http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_05_a_bakeoff.html
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of what we call "the community". If I could graph Gladwell's thesis and borrow some economic jargon, I'd say that there is some point on the curve where the marginal value of the cumulative benefits and disadvantages of expertise and friction is equal to zero. (Okay, I was trying to phrase this in a more simple way, but clearly I failed.)
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our community is too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of our expertise?
I'm just throwing this out for discussion, but I think this hypothesis may prove to be true in some areas - namely those frequently discussed on this list. But in less high-activity areas, such as quiet (i.e. not [[George W. Bush]]) articles, then we have a sufficiently small group of editors who have space to think and bring their individual ability to bear.
Johnleemk
It is solved the way all large organizations solve things, by compartmentalization. The WP compartments, most of them, work very well.
On 10/8/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_05_a_bakeoff.html
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of what we call "the community". If I could graph Gladwell's thesis and borrow some economic jargon, I'd say that there is some point on the curve where the marginal value of the cumulative benefits and disadvantages of expertise and friction is equal to zero. (Okay, I was trying to phrase this in a more simple way, but clearly I failed.)
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our community is too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of our expertise?
I'm just throwing this out for discussion, but I think this hypothesis may prove to be true in some areas - namely those frequently discussed on this list. But in less high-activity areas, such as quiet (i.e. not [[George W. Bush]]) articles, then we have a sufficiently small group of editors who have space to think and bring their individual ability to bear.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is solved the way all large organizations solve things, by compartmentalization. The WP compartments, most of them, work very well.
On 10/8/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_05_a_bakeoff.html
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of what we call "the community". If I could graph Gladwell's thesis and borrow some economic jargon, I'd say that there is some point on the curve where the marginal value of the cumulative benefits and disadvantages of expertise and friction is equal to zero. (Okay, I was trying to phrase this in a more simple way, but clearly I failed.)
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our community is too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of our expertise?
I'm just throwing this out for discussion, but I think this hypothesis may prove to be true in some areas - namely those frequently discussed on this list. But in less high-activity areas, such as quiet (i.e. not [[George W. Bush]]) articles, then we have a sufficiently small group of editors who have space to think and bring their individual ability to bear.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
The downside of compartmentalization (which is clearly what happens in WP) is that you have a tendency to lose a single set of consistent core values across the whole project.
That's fine in some things... it doesn't hurt anything I am working on or interested in reading that there are people who focus on cataloging episodes of the Simpsons in WP articles... and less fine in others, where things like BLP policy, NPA, WP:V and RS fall down in some corners.
I'd add that we lost core values to be shared among many fiction enthusiasts. From the spoiler warnings to excessive fair use we let them drift away from the mission to the point pulling them back into the fold was very nearly bloody.
On 10/8/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is solved the way all large organizations solve things, by compartmentalization. The WP compartments, most of them, work very well.
On 10/8/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_05_a_bakeoff.html
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of
what
we call "the community". If I could graph Gladwell's thesis and borrow
some
economic jargon, I'd say that there is some point on the curve where the marginal value of the cumulative benefits and disadvantages of expertise
and
friction is equal to zero. (Okay, I was trying to phrase this in a more simple way, but clearly I failed.)
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our
community is
too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of our expertise?
I'm just throwing this out for discussion, but I think this hypothesis
may
prove to be true in some areas - namely those frequently discussed on
this
list. But in less high-activity areas, such as quiet (i.e. not [[George
W.
Bush]]) articles, then we have a sufficiently small group of editors who have space to think and bring their individual ability to bear.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
The downside of compartmentalization (which is clearly what happens in WP) is that you have a tendency to lose a single set of consistent core values across the whole project.
That's fine in some things... it doesn't hurt anything I am working on or interested in reading that there are people who focus on cataloging episodes of the Simpsons in WP articles... and less fine in others, where things like BLP policy, NPA, WP:V and RS fall down in some corners.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Er, somehow lost the second half of that. To continue: we need to examine ways to recover drifting subgroups and bring them back into the fold more effectively then we have. I don't mean compromising our core values, but absorbing the splinter groups with enough outreach to reassert our values.
