page. Plus it was mentioned several times on V and NOR talk -- e.g. when editors would post with a complaint about the policies, someone would say check out the proposal at ATT which deals with this. It really *was* widely discussed.
Sure. I don't disagree. BUT people still didn't notice. If it's not easy for well-established Wikiaddicts to know about such a proposal, what's going to happen?
I'm in the process of trying to get [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]] into something worthwhile. Will it work? Damned if I know, but I'm trying. But I also know that I need to make sure I touch as many people as possible to get the consensus to make it what it will end up being. I'm not sure if that really happened w/ATT.
We keep harkening back to BLP, which was really kind of rushed and kind of blindsided a lot of people.
No, it didn't. Quite the reverse.
Really? You and I edit in amazingly different areas, so maybe that's why you think it's the reverse. My experience is quite different.
-Jeff
On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
I'm in the process of trying to get [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]] into something worthwhile. Will it work? Damned if I know, but I'm trying.
I am aware of Wikipedia:Article inclusion. Hope it gets somewhere.
But I also know that I need to make sure I touch as many people as possible to get the consensus to make it what it will end up being. I'm not sure if that really happened w/ATT.
These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR and RS, it was announced on the Village Pump...
The point that keeps being lost in this discussion is that WP:ATT is **not** a new policy or a new formulation of existing policy. WP:ATT is an effort to consolidate V and NOR into one easy-to-understand policy page, based on a need that has not been disputed.
-- Jossi
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:51:35 -0700, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR and RS, it was announced on the Village Pump...
Post-facto, yes. I had no idea it was subject to a promotion debate, or even /active/ any more, prior to the announcement on the admin noticeboard that it was now policy replacing NOR, V and RS.
And I have not been hiding under a rock either.
Guy (JzG)
On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Post-facto, yes. I had no idea it was subject to a promotion debate, or even /active/ any more, prior to the announcement on the admin noticeboard that it was now policy replacing NOR, V and RS.
And I have not been hiding under a rock either.
I am not disputing that *some* editors missed it (let's face it, these that missed it completely and that have declared that, are just a few). In any case, you missed it, Jimbo missed it, and others unnamed missed it.
The question remains: - "what to change so that this does not happen again"?
So far, the only proposal has been from Jimbo: (a) involve him at the last stage; (b) run a poll after he has a chance to exercise his leadership role.
I have no problem whatsoever with the former, but I am not sure about the latter.
-- Jossi
On 3/21/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I am not disputing that *some* editors missed it (let's face it,
these that missed it completely and that have declared that, are just a few). In any case, you missed it, Jimbo missed it ...
Just to point out that Jimbo was e-mailed about it in October.
Jossi,
We all appreciate that a great deal of work went into this. The problem is, despite all those efforts, people still didn't know. Jeff didn't know. I didn't know. I'm on wiki every day, and think of myself as fairly well informed. I get Signpost. I read VP as much as I possibly can. But I don't read every arb case that's published - why would I? Why would most of us, ESPECIALLY non-admins (like myself)?
I can't tell you how many times I see people site V and NOR in discussions, and not once in ANY of those that I saw did anyone mention this. That alone should tell you that there are well-informed editors that didn't know.
Also, your last paragraph ends with the words "that has not been disputed." Actually, your premise has been disputed. By Jimmy.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Jossi Fresco To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
I'm in the process of trying to get [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]] into something worthwhile. Will it work? Damned if I know, but I'm trying.
I am aware of Wikipedia:Article inclusion. Hope it gets somewhere.
But I also know that I need to make sure I touch as many people as possible to get the consensus to make it what it will end up being. I'm not sure if that really happened w/ATT.
These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR and RS, it was announced on the Village Pump...
The point that keeps being lost in this discussion is that WP:ATT is **not** a new policy or a new formulation of existing policy. WP:ATT is an effort to consolidate V and NOR into one easy-to-understand policy page, based on a need that has not been disputed.
-- Jossi
_______________________________________________ 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 3/21/07, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Jossi,
We all appreciate that a great deal of work went into this. The problem is, despite all those efforts, people still didn't know. Jeff didn't know. I didn't know. I'm on wiki every day, and think of myself as fairly well informed. I get Signpost. I read VP as much as I possibly can. But I don't read every arb case that's published - why would I? Why would most of us, ESPECIALLY non-admins (like myself)?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-02-19/News_an...
