Two issues have recently brought the questions of the arbcom mailing lists to light. 1) The rather vile thread on the RfArb talk - with its allegations that named individuals have leaked - allegations that by their nature can neither be substantiated or repudiated. 2) The 'Giano question' - a very legitimate question of whether if Giano were on arbcom he'd read posts about himself in the arbcom archives - and what he'd to with such information. To his credit, Giano's answers showed great integrity. But this raises the question: if there are posts about Giano in there, why shouldn't he be able to read them? And for that matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?
Strip away the personalities and the bad blood and deeper issues remain. 1) Secrecy breeds paranoia and distrust - and the antidote is always more transparency. 2) Whilst there's a legitimate debate as to whether too many people have access to the lists - we're missing a bigger question of access to the archives. Even if access is restricted to current arbs, that will mean that anything posted now can be read by dozens of people over the next few years - some of whom *will* be indiscreet. We here talk of archives used as "institutional memory" - but knowledge is also power. 3) In most bureaucracies today, individuals have the right to see any records pertaining to themselves. That right allows the correction of error - but also focuses the minds of those who would make personal comments about individuals in backrooms. Comments that may prejudice minds for years to come. 4) Arbcom certainly has a need to share "privileged" information - checkuser details and other privacy matters - and that flow of information needs to be restricted. Arbcom also has a need for internal deliberation without the background noise of open mailing lists, however, this type of discussion has no real need to be private.
I suggest the following:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an expectation of confidentiality.
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list for discussing cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive. This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years from now.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But it should only be used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight - to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely - perhaps 12-24 months only.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
Doc
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Fred
Two issues have recently brought the questions of the arbcom mailing lists to light. 1) The rather vile thread on the RfArb talk - with its allegations that named individuals have leaked - allegations that by their nature can neither be substantiated or repudiated. 2) The 'Giano question' - a very legitimate question of whether if Giano were on arbcom he'd read posts about himself in the arbcom archives - and what he'd to with such information. To his credit, Giano's answers showed great integrity. But this raises the question: if there are posts about Giano in there, why shouldn't he be able to read them? And for that matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?
Strip away the personalities and the bad blood and deeper issues remain.
- Secrecy breeds paranoia and distrust - and the antidote is always
more transparency. 2) Whilst there's a legitimate debate as to whether too many people have access to the lists - we're missing a bigger question of access to the archives. Even if access is restricted to current arbs, that will mean that anything posted now can be read by dozens of people over the next few years - some of whom *will* be indiscreet. We here talk of archives used as "institutional memory" - but knowledge is also power. 3) In most bureaucracies today, individuals have the right to see any records pertaining to themselves. That right allows the correction of error - but also focuses the minds of those who would make personal comments about individuals in backrooms. Comments that may prejudice minds for years to come. 4) Arbcom certainly has a need to share "privileged" information - checkuser details and other privacy matters - and that flow of information needs to be restricted. Arbcom also has a need for internal deliberation without the background noise of open mailing lists, however, this type of discussion has no real need to be private.
I suggest the following:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an expectation of confidentiality.
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list for discussing cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive. This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years from now.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But it should only be used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely - perhaps 12-24 months only.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
Doc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Fred
"We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems."
Yes, granted - but why secretly as the default?
"real or imagined problems" = real people
I still don't like it - talking about people behind their backs with no right of reply, or ability to correct gross inaccuracies, but I would be a lot happier if such talk was not archived.
Archives fall under the principle of "Freedom of Information"
Doc
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:26:04 -0500 (EST), "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Does it need to be archived at all?
Guy (JzG)
On 03/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:26:04 -0500 (EST), "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Does it need to be archived at all?
Not really IMO.
- d.
On Dec 3, 2007 1:00 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:26:04 -0500 (EST), "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Does it need to be archived at all?
Not really IMO.
Life is too short. If I ever get worried about bad things people are saying behind my back it'll mean two things: I've become somewhat paranoid, and I have too much spare time.