On 10/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I'd add that we lost core values to be shared among many fiction enthusiasts. From the spoiler warnings to excessive fair use we let them drift away from the mission to the point pulling them back into the fold was very nearly bloody.
On 10/8/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is solved the way all large organizations solve things, by compartmentalization. The WP compartments, most of them, work very well.
On 10/8/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_05_a_bakeoff.html
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of
what
we call "the community". If I could graph Gladwell's thesis and borrow
some
economic jargon, I'd say that there is some point on the curve where
the
marginal value of the cumulative benefits and disadvantages of
expertise
and
friction is equal to zero. (Okay, I was trying to phrase this in a
more
simple way, but clearly I failed.)
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our
community is
too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of
our
expertise?
I'm just throwing this out for discussion, but I think this hypothesis
may
prove to be true in some areas - namely those frequently discussed on
this
list. But in less high-activity areas, such as quiet (i.e. not
[[George
W.
Bush]]) articles, then we have a sufficiently small group of editors
who
have space to think and bring their individual ability to bear.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
The downside of compartmentalization (which is clearly what happens in WP) is that you have a tendency to lose a single set of consistent core values across the whole project.
That's fine in some things... it doesn't hurt anything I am working on or interested in reading that there are people who focus on cataloging episodes of the Simpsons in WP articles... and less fine in others, where things like BLP policy, NPA, WP:V and RS fall down in some corners.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock
on 10/9/07 8:34 AM, Brock Weller at brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
we need to examine ways to recover drifting subgroups and bring them back into the fold more effectively then we have. I don't mean compromising our core values, but absorbing the splinter groups with enough outreach to reassert our values.
Brock,
If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea.
Marc
On 10/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I'd add that we lost core values to be shared among many fiction enthusiasts. From the spoiler warnings to excessive fair use we let them drift away from the mission to the point pulling them back into the fold was very nearly bloody.
On 10/8/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
It is solved the way all large organizations solve things, by compartmentalization. The WP compartments, most of them, work very well.
On 10/8/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_05_a_bakeoff.html
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of
what
we call "the community". If I could graph Gladwell's thesis and borrow
some
economic jargon, I'd say that there is some point on the curve where
the
marginal value of the cumulative benefits and disadvantages of
expertise
and
friction is equal to zero. (Okay, I was trying to phrase this in a
more
simple way, but clearly I failed.)
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our
community is
too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of
our
expertise?
I'm just throwing this out for discussion, but I think this hypothesis
may
prove to be true in some areas - namely those frequently discussed on
this
list. But in less high-activity areas, such as quiet (i.e. not
[[George
W.
Bush]]) articles, then we have a sufficiently small group of editors
who
have space to think and bring their individual ability to bear.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
The downside of compartmentalization (which is clearly what happens in WP) is that you have a tendency to lose a single set of consistent core values across the whole project.
That's fine in some things... it doesn't hurt anything I am working on or interested in reading that there are people who focus on cataloging episodes of the Simpsons in WP articles... and less fine in others, where things like BLP policy, NPA, WP:V and RS fall down in some corners.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Brock
On 10/9/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/9/07 8:34 AM, Brock Weller at brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
we need to examine ways to recover drifting subgroups and bring them back into the fold more effectively then we have. I don't mean compromising our core values, but absorbing the splinter groups with enough outreach to reassert our values.
Brock,
If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea.
That sounds like a bit of an oversimplification. Much of the appeal of these subgroups lies in an identity that is separate from that of being a Wikipedia editor. The groups tend to want special treatment; we don't have one cabal, we have several cliques all trying to assert their identities and push their own agendas, and different cliques win at different times. (Credit Dan Tobias for coming up with this reasonable explanation for the apparent behaviour of Wikipedian communities.)
Now, it would be great if we could all agree that we are unique individuals and that our primary focus should be our shared core values as editors of a free encyclopaedia. Trouble is, I don't think that's really possible; it may be to some extent, but even in nations with strong identities, there are strong subgroups (the US has states, political parties, religions, God knows what - and the same thing exists in my own country as well). If a nation can't figure this out, I highly doubt that a mishmashed community on the internet will be able to.