Verifiability + No Original Research = Attribution?
Work has been done to merge Verifiability and No Original Research into a single policy, Wikipedia:Attribution. Discussion is underway on Wikipedia talk:Attribution; the proposed move/merger has sparked significant discussion.
I can't tell you how many times I see people site V and NOR in discussions,
and not once in ANY of those that I saw did anyone mention this. That alone should tell you that there are well-informed editors that didn't know.
Also, your last paragraph ends with the words "that has not been disputed." Actually, your premise has been disputed. By Jimmy.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Jossi Fresco To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
I'm in the process of trying to get [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]] into something worthwhile. Will it work? Damned if I know, but I'm trying.
I am aware of Wikipedia:Article inclusion. Hope it gets somewhere.
But I also know that I need to make sure I touch as many people as possible to get the consensus to make it what it will end up being. I'm not sure if that really happened w/ATT.
These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR and RS, it was announced on the Village Pump...
The point that keeps being lost in this discussion is that WP:ATT is **not** a new policy or a new formulation of existing policy. WP:ATT is an effort to consolidate V and NOR into one easy-to-understand policy page, based on a need that has not been disputed.
-- Jossi
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
On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Guettarda wrote:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/ 2007-02-19/News_and_notes
Verifiability + No Original Research = Attribution?
Work has been done to merge Verifiability and No Original Research into a single policy, Wikipedia:Attribution. Discussion is underway on Wikipedia talk:Attribution; the proposed move/merger has sparked significant discussion.
That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not widely know".
Though I agree with Charles that we should move on from attempting to say that "it was done properly and ATT should stay without further discussion".
It does not matter now if it was done properly or not, does it?
-- Jossi
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:42 -0700, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not widely know".
I knew there was a discussion months ago, I had absolutely no idea - none at all - that it was still active, let alone about to replace the other policies. Where have I been all that time? In the usual places.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:42 -0700, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not widely know".
I knew there was a discussion months ago, I had absolutely no idea - none at all - that it was still active, let alone about to replace the other policies. Where have I been all that time? In the usual places.
This was my impression as well. I didn't mind it, but it did suprise me.
Likely lesson: Wikipedia has exceeded process critical mass. We now have more things going on more quickly than the existing static process can adequately track and keep people aware of.
In a business, this sort of discovery triggers a round of executive and management soul-searching, followed by a painful round of process consultants, executive retreats, the creation of new business process management groups, a couple of new VPs, etc etc.
On 3/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Likely lesson: Wikipedia has exceeded process critical mass. We now have more things going on more quickly than the existing static process can adequately track and keep people aware of.
In a business, this sort of discovery triggers a round of executive and management soul-searching, followed by a painful round of process consultants, executive retreats, the creation of new business process management groups, a couple of new VPs, etc etc.
While I seem to remember some quote about the dangers of bureaucratic mentality and its normative habit of forming committee's and instituting more process and bloat, I don't think it improper to deal with these issues in a more formal way.
Part of the problem is noise: the methods by which we communicate openly are cluttered with noise, be it trolling, newbiance, misconceptions, or just spam and bad email formatting.
A more comprehensive topic based threading system would seem to be useful, not just for meta discussion on the mailing lists, but on certain busy talk pages as well. This is a technical issue which Erik alluded to with his comments about OTRS (and Wikipedia as a primary source.) An ideal system would be organizable, flag-able and integrable between email and wiki formats: an integration of messages and documents.
The other problem is as many have said, scaling the structures of governance to fit the larger community. I'm of the opinion that certain community-style things could be done to accomplish this, but I'm likewise skeptical that such would just be more bureaucracy. We can of course try to visualise an expanded governance model: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Org_chart.jpg/300px-Org_chart....
-Stevertigo
On 3/22/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:42 -0700, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not widely know".
I knew there was a discussion months ago, I had absolutely no idea - none at all - that it was still active, let alone about to replace the other policies. Where have I been all that time? In the usual places.
This was my impression as well. I didn't mind it, but it did suprise me.