It's up to the arbitrators whether they keep or delete the archives, but I wouldn't be unhappy if they deleted them.
The ultimate safeguard is that the full record is preserved to be read eventually.
On 12/4/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 1:00 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:26:04 -0500 (EST), "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Does it need to be archived at all?
Not really IMO.
Life is too short. If I ever get worried about bad things people are saying behind my back it'll mean two things: I've become somewhat paranoid, and I have too much spare time.
It's up to the arbitrators whether they keep or delete the archives, but I wouldn't be unhappy if they deleted them.
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 03/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:26:04 -0500 (EST), "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Does it need to be archived at all?
It strikes me that the main need for an archive of a "conversational list" is as an aide-memoire to those who participated in the conversations, and the state of play with email these days is such that I can't see it being likely any of the participants can't keep copies themselves...
On Dec 3, 2007 7:57 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:26:04 -0500 (EST), "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Does it need to be archived at all?
Should be, for legal reasons. When you're dealing with publicly accusing people of wrongdoing and banning them from a website I think it'd be important to have details of any conversations leading to that decision. Whether or not anyone other than an agent of the foundation should have access to the archive is a separate question, though. (Whether or not anyone other than an agent of the foundation should be on the arb com in the first place is yet another).
On Dec 3, 2007 12:25 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 7:57 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:26:04 -0500 (EST), "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The archives of the arbcom-l mailing list are seldom consulted, so could probably be disposed of after a month or two. We need space where we can talk candidly about real or imagined problems. That's how we sort out the real from the imaginary.
Does it need to be archived at all?
Should be, for legal reasons. When you're dealing with publicly accusing people of wrongdoing and banning them from a website I think it'd be important to have details of any conversations leading to that decision. Whether or not anyone other than an agent of the foundation should have access to the archive is a separate question, though. (Whether or not anyone other than an agent of the foundation should be on the arb com in the first place is yet another).
Oh yeah, and whether or not the arb com should publicly announce negative "findings of fact" about living people is yet another.
On 12/3/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an expectation of confidentiality.
Purely by the by, personally I am willing to entertain the conceit that there may be fora or sites that speak of me in less than flattering tones, but which I will never have the opportunity address for purposes of clarification or rebuttal, not even merely due to their secrecy/privacy/obscurity, but solely by virtue (or otherwise) of them being sites that I would *choose* to not to frequent.
It is more than conceivable that in consequence I will suffer some false or at the least misleading characterisations of myself spreading and taking root in the mind of not merely the mischevious but of the gullible.
To me this is not unacceptable at all. YMMV, but nobody promised me a rose garden when I began to edit wikipedia, nor even at the stage when I began to get more deeply involved in the machinations of it. (I wasn't even promised a shrubbery.)
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list for discussing cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive. This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years from now.
I doubt there is much usefulness to be gained from such public lists that are not currently served by the on-wiki pages such as the /workshop subpage. If such were needed, just add a new protected page in the mix.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But it should only be used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely - perhaps 12-24 months only.
The argument has been made repeatedly, and I think correctly, that arbs (and for that matter all simians), need comfort zones where they need not watch every step they make, every gesture and word tossed out in the emotion of the moment. Cohesion is an innate feature of the way humans structure social groups, and that is greatly facilitated by trust which can only be engendered by "exposing" ones real true self to the group, without fear of being rejected for it, or paying a price for it.
There can be an argument made that the arbcom membership is now evolving to the stage where they are by virtue of their membership becoming public persona, and as such afforded less protection of their privacy. I reject the argument, but it can be made. The best guarantee of accountability, in my view, _at this stage_, is to make sure we *elect* people who we know wouldn't act disgracefully within chambers.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
There can be an argument made that the arbcom membership is now evolving to the stage where they are by virtue of their membership becoming public persona, and as such afforded less protection of their privacy. I reject the argument, but it can be made. The best guarantee of accountability, in my view, _at this stage_, is to make sure we *elect* people who we know wouldn't act disgracefully within chambers.