Johnleemk
on 10/8/07 10:52 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of what we call "the community".
To study this properly we need to more closely define "the community" as it relates to the Wikipedia Project.
<snip>
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our community is too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of our expertise?
In this case size does not matter when considering the negative friction. What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor. You can have a group of a thousand persons, and, if each of these persons has the positive interpersonal skills to communicate with another, much can be accomplished. On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster.
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/8/07 10:52 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Gladwell's thesis is that although open source projects, which we can probably loosely define to include ourselves, bring together great expertise, but also create significant friction between the members of what we call "the community".
To study this properly we need to more closely define "the community" as it relates to the Wikipedia Project.
The community encompasses a bunch of smaller sub-communities, and the dynamics there need to be reviewed as well...
<snip>
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our community is too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of our expertise?
In this case size does not matter when considering the negative friction. What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor. You can have a group of a thousand persons, and, if each of these persons has the positive interpersonal skills to communicate with another, much can be accomplished. On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster.
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
It's not just with individual members - there are issues (such as fair use, and inclusionism vs deletionism) which have highly socially functional, play-well-with-groups "core wikipedians" at each others' metaphorical throats at regular intervals.
Legitimate major disagreements about what we're here for are a big deal.
That said, those disagreements tend to be argued in a respectful manner for the most part. The serious disruption seems to be individuals who are at least at times interpersonally abrasive or abusive.
The problem is "at times", or contextual abrasive/abusiveness... many of these people are also excellent core 0.1% contributors most of the time, or in most contexts. But have a hot button, or situationally can be pushed into the alternate behavior.
Those who are not also good project participants in terms of contributions and so forth tend to get community-blocked or banned off stage left fast enough to not be a major ongoing problem, though a few ongoing widespread abuse cases are exceptions.
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
In this case size does not matter when considering the negative friction. What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor. You can have a group of a thousand persons, and, if each of these persons has the positive interpersonal skills to communicate with another, much can be accomplished. On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster.
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
on 10/8/07 10:04 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not just with individual members
Yes it is, George. I stand with my original assessment.
there are issues (such as fair use, and inclusionism vs deletionism) which have highly socially functional, play-well-with-groups "core wikipedians" at each others' metaphorical throats at regular intervals.
These issues may very well be, but this type of thinking right now serves to diffuse and deflect from the main problem: the individual.
Legitimate major disagreements about what we're here for are a big deal.
A legitimate, and crucial topic - for a different conversation.
That said, those disagreements tend to be argued in a respectful manner for the most part.
I couldn't disagree with you more, George.
The serious disruption seems to be individuals who are at least at times interpersonally abrasive or abusive.
That is my point.
The problem is "at times", or contextual abrasive/abusiveness... many of these people are also excellent core 0.1% contributors most of the time, or in most contexts. But have a hot button, or situationally can be pushed into the alternate behavior.
This situational behavior is what must be confronted and improved.
Collaboration takes real skill. As the project becomes more complex, this collaboration is going to become more complex. Likewise, as the Project matures - so must its participants.
I stand with my original assessment.
Marc
On 09/10/2007, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
In this case size does not matter when considering the negative friction. What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor. You can have a group of a thousand persons, and, if each of these persons has the positive interpersonal skills to communicate with another, much can be accomplished. On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster. The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Oh yeah. The fundamental problem of the Wikipedia method is that massive collaboration is *hard*.
- d.
On 10/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yeah. The fundamental problem of the Wikipedia method is that massive collaboration is *hard*.
"Massive" collaboration generally only occurs in project space. In the course of editing an article or suite of related articles you'll probably collaborate with a few dozen people at the most, and usually a lot fewer.
—C.W.
On 10/9/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Oh yeah. The fundamental problem of the Wikipedia method is that massive collaboration is *hard*.