Likely lesson: Wikipedia has exceeded process critical mass. We now have more things going on more quickly than the existing static process can adequately track and keep people aware of.
In a business, this sort of discovery triggers a round of executive and management soul-searching, followed by a painful round of process consultants, executive retreats, the creation of new business process management groups, a couple of new VPs, etc etc.
FWIW, I didn't know anything about this at all till a few days before the merge was official (thanks to the mailing list). I didn't care, though, because as a member of the descriptivist school, I make policy by doing whatever floats my boat. :p
On a serious note, I think it's quite clear that our governance processes are not scaling. I think this actually became clear about a year ago, with the userbox scandal and whatnot. Consensus gets us deadlock; rule by decree of Jimbo/ArbCom/whatever gets us discontent; democracy gets us a tyranny of the majority. How then are we to govern ourselves?
The status quo of consensus can still work for a while, I think. But as this ATT issue has shown, consensus will eventually become more and more of a farce, as fewer and fewer people (relative to the total number of Wikipedians) are involved in policy-making. The anti-VfD/AfD gang, who I often don't agree with, have been pointing this out for years - on AfD "consensus" is basically the consensus of whoever bothered to show up.
AfD has somewhat resolved these problems by having an admin look over the discussion after it's taken place, and letting the admin have the final say. In other words, consensus has been redefined to mean "the generally unanimous agreement of whoever bothered to show up, unless an admin thinks the consensus patently contravenes policy".
I think this is what Jimbo is proposing - that he become, in effect, the admin who looks over the discussion and decides whether there is "consensus". Will this work? I hope it does, and it's certainly the only reasonable governance method I can think of - although it does not resolve the issue of the consensus being formed only by whoever bothered to show up.
I'm not fond of the voting idea. A non-binding straw poll is excellent in theory, but from experience, any straw poll's purpose ends up being misconstrued faster than you can say "voting is evil". A binding or pseudo-binding vote is even worse.
Johnleemk
Sure, but the analogy isn't perfect. Who will guard the guards themselves? Admins close AfDs based on a mixture of that local consensus and policy, sure, but then we have Deletion Review to check that out. Who will look over Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the shoulders of admins closing AfDs? If democracy gives us tyranny of the majority, godkingship gives us discontent, and consensus ain't working any more, Jimbo acting as final arbiter for policy just won't work: the English Wikipedia is too big to be run by one man in this manner.
To be honest, there's no real reason why the English Wikipedia should be Jimbo's personal fiefdom - which is what it is. The amount of control the community really has over that is minimal, which causes not only balls-ups - cf Essjay, if the community had been allowed to see that one sooner a lot of drama would have been avoided - and also community discontent - cf Credental Verification, which will doubtless be railroaded through regardless of consensus on the matter, or lack of it.
A lot of this is irrelevant to me whatever: I'll always keep on writing articles, because that's darn fun. On the whole, though, I think perhaps the Arbcom taking a more proactive role in determing consensus and how that works with policy is preferable. It isn't our wiki, but it should be, and that gives the community some more clout.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile. http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
On 22/03/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Sure, but the analogy isn't perfect. Who will guard the guards themselves? Admins close AfDs based on a mixture of that local consensus and policy, sure, but then we have Deletion Review to check that out. Who will look over Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the shoulders of admins closing AfDs? If democracy gives us tyranny of the majority, godkingship gives us discontent, and consensus ain't working any more, Jimbo acting as final arbiter for policy just won't work: the English Wikipedia is too big to be run by one man in this manner.
Big time. The mistake a lot of the troll-critics (Wikipedia Review, wikitruth) make is to assume that anything wrong with English Wikipedia is deliberate, rather than the emergent behaviour of a large volunteer organisation and entirely in line with that. i.e., it's human and bureaucratic stupidity rather than active or passive malice.
i.e. we're doing something that's hardly ever been done before (a huge wiki-based encyclopedia enterprise), which means we don't have a lot of experience from other people to apply to avoiding the standard fucked-upnesses typical of large volunteer organisations in our particular case. i.e., we're all winging it.
I think Jimbo was quite aware some time ago that micromanagement just isn't possible ... and that macro-management isn't really either.