I think this argument is right. When the arbs were a tight group of Jimbo's handpicked mates then clued discussion would be fine. There would be an expectation that what was said behind closed doors would stay there. If I got slandered in there, tough - I've no right to edit wikipedia anyway and as you say YMMV.
However, that's simply naive crap today.
It's the worst secret on the wiki that arbcom are a disparate bunch of folk - some of whom personally can't stand each other. If we had a decent Featured Article for every time I've heard one arb badmouth another on IRC.... And I've had stuff leaked to me on several occasions.
Given that reality, this list will leak - it will not remain confidential. We need to stop pretending there's another possibility. The "let's just trust each other" stuff isn't going to upscale. The damage is that it will leak unevenly and unpredictably. Some of us will get to know, some will not. Half a story will be told. No, I'm not being cynical or anti-arbcom here - this is just the reality. The problem is the same with the admins' irc channel as well.
Given that, its fine for a secret discussion of some troll or serial stalker. It's fine for arbcom to discuss users that no-one likes, or has relationships with - cos that probably will not leak, and if it does, it is unlikely to leak in a damaging way. However, it is not fine for established users to be discussed in a way that will leak, but will have no transparency.
Wikipedia needs to realised its size and its influence - it's big and becoming bigger - who knows how big it will get. Given that, whilst eschewing form filling and pseudo-state like playacting, we need to think in terms of what is sustainable. The Old-boys network approach to arbcom isn't.
Doc
I would certainly support the archives being deleted every December, and I'm sure, given the fact that all of the existing Arbitrators will have copies of the previous messages, if there is anything that needs to be distributed around to the new members of the committee, this will not be difficult to arrange. It would perhaps be unwise for new arbitrators to involve themselves in matters arising from incidents prior to their appointment however.
Now, I certainly trust all the potential new members of the committee, but I don't like the fact we could see a situation where someone with a vendetta or two could sneak into the running and be appointed to the committee, with the sole intention of finding out what's in the archives and acting upon that, possibly together with any tools they might acquire through their presence on the committee. I'd prefer if such temptation to run was removed entirely, and that all new com members would tend to only be able to access e-mails after they're appointed. Clearly there's less of a problem with existing clerks and they could be entrusted with logs for relevant cases prior to their appointment as they may have contributed material to the case.
I'm probably looking for problems that don't exist though.
On 03/12/2007, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Two issues have recently brought the questions of the arbcom mailing lists to light. 1) The rather vile thread on the RfArb talk - with its allegations that named individuals have leaked - allegations that by their nature can neither be substantiated or repudiated. 2) The 'Giano question' - a very legitimate question of whether if Giano were on arbcom he'd read posts about himself in the arbcom archives - and what he'd to with such information. To his credit, Giano's answers showed great integrity. But this raises the question: if there are posts about Giano in there, why shouldn't he be able to read them? And for that matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?
Strip away the personalities and the bad blood and deeper issues remain.
- Secrecy breeds paranoia and distrust - and the antidote is always
more transparency. 2) Whilst there's a legitimate debate as to whether too many people have access to the lists - we're missing a bigger question of access to the archives. Even if access is restricted to current arbs, that will mean that anything posted now can be read by dozens of people over the next few years - some of whom *will* be indiscreet. We here talk of archives used as "institutional memory" - but knowledge is also power. 3) In most bureaucracies today, individuals have the right to see any records pertaining to themselves. That right allows the correction of error - but also focuses the minds of those who would make personal comments about individuals in backrooms. Comments that may prejudice minds for years to come. 4) Arbcom certainly has a need to share "privileged" information - checkuser details and other privacy matters - and that flow of information needs to be restricted. Arbcom also has a need for internal deliberation without the background noise of open mailing lists, however, this type of discussion has no real need to be private.
I suggest the following:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an expectation of confidentiality.
