On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. *That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't written down anywhere.
I think that's generally how policy develops. But I think this policy is fundamentally different, because it makes itself nearly invisible. How can the rest of us fairly judge or properly adopt an unwritten policy that we can't see the effects of?
Thanks,
William
Wow, being an admin is even more of a big deal than I thought. For some lame reason I though ordinary peons, er editors, had some say in policy. I stand corrected. (Not really, I didn't think editors had any say in policy unless and until they became admins, but it's nice to have it so obviously pointed out now and then when anyone who says that being an admin is a big deal just gets slammed.)
KP
On 5/31/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, being an admin is even more of a big deal than I thought. For some lame reason I though ordinary peons, er editors, had some say in policy. I stand corrected. (Not really, I didn't think editors had any say in policy unless and until they became admins, but it's nice to have it so obviously pointed out now and then when anyone who says that being an admin is a big deal just gets slammed.)
This needs a {{spoiler}} warning. ;-)
—C.W.
On 6/1/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. *That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't written down anywhere.
Not even all admins agree. That's a very small group to base a concensus around.
On 01/06/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Not even all admins agree. That's a very small group to base a concensus around.
Yep. The thing that makes people scoff at the idea of an admin cabal is that you can't get any two of them to agree the sky is blue without looking out the window, then they'll argue about the shade of grey.
But if all or lots of the admins agree something is a good or bad idea, it just might be.
- d.
Yep. The thing that makes people scoff at the idea of an admin cabal is that you can't get any two of them to agree the sky is blue without looking out the window, then they'll argue about the shade of grey.
Gasp! Looking out the window? Talk about original research!!!
On 5/31/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, being an admin is even more of a big deal than I thought. For some lame reason I though ordinary peons, er editors, had some say in policy. I stand corrected. (Not really, I didn't think editors had any say in policy unless and until they became admins, but it's nice to have it so obviously pointed out now and then when anyone who says that being an admin is a big deal just gets slammed.)
KP
I can think of a lot of useful practices and policies that started in just this fashion. Take the creation and quick spread of templates like {{anonblock}} and {{schoolblock}}, or the general extension of blocks on persistent problem schools, to save our counter-vandalism resources. Take the trouble of sorting out which cases should be handled by the admin noticeboards, and which by Arbcom. Take the practice of courtesy blanking pages to avoid nasty phone calls from laywers representing clients offended at what we said at some AfD page. Take the handling of hundreds of particularly complicated OTRS tickets by dedicated volunteers. Take the gradual switch over to more standardized user warning templates.
Many things we now consider common, both in general practice and in policy, originated with one person making what seemed to be a common sense call. Often enough, this person is an admin, but that need not be the case -- there are many issues which can be resolved without the use of admin priviledges, and for those that do need an admin to carry out the final action (protection, blocking, deletion), unreasonable responses can and should be discussed by the community. When we find a situation where people can't agree, we should strive for compromise while working towards the best encyclopedia we can.
As a project, we're told to *be bold* as we work. It's true that a good number of issues need discussion, sometimes an awful lot of it. But we should never mistake that for the belief that *all* actions require prior discussion. That philosophy doesn't scale well, on a site with thousands of active users, all actively working, collaborating, and making decisions. Rather than paralyzing ourselves with excessive bureaucracy, it seems better to direct those efforts to the areas where the payoff is best -- where we have or expect disagreements of substance which can reasonably be resolved or addressed.
General practice can shift, over time, based on hundreds or thousands of actions by our thousands of users. "General practice," of course, would seem to refer to the most common response to a given situation. If policy doesn't describe the general practice, what *does* it describe?
Not picking out anybody in particular, much less trying to put words in anyone's mouth, here. I'm not even especially involved in this particular discussion. But this came to mind, and seemed worth saying, so there you are.
Thanks for reading, -Luna
On 01/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. *That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't written down anywhere.
I think that's generally how policy develops. But I think this policy is fundamentally different, because it makes itself nearly invisible. How can the rest of us fairly judge or properly adopt an unwritten policy that we can't see the effects of?
Thanks,
William
Wow, being an admin is even more of a big deal than I thought. For some lame reason I though ordinary peons, er editors, had some say in policy. I stand corrected. (Not really, I didn't think editors had any say in policy unless and until they became admins, but it's nice to have it so obviously pointed out now and then when anyone who says that being an admin is a big deal just gets slammed.)