To be honest, there's no real reason why the English Wikipedia should be Jimbo's personal fiefdom - which is what it is. The amount of control the community really has over that is minimal, which causes not only balls-ups - cf Essjay, if the community had been allowed to see that one sooner a lot of drama would have been avoided - and also community discontent - cf Credental Verification, which will doubtless be railroaded through regardless of consensus on the matter, or lack of it.
It has to be workable and has to gain general community support for people to bother.
BLP was strongly pushed by Jimbo and the Foundation, but it was (a) an obviously good idea whose time had come (b) we promptly scrambled to get something good and workable in place in remarkably quick order.
A lot of this is irrelevant to me whatever: I'll always keep on writing articles, because that's darn fun. On the whole, though, I think perhaps the Arbcom taking a more proactive role in determing consensus and how that works with policy is preferable. It isn't our wiki, but it should be, and that gives the community some more clout.
This is to a large extent how it happens now. c.f. Arbcom notes that they aren't taking action against an editor or admin in a particular case, but *do* expect a higher standard of behaviour in future.
- d.
On 22/03/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Who will look over Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the shoulders of admins closing AfDs?
Oh, and the answer to that question appears to be: Everyone!
- d.
Sure, people shout, but with limited effect, if any.
Moreschi
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:08:33 +0000
On 22/03/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Who will look over Jimbo's shoulder in the manner that Deletion Review looks over the
shoulders
of admins closing AfDs?
Oh, and the answer to that question appears to be: Everyone!
- 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
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.co.uk/
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and the answer to that question appears to be: Everyone!
Tried that doesn't seem to popular. No only do we now know that at least one member of the arbcom mailing kept quit about their concerns with regards to essjay but when everyone did review the decision people kept trying to shut it down and throwing around terms like "lynch mobs".
On 3/21/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:27:42 -0700, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
That is why this is so painful to witness these claims of "it was not widely know".
I knew there was a discussion months ago, I had absolutely no idea - none at all - that it was still active, let alone about to replace the other policies. Where have I been all that time? In the usual places.
This was my impression as well. I didn't mind it, but it did suprise me.
I missed out on it until just before it was about to 'go live' as well - and I'm on the freaking Arbcom. Had a quick read and liked the idea at least of not having contradictory policy pages, and it seems it was handled pretty well albeit conservatively.
Likely lesson: Wikipedia has exceeded process critical mass. We now have more things going on more quickly than the existing static process can adequately track and keep people aware of.
Wikipedia quite a long time ago exceeded the size where anyone reasonably active knew all the important details. It's finally got to the point that reasonably active people can miss big freaking huge details because they're not going on in their corner of the site.
In a business, this sort of discovery triggers a round of executive and management soul-searching, followed by a painful round of process consultants, executive retreats, the creation of new business process management groups, a couple of new VPs, etc etc.
Many of which don't actually help but give the executives and management something to do, but anyway ...
Personally, I largely trust the Wiki process, and believe that it's unlikely that anything that big will go through without a few sane people getting involved and sorting it out, even if I'm not one of them.
-Matt
On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
We all appreciate that a great deal of work went into this. The problem is, despite all those efforts, people still didn't know. Jeff didn't know. I didn't know. I'm on wiki every day, and think of myself as fairly well informed. I get Signpost. I read VP as much as I possibly can. But I don't read every arb case that's published - why would I? Why would most of us, ESPECIALLY non- admins (like myself)?
I can't tell you how many times I see people site V and NOR in discussions, and not once in ANY of those that I saw did anyone mention this. That alone should tell you that there are well- informed editors that didn't know.
Also, your last paragraph ends with the words "that has not been disputed." Actually, your premise has been disputed. By Jimmy.
Sure. We need to find a way so that people are informed so we don't find ourselves ever again in such quagmire. It is really painful.
At least, it is raising really good questions, such as Jimbo's role in policy formulation, use of polls (or not) to gauge consensus for changes to policy or development of new policies, etc.
In the future, we would be quite happy when look back to this day. I am certain we will say that this was all a "good thing" for the project.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
In the future, we would be quite happy when look back to this day. I am certain we will say that this was all a "good thing" for the project.