"Massive" collaboration generally only occurs in project space. In the course of editing an article or suite of related articles you'll probably collaborate with a few dozen people at the most, and usually a lot fewer.
That's relevant for probably the 10th percentile editors and very focused people in the 1 percentile editors; the 0.1 percentile editors with roughly 40% of total contributions are almost necessarily playing with their fingers in dozens of pies simultaneously.
On 10/9/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
That's relevant for probably the 10th percentile editors and very focused people in the 1 percentile editors; the 0.1 percentile editors with roughly 40% of total contributions are almost necessarily playing with their fingers in dozens of pies simultaneously.
True, but to twist your metaphor it's not likely that more than a few of the pies will flung in one's face at any given time. Life goes on.
—C.W.
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster.
The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that no two users are obligated to interact with each other, and it's big enough that accidental confrontations can usually be avoided. That having been said, as long as there are people who are able to "play well" with those who don't generally "play well" with others, said "disaster" can often be averted.
—C.W.
on 10/9/07 2:14 PM, Charlotte Webb at charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster.
The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that no two users are obligated to interact with each other, and it's big enough that accidental confrontations can usually be avoided. That having been said, as long as there are people who are able to "play well" with those who don't generally "play well" with others, said "disaster" can often be averted.
We can hope that the skills the "play wells" have will eventually rub off on the "don't play wells".
But what happens, CW, when the "don't play wells" have more powerful tools than the "play wells" - like the power to block or to moderate?
Marc
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor.
....
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
Geeze, Marc, you just won't let go about personal responsibility, will you?
On the other hand, when I act badly, I usually am the one to blame for it. But it just seems so simple, in a way.
KP
Marc, I now ask you whether,m having made what I think to be a correct diagnosis, you have from your experience any suggestions for improvement beyond the hope that
"If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea."
Not that this is wrong--it is totally right as far as it goes. But how can we institutionally encourage this?
On 10/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor.
....
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
Geeze, Marc, you just won't let go about personal responsibility, will you?
On the other hand, when I act badly, I usually am the one to blame for it. But it just seems so simple, in a way.
KP
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 10/9/07 11:49 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, I now ask you whether,m having made what I think to be a correct diagnosis, you have from your experience any suggestions for improvement beyond the hope that
"If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea."
Not that this is wrong--it is totally right as far as it goes. But how can we institutionally encourage this?
David,
In very short: for a start we could begin by greatly improving how we talk to each other.
There are very effective steps, and indeed entire programs, that could be instituted in the Project that would, in time, profoundly improve the very culture of the Project - which is what we are really talking about here.
I have concrete proposals for implementing such programs. BUT, to lay them out here now would be a complete waste of time. BECAUSE, aside from you and a few others, most people on this List appear to believe that the culture of the Project is just fine as it is. To seriously discuss solutions to a problem, there must first be an agreement that such a problem exists.
We keep talking about what Wikipedia is & is not. As we look to the future we should also be asking what else it could be.
Marc
On 10/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor.
....
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
Geeze, Marc, you just won't let go about personal responsibility, will you?
On the other hand, when I act badly, I usually am the one to blame for it. But it just seems so simple, in a way.
KP
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 10/10/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/9/07 11:49 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, I now ask you whether,m having made what I think to be a correct diagnosis, you have from your experience any suggestions for improvement beyond the hope that
"If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea."
Not that this is wrong--it is totally right as far as it goes. But how can we institutionally encourage this?
David,
In very short: for a start we could begin by greatly improving how we talk to each other.
There are very effective steps, and indeed entire programs, that could be instituted in the Project that would, in time, profoundly improve the very culture of the Project - which is what we are really talking about here.
I have concrete proposals for implementing such programs. BUT, to lay them out here now would be a complete waste of time. BECAUSE, aside from you and a few others, most people on this List appear to believe that the culture of the Project is just fine as it is. To seriously discuss solutions to a problem, there must first be an agreement that such a problem exists.
We keep talking about what Wikipedia is & is not. As we look to the future we should also be asking what else it could be.
Marc
On 10/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor.