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list for discussing cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive. This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years from now.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But it should only be used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely - perhaps 12-24 months only.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
Doc
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 would certainly support the archives being deleted every December, and I'm sure, given the fact that all of the existing Arbitrators will have copies of the previous messages, if there is anything that needs to be distributed around to the new members of the committee, this will not be difficult to arrange. It would perhaps be unwise for new arbitrators to involve themselves in matters arising from incidents prior to their appointment however.
Now, I certainly trust all the potential new members of the committee, but I don't like the fact we could see a situation where someone with a vendetta or two could sneak into the running and be appointed to the committee, with the sole intention of finding out what's in the archives and acting upon that, possibly together with any tools they might acquire through their presence on the committee. I'd prefer if such temptation to run was removed entirely, and that all new com members would tend to only be able to access e-mails after they're appointed. Clearly there's less of a problem with existing clerks and they could be entrusted with logs for relevant cases prior to their appointment as they may have contributed material to the case.
I'm probably looking for problems that don't exist though.
Clerks have no access to the list. I don't know about others, but I certainly don't keep all posts to the list, and appreciate having a record that I don't have to personally keep. I certainly don't trust everyone who decides they might want to become an arbitrator, but Jimbo asks us for advice before he appoints. That we might err is possible, but combined with standing for election and the give and take of our work, there is a measure of integrity in the Arbitration Committee. That we disagree profoundly on certain points should not be taken as evidence of deep fissures. You can disagree with someone, even vote against them becoming an arbitrator, yet accept them.
Fred
Deletion of the list will not reduce accusations that the ArbCom members are leaking info since they will have the same basic access as they had before. List archives even for confidential lists are often very useful objects for when related situations come up and would be useful to Arbitrators. Furthermore, deletion of lists cannot be guaranteed since arbitrators could independently archive their copies. Finally, in the very long run there may be historic interest in these lists and it would be unwise to delete them.
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:00:27 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Deletion of the list will not reduce accusations that the ArbCom members are leaking info since they will have the same basic access as they had before. List archives even for confidential lists are often very useful objects for when related situations come up and would be useful to Arbitrators. Furthermore, deletion of lists cannot be guaranteed since arbitrators could independently archive their copies. Finally, in the very long run there may be historic interest in these lists and it would be unwise to delete them.
And *finally* finally, if people do not trust ArbCom they are welcome to find a project whose administrative structures they do trust.
I mean, in the end, it's a private project to build an encyclopaedia and not an experiment in democracy.
Guy (JzG)
On 03/12/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I mean, in the end, it's a private project to build an encyclopaedia and not an experiment in democracy.
But nor is it an experiment in the creation of a juridicial system...
On Dec 3, 2007 7:17 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:00:27 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Deletion of the list will not reduce accusations that the ArbCom members are leaking info since they will have the same basic access as they had before. List archives even for confidential lists are often very useful objects for when related situations come up and would be useful to Arbitrators. Furthermore, deletion of lists cannot be guaranteed since arbitrators could independently archive their copies. Finally, in the very long run there may be historic interest in these lists and it would be unwise to delete them.
And *finally* finally, if people do not trust ArbCom they are welcome to find a project whose administrative structures they do trust.
I mean, in the end, it's a private project to build an encyclopaedia and not an experiment in democracy.
It is not an experiment in democracy. Certes, that is correct in the absolute. There is nothing democratic about it, and never wil be, I am willing to bet.
The arbcom is not elected, even though some people mistakenly think it is. It is appointed. Just as the British Parliament serves at the pleasure of the monarch.
But do not *ever* make the mistake of saying "the people" this, or "the people" that about wikipedia in such a cavalier manner, if you value your credibility at all.
Though not a democracy, wikipedia is essentially an attempt to edit as a community. And though not directly answerable to the community, the arbcom is answerable to Jimbo, and Jimbo in turn derives his powers from the (wisely given) general consent of the community. Not up for a vote, not negotiable, but if that general consent did not exist, Jimbos powers would be quite meaningless, and as such his support for an arbcom equally invalid.