With a lot of recent issues, I've been questioning the maturity of the project. We're suffering some odd growing pains, and I think that this is one of the results of our inconsistencies and our immaturity as a project overall. To hear the guy who's responsible for keeping WP:IAR in business not only press for a better process for policymaking, but suggest a poll, is somewhat mindblowing to me.
I mean, maybe it's time to be honest with ourselves? Dare I say that "consensus" as we know it may not be the best route for a lot of these decisions? That perhaps "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" needs to be "Wikipedia sometimes has to be a bureaucracy, even if it wishes it didn't have to be?"
We have a hard enough time keeping up with reality as is - we're getting poor press in the webcomic community AGAIN because of the DRV about the comics book edited by Ted Rall today, we still can't bring ourselves to use the same sources ABC does, etc etc - is this a symptom of that?
I don't know. But it's something we might have to seriously look at and stop sweeping under the proverbial rug.
-Jeff
Jossi Fresco wrote:
These comments still puzzle me, Jeff. How can it be possible that you missed it? It was referred to in recent ArbCom cases (e.g. Free Republic); it was discussed *extensively* in the talk pages of V, NOR and RS, it was announced on the Village Pump...
I don't know how I missed it, and my misisng it is ultimately no one's responsibility but my own, I want to make that absolutely 100% clear.
HOWEVER, if you have a guy who makes 1000 edits a month and spends a good deal of time in policy space and is STILL unaware, what does that do for overall consensus?
-Jeff
On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
HOWEVER, if you have a guy who makes 1000 edits a month and spends a good deal of time in policy space and is STILL unaware, what does that do for overall consensus?
Have you checked WP:ATT?
What do you think of the work done there? Is it useful, or not? Does it advance the project or not? Does it make it easier for newbies to understand, or not?
Those are *better* questions than the one you asked.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
HOWEVER, if you have a guy who makes 1000 edits a month and spends a good deal of time in policy space and is STILL unaware, what does that do for overall consensus?
Have you checked WP:ATT?
Yeah, I finally found it in February.
What do you think of the work done there? Is it useful, or not? Does it advance the project or not? Does it make it easier for newbies to understand, or not?
I don't think it's an improvement or a step backward. My preferences are to keep them apart, but that's purely cosmetic, and that's no reason to oppose something anyway - when the concepts are broken and out of date, it doesn't matter how you present them if the insides are still the same.
Those are *better* questions than the one you asked.
Yeah, but those questions didn't matter by the time I saw ATT - the process was already said and done.
-Jeff
On 3/21/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
HOWEVER, if you have a guy who makes 1000 edits a month and spends a good deal of time in policy space and is STILL unaware, what does that do for overall consensus?
Have you checked WP:ATT?
Yeah, I finally found it in February.
What do you think of the work done there? Is it useful, or not? Does it advance the project or not? Does it make it easier for newbies to understand, or not?
I don't think it's an improvement or a step backward. My preferences are to keep them apart, but that's purely cosmetic, and that's no reason to oppose something anyway - when the concepts are broken and out of date, it doesn't matter how you present them if the insides are still the same.
Those are *better* questions than the one you asked.
Yeah, but those questions didn't matter by the time I saw ATT - the process was already said and done.
Not so. We posted to NOR and V that ATT would go live soon *so long as there were no major objections*. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research&a...
That was one day *after* you first posted to the ATT talk page. So you did know about it in plenty of time to object, and anyone with those pages on their watchlist would have seen those notices.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
Not so. We posted to NOR and V that ATT would go live soon *so long as there were no major objections*. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research&a...
That was one day *after* you first posted to the ATT talk page. So you did know about it in plenty of time to object, and anyone with those pages on their watchlist would have seen those notices.
I had the *opportunity* to know about it, yes. But I didn't, not that it mattered, because I had no major objection.
-Jeff
On 3/21/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Not so. We posted to NOR and V that ATT would go live soon *so long as there were no major objections*. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research&a...
That was one day *after* you first posted to the ATT talk page. So you did know about it in plenty of time to object, and anyone with those pages on their watchlist would have seen those notices.
I had the *opportunity* to know about it, yes. But I didn't, not that it mattered, because I had no major objection.