Well, policy develops by respected editors doing things. "Respected editors" is often equated to "admins" for convenience, although pretty much every knows that is an over generalisation. Whenever you see "admin" mentioned in respect to something which doesn't actually require admin tools, it's probably best to read it as an abbreviation of "admin or other respected editor". Or, you could think of it as an abbrev. of "admin or editor that could become an admin if they wanted to" - in theory (and in the vast majority of cases, in practice) any respected editor will pass RfA (of course, some editors that probably deserve respect aren't respected, but that's another problem entirely).
On 6/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but
just
removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy. *That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't written down anywhere.
I think that's generally how policy develops. But I think this policy
is
fundamentally different, because it makes itself nearly invisible. How can the rest of us fairly judge or properly adopt an unwritten policy that we can't see the effects of?
Thanks,
William
Wow, being an admin is even more of a big deal than I thought. For some lame reason I though ordinary peons, er editors, had some say in
policy. I
stand corrected. (Not really, I didn't think editors had any say in
policy
unless and until they became admins, but it's nice to have it so
obviously
pointed out now and then when anyone who says that being an admin is a
big
deal just gets slammed.)
Well, policy develops by respected editors doing things. "Respected editors" is often equated to "admins" for convenience, although pretty much every knows that is an over generalisation. Whenever you see "admin" mentioned in respect to something which doesn't actually require admin tools, it's probably best to read it as an abbreviation of "admin or other respected editor". Or, you could think of it as an abbrev. of "admin or editor that could become an admin if they wanted to" - in theory (and in the vast majority of cases, in practice) any respected editor will pass RfA (of course, some editors that probably deserve respect aren't respected, but that's another problem entirely).
On the other hand, you're either a highly wanted editor (vandal) or an admin, it seems. Just one more way the general editor at Wikipedia is not respected.
KP
Of course, the question is "respected by whom"? And is that respect actually worth anything? I'm seeing a lot of RfC and AN/I cases where people weigh in with comments along the lines of "X is a highly respected editor", implying "and therefore can do no wrong." Meanwhile, on the "attack sites" issue we seem to have two (for lack of a better word) camps whose members don't necessarily have a lot of respect for each other (or maybe they do, but it isn't figuring in the argument), but within each camp there is a lot of respect among the members.
On 6/1/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the question is "respected by whom"? And is that respect actually worth anything? I'm seeing a lot of RfC and AN/I cases where people weigh in with comments along the lines of "X is a highly respected editor", implying "and therefore can do no wrong." Meanwhile, on the "attack sites" issue we seem to have two (for lack of a better word) camps whose members don't necessarily have a lot of respect for each other (or maybe they do, but it isn't figuring in the argument), but within each camp there is a lot of respect among the members.
Yeah, the respect isn't really worth much--but, since there is none. Still, I got a note a while ago from a scientist who had read my edits on an article and thanked me for making such a, something like responsible contribution to understanding the subject. People do notice, and it is good for the ego. I took an art class on a new technique a while ago and got a lot of praise from the instructor for the originality of my work (original, unique and the like is pretty high praise from other artists). Although I am an artist, not a student, and I know my work is unique, it was still good for my ego. Respect wouldn't hurt, like acknowledging that established editors are every bit as valuable to the project as penis writing vandals.
The attack sites issue is a difficult one, because until you've been stalked you can't really imagine what it is like, and once you've been stalked you can't really communicate from a rational perspective on the topic. I was stalked, not on the web, in real life, by an obsessed, well, fan--for lack of a better word. It was offensive, to say the least, that someone I didn't know and couldn't give a shit about, had such a pathetic life that they felt it gave them a right to do anything to make me part of their life. It consumed eons of my time. It interfered with my family, my work, everything. And, ultimately, the most offensive thing about it was IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME! It is fairly enraging to be the victim of something that isn't even about you.
I don't know how to get those who have never been stalked and those who have been stalked to understand each other, and communicate about how to protect the latter from continuing to be victimized by their stalkers. For one thing, most people who have been stalked, imo, have the right to all the outrage they feel, and, especially if it is recent or ongoing, I have no intention of ever expecting better of them in their response to anything that could possibly give the perpetrators a platform. And this is what these attack sites amount to, just another means of allowing the criminal to gain access to their victim, when, again, it has nothing to do with the victim.
So, when the discussion comes to linking to attack sites you may have one person saying, "Well there may be some instances when an attack site is notable," in response to another person saying, "Stop giving my attacker more platforms from which to machine gun me." The second person is meanwhile ducking for cover, while the first may be trying to reasonably discuss the issue. I don't think it's going to amount for any flowthrough of respect.
My brother suggested I get a t-shirt that says, "Stalked--been there, done that, find someone else."
KP