Individual displeasure at the arbcom is inconsequential and individuals may bark and the caravan will keep marching on. Individuals are certainly free to leave as they wish.
But when the time comes that it is a serious comment rather than a grievous misstatement to talk of "the people" of this project, in those terms... No, I won't go there.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Dec 3, 2007 12:17 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
And *finally* finally, if people do not trust ArbCom they are welcome to find a project whose administrative structures they do trust.
Or better yet, petition the foundation board to step in and revamp the arb com system.
I mean, in the end, it's a private project to build an encyclopaedia and not an experiment in democracy.
It's a *public* project to build an encyclopedia, not a private one.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:45:18 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I mean, in the end, it's a private project to build an encyclopaedia and not an experiment in democracy.
It's a *public* project to build an encyclopedia, not a private one.
Really?
This may be a difference in how one defines public vs. private. My definition of a public project includes some enforceable right to participate.
Guy (JzG)
On Dec 3, 2007 5:26 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
And *finally* finally, if people do not trust ArbCom they are welcome to find a project whose administrative structures they do trust.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:45:18 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I mean, in the end, it's a private project to build an encyclopaedia and not an experiment in democracy.
It's a *public* project to build an encyclopedia, not a private one.
Really?
This may be a difference in how one defines public vs. private. My definition of a public project includes some enforceable right to participate.
I was going on the fact that it's a public charity. Different definitions, I guess.
I guess it's not legally enforceable, but Jimmy Wales had this to say about the right to participate, and he doesn't seem to have retracted it yet (I'm sure he gets pointed to it from time to time):
<blockquote>Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
For example: rather than trust humans to correctly identify "regulars", we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time. The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community.</blockquote>
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of...
Seems very apropos, actually.
On 03/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Deletion of the list will not reduce accusations that the ArbCom members are leaking info since they will have the same basic access as they had before.
Well, no. They will have the same access *to current material*; they won't have access to material from two years ago.
List archives even for confidential lists are often very useful objects for when related situations come up and would be useful to Arbitrators.
According to David upthread, the archives (beyond the "recent past") of arbcom-l are very rarely used in practice.
Furthermore, deletion of lists cannot be guaranteed since arbitrators could independently archive their copies.
...which is fine, it's sensible, and no-one is saying that shouldn't happen. But the difference is that the only people who have access to these are the people who'd been involved in the discussions; access isn't handed out to people who come along years later.
IMO, we can only make all inter-arbitrator messages public if we make all that we do have to do with public information. In other words, remove the other functions; we would only handle cases presented on-Wiki, with no private information permitted.
We cannot legitimately turn the current arbcom system into a wholly public and transparent one without radically changing the scope of what we do, IMO.
I suspect that if the arbcom became a wholly transparent and public body/process, we would soon find the need to have a confidential body as well, unless we made a radical decision to have ALL processes on Wikipedia public.
I know that there are some who'd advocate such radical openness. No secret arbcom deliberations. No OTRS. No privacy policy? It would seem to follow. Checkuser data open to all to view?
It really depends on how important you see openness as being to the process.
IMO, I think openness is a useful but secondary value; historically, we've considered that principles such as "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia is not an experiment in online democracy" as suggesting that if the interests of the end product are best served by having some private processes, we have them.
Of course, this post is a somewhat extremist view; of course, it would be possible to open arbcom proceedings up a little without going to those extremes. However, anything short of forbidding any kind of closed deliberation or discussion among the arbcom members cannot even hope to satisfy those who frankly don't trust authority and structure; and even then, I suspect, the paranoid would suspect clandestine communication.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
IMO, we can only make all inter-arbitrator messages public ... We cannot legitimately turn the current arbcom system into a wholly public and transparent one ... I suspect that if the arbcom became a wholly transparent and public body.... I know that there are some who'd advocate such radical openness. No secret arbcom deliberations. No OTRS. No privacy policy? It would seem to follow. Checkuser data open to all to view?
I'm sure there are, but no-one here has suggested this. This smacks of 'strawman'.
if the interests of the end product are best served by having some private processes, we have them.