Okay, that was all I wanted to establish. Notices were posted in places that were on your watchlist, and you took part in a talk page discussion about it, saying you thought it was "excellent," *before* it went live. And yet now you say you didn't know about it.
Look, I'm not having a go at you, and I'm sorry you're the person I'm focusing on. But I find this whole thing both funny and sad. People *did* know about this, and people *did* support it. Months later, Jimbo sees that NOR and V have the word "superseded" on them, and he worries that it sounds too close to "deprecated," so he removes those tags and expresses his concern that two important pages about separate concepts seem to have disappeared in some sense, and he wants to know whether this was discussed widely enough. This is a perfectly respectable position to take. I wasn't particularly keen on the word "superseded" myself.
But because it's Jimbo, a bunch of people turn up wanting to agree with him, and then in fact go further than he went, saying they didn't know about it either, and if they had, they might have objected. Then we find out they *did* know about it, and didn't object at all.
I'm getting the impression that if Jimbo had turned up and said what a marvellous innovation it was and how he loved it, the pages of the authors would be full of barnstars today, possibly given by the same people who are now complaining. I'm not including you in that, Jeff, or Guy who posted earlier along the same lines, because I know you'd both be saying this regardless and I respect your opinion. But there are others who I know are just swinging with the wind, and it's really annoying. This was a good merge of two key policies, and it should be looked at on its merits, and not supported or derided based on who else is doing the same.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
Okay, that was all I wanted to establish. Notices were posted in places that were on your watchlist, and you took part in a talk page discussion about it, saying you thought it was "excellent," *before* it went live. And yet now you say you didn't know about it.
You seem to misunderstand me, then. This discussion was apparently ongoing for four months, and I found out that it was going to move forward the day after I first hear about it.
That's not me knowing about it. That's like saying I watched the baseball game because I checked the score in the 9th inning and saw it was 8-1.
Look, I'm not having a go at you, and I'm sorry you're the person I'm focusing on. But I find this whole thing both funny and sad. People *did* know about this, and people *did* support it. Months later, Jimbo sees that NOR and V have the word "superseded" on them, and he worries that it sounds too close to "deprecated," so he removes those tags and expresses his concern that two important pages about separate concepts seem to have disappeared in some sense, and he wants to know whether this was discussed widely enough. This is a perfectly respectable position to take. I wasn't particularly keen on the word "superseded" myself.
I don't mind being the target, or I'd duck out of this. I think his concern is valid - when we preach about the core concepts so often, and he feels as if these core concepts have been changed in a way that even he didn't notice, he sees a problem. That's valid - again, I had no clue about these changes until the changes were imminent, and JzG and mikkalai have both expressed similar concerns.
Some of this might be what Pilotguy (I think) said earlier - maybe Jimbo doesn't know what's going on very well anymore. I have a hard time arguing it, seeing recent activity, but it harkens to a greater issue as to whether, when we're talking about the main issues that govern the site, we're actually getting a *true* consensus of the active editors, or simply a self-selecting consensus of those that show up. A self-selecting sample may work well at, say, WP:MUSIC, because it's ultimately only going to affect those editors who work within music guidelines. But when well-established - and in the case of folks like JzG, well-respected - editors feel blindsided by a change to the core policy (even if the change is cosmetic), there's a problem with our consensus building techniques. Whether we got it right with ATT doesn't mean the road we took was proper.
But because it's Jimbo, a bunch of people turn up wanting to agree with him, and then in fact go further than he went, saying they didn't know about it either, and if they had, they might have objected. Then we find out they *did* know about it, and didn't object at all.
I'm getting the impression that if Jimbo had turned up and said what a marvellous innovation it was and how he loved it, the pages of the authors would be full of barnstars today, possibly given by the same people who are now complaining. I'm not including you in that, Jeff, or Guy who posted earlier along the same lines, because I know you'd both be saying this regardless and I respect your opinion. But there are others who I know are just swinging with the wind, and it's really annoying. This was a good merge of two key policies, and it should be looked at on its merits, and not supported or derided based on who else is doing the same.