....
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
Geeze, Marc, you just won't let go about personal responsibility, will you?
On the other hand, when I act badly, I usually am the one to blame for it. But it just seems so simple, in a way.
KP
We can always create another mailing list, or a discussion project on en.wikipedia or meta somewhere.
I agree that there are cultural issues, but my long experience with internet culture makes me tend to think that there aren't real "solutions" for them per se. However, I am open to having my mind changed on that point.
On 10/10/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 10/9/07 11:49 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, I now ask you whether,m having made what I think to be a correct diagnosis, you have from your experience any suggestions for improvement beyond the hope that
"If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea."
Not that this is wrong--it is totally right as far as it goes. But how can we institutionally encourage this?
David,
In very short: for a start we could begin by greatly improving how we talk to each other.
There are very effective steps, and indeed entire programs, that could be instituted in the Project that would, in time, profoundly improve the very culture of the Project - which is what we are really talking about here.
I have concrete proposals for implementing such programs. BUT, to lay them out here now would be a complete waste of time. BECAUSE, aside from you and a few others, most people on this List appear to believe that the culture of the Project is just fine as it is. To seriously discuss solutions to a problem, there must first be an agreement that such a problem exists.
We keep talking about what Wikipedia is & is not. As we look to the future we should also be asking what else it could be.
Marc
On 10/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor.
....
The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.
Marc Riddell
Geeze, Marc, you just won't let go about personal responsibility, will you?
On the other hand, when I act badly, I usually am the one to blame for it. But it just seems so simple, in a way.
KP
on 10/10/07 6:38 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We can always create another mailing list, or a discussion project on en.wikipedia or meta somewhere.
I am very open to this, George. In fact, one of my proposals would require either a separate List or a "sandbox" type of thing in Wikipedia itself where persons could learn and practice communication skills.
I agree that there are cultural issues, but my long experience with internet culture makes me tend to think that there aren't real "solutions" for them per se.
Then let's put our collective creativities together and find some solutions. It could become just one of Wikipedia's legacies.
However, I am open to having my mind changed on that point.
That is all that I ask.
Marc
On 10/10/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am very open to this, George. In fact, one of my proposals would require either a separate List or a "sandbox" type of thing in Wikipedia itself where persons could learn and practice communication skills.
Then let's put our collective creativities together and find some solutions. It could become just one of Wikipedia's legacies.
Marc
I like that idea, a practice area--it would be a place for some of our acrimonious sorts who ask to come back to the community. And it it really were a nice place, the type of place we wanted Wikipedia to be, then it could set the sort of example people would want to follow.
KP
On 10/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We can always create another mailing list, or a discussion project on en.wikipedia or meta somewhere.
I agree that there are cultural issues, but my long experience with internet culture makes me tend to think that there aren't real "solutions" for them per se. However, I am open to having my mind changed on that point.
A carefully chosen countermeme can sometimes work.
--
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On 10/10/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote: ...
We keep talking about what Wikipedia is & is not. As we look to the future we should also be asking what else it could be.
Marc
Yes, that's right, do we have to accept the default of human as vicious to other humans? We accepted that a committee of strangers could write an encyclopedia in cyberspace, is it really so much to imagine we could be civil to each other to while doing so?
KP
On 10/8/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The question is: have we on Wikipedia reached a point where our community is too big that the negative friction overwhelms the positive value of our expertise?
I'm just throwing this out for discussion, but I think this hypothesis may prove to be true in some areas - namely those frequently discussed on this list. But in less high-activity areas, such as quiet (i.e. not [[George W. Bush]]) articles, then we have a sufficiently small group of editors who have space to think and bring their individual ability to bear.
As far as articles go I doubt that even [[George W. Bush]] has this problem (though for a few lesser known topics that have been directly or indirectly subject to arbcom rulings, the phenomenon could possibly be argued).
However, in the project space hot-spots (WP:ANI, WT:RFA, WP:CSN, WP:AFD, WP:RFAR, etc. etc. etc.) yes it's quite bloody obvious.
—C.W.