Exactly, no one would say otherwise. My question is simply does the current *level* of non-public process best serve the product. That's question that we surely never stop asking.
it would be possible to open arbcom proceedings up a little without going to those extremes.
Indeed, that's my point.
However, anything short of forbidding any kind of closed deliberation or discussion among the arbcom members cannot even hope to satisfy those who frankly don't trust authority and structure; and even then, I suspect, the paranoid would suspect clandestine communication.
So, ignore such paranoid idiots. However, it is again a strawman.
I do trust arbcom, I don't always agree with them - but that life.
However, this type of bunker mentality and endemic culture of secrecy really isn't going to help. There should always be an openness to people like me asking from the outside: could we do this better?
I accept that there's going to be a lot of arbcom stuff that needs private communication - and none of that should be impeded. But the principle ought to be "secret only when necessary".
The fact is right now that almost all arbcom deliberation is behind closed doors - and is simply not open to the parties or, indeed, to interfacing with concurrent community discussions.
A few arbs seem to comment on workshops etc - and all credit to them - but where are the rest? (Granted some of these are such trolling shitstorms that any sane person would avoid them.) I've only occasionally seen arbs comment in the arbs 'discussion sections' of the proposed decisions case - and I'm talking about cases where all
Now, if that's because arbs are listening to the discussion and have nothing much further to say - fine. But I strongly suspect that the mailing list is hot with "what do we do about user x,y or g" in cases where the community is having the same discussion and there is no confidential information at stake. (If I'm wrong about this, I appologise and I'll go home with my tail between my legs.)
But, I'm not even suggesting that *all* such discussion needs to be open - I'm just suggesting the "secret is the default" attitude is the wrong way round. It is true that sometimes it is beneficial for a jury to retire to consider its verdict, and as someone pointed out to me "jury transcripts are not published". However, that person forgot to say that juries don't make transcripts in the first place and they certainly don't have archives of discussions available for the next jury to refer to.
In the end, the legal parallels are not helpful. We should just say:
Wiki-communities are open communities. Arbcom does indeed have much business that by necessity can't be. However, whenever it *can* be open, it should be open.
Doc
On Dec 3, 2007 2:39 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
However, this type of bunker mentality and endemic culture of secrecy really isn't going to help. There should always be an openness to people like me asking from the outside: could we do this better?
I accept that there's going to be a lot of arbcom stuff that needs private communication - and none of that should be impeded. But the principle ought to be "secret only when necessary".
The fact is right now that almost all arbcom deliberation is behind closed doors - and is simply not open to the parties or, indeed, to interfacing with concurrent community discussions.
A few arbs seem to comment on workshops etc - and all credit to them - but where are the rest? (Granted some of these are such trolling shitstorms that any sane person would avoid them.) I've only occasionally seen arbs comment in the arbs 'discussion sections' of the proposed decisions case - and I'm talking about cases where all
Now, if that's because arbs are listening to the discussion and have nothing much further to say - fine. But I strongly suspect that the mailing list is hot with "what do we do about user x,y or g" in cases where the community is having the same discussion and there is no confidential information at stake. (If I'm wrong about this, I appologise and I'll go home with my tail between my legs.)
In terms of volume, deiberations regarding open cases are actually a fairly small portion of the mailing list traffic. A much larger portion of the discussion concerns incoming mail from outside the Committee (appeals, complaints, questions, and so forth) that, while not necessarily covered by the privacy policy, is nevertheless confidential -- not only because of *our* comments, but because of the contents of the original mail itself. Making this public would greatly limit the extent to which users are willing to be forthright with us.
Aside from this, discussion among the Committee tends to be very, *very* frank, mostly due to the fact that it occurs in a closed circle of highly trusted users. If this discussion were to take place publicly, much of that frankness would doubtless evaporate, to the detriment of our ability to come up with workable solutions. (And, of course, Bismarck's dictum regarding laws and sausages applies here as well.)
Kirill