Well, yes, it works both ways on this. The "Cult of Jimbo" as I affectionately call it is always fine, as long as you're part of it, hehe. I know you know where I'm coming from, and I understand your frustration here as well. But I think we're not taking this as an opportunity to improve things for later - if it's a good idea, it'll happen, and it'll take longer, and I'll even get involved. But that doesn't mean we can't have a significant discussion as to how to improve the visibility of these issues so people who spend more time thna they should on this project know that they're on top of what's going on.
-Jeff
On 3/21/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
I can't say why you didn't know about it, Jeff. It was talked about in many different places; around 170 editors had edited it by the time it went live, and nearly 300 had posted on the talk page. Plus it was mentioned several times on V and NOR talk -- e.g. when editors would post with a complaint about the policies, someone would say check out the proposal at ATT which deals with this. It really *was* widely discussed.
Sure. I don't disagree. BUT people still didn't notice. If it's not easy for well-established Wikiaddicts to know about such a proposal, what's going to happen?
You posted on the ATT talk page on February 16 just as it was going live. You said it "looks excellent" and that you were about to start the process of "breaking apart" RS, and you seemed to want to speed up (not slow down) the development of the ATT/FAQ page to replace RS.
I'm in the process of trying to get [[Wikipedia:Article inclusion]] into something worthwhile. Will it work? Damned if I know, but I'm trying. But I also know that I need to make sure I touch as many people as possible to get the consensus to make it what it will end up being. I'm not sure if that really happened w/ATT.
I can only keep repeating that it did. Look, I have nothing to do with the image policies. They're on my watchlist, but I almost never check things carefully. Does that mean I should now march up to the Fair Use policy and declare that it was developed without my explicit consent and knowledge, and that it's therefore arguably invalid, because no alerts were posted in advance of it being tightened and changed? That would clearly be absurd.
The bottom line is that editors tend to specialize in different areas, and if I want to keep track of changes in another area (fair use policy, say), I have to go there and be attentive. I can't ask to be spoonfed.
Sarah
We keep harkening back to BLP, which was really kind of rushed and kind of blindsided a lot of people.
No, it didn't. Quite the reverse.
Really? You and I edit in amazingly different areas, so maybe that's why you think it's the reverse. My experience is quite different.
-Jeff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Slim Virgin wrote:
Sure. I don't disagree. BUT people still didn't notice. If it's not easy for well-established Wikiaddicts to know about such a proposal, what's going to happen?
You posted on the ATT talk page on February 16 just as it was going live. You said it "looks excellent" and that you were about to start the process of "breaking apart" RS, and you seemed to want to speed up (not slow down) the development of the ATT/FAQ page to replace RS.
Indeed. The discussion had gone, what, 4 months by then? I don't see a problem with it personally, but I didn't get much input into it either.
-Jeff
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:05:05 -0400 (EDT), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
But there's the problem - such a fundamental change, one could attest, WASN'T known. I wasn't under a rock for the five months that this was discussed, and I had WP:V and WP:RS on my watchlist, yet I had no clue. How does that happen, exactly?
Precisely.
Guy (JzG)
I'm no Jimbo of any sort, but let's not kid ourselves about there being consensus on WP:ATT. I had several objections to it, many of which were answered very poorly. (I'm still scratching my head over people saying that false information will not in practice be attributable even in the face of examples where it was.)
And it definitely seemed as if the policy was rammed through. There were two phases. During the first phase, there was discussion about fixing inconsistencies between policy and practice. This got nowhere; there's too much resistance to any and all change. There was a second phase where the goal was to combine the policies without fixing anything, and attempts to get fixes made were answered with "we're just trying to combine the existing material". I'm sure a lot of people forgot about WP:ATT after it became clear the first phase was dying, and never even realized anyone started up a second phase.
I'm also not convinced that it means anything that WP:ATT was accepted as policy so soon. It takes a certain level of Wikipedia-bureaucracy sophistication to even realize that WP:ATT is not a done deal and rejecting it is not just spitting against the wind. Most Wikipedia editors would accept it as a policy merely because it looks like a policy and is presented as one; they'd *never* think "hey, they need a consensus and if enough people like me don't think it counts, then it won't count". And most Wikipedia editors probably wouldn't be in situations where the difference between WP:ATT and the previous policy matters, anyway.