Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument "if you want to fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first" is routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more than "be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do".
Charles
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
on 5/31/10 2:43 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument "if you want to fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first" is routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more than "be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do".
Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue how to deal with people who they see as being out of their universe-of-one. In fact, they appear to regard the Wikipedia Community as a necessary evil.
Marc Riddell
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue how to deal with people who they see as being out of their universe-of-one. In fact, they appear to regard the Wikipedia Community as a necessary evil.
I urge you to go back and actually read the discussion, and you will see that you are the only person to mention the Foundation and we're actually talking about the Wikipedia community here. Then you will be less likely to post responses that look like keyword-triggered cut'n'paste.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue how to deal with people who they see as being out of their universe-of-one. In fact, they appear to regard the Wikipedia Community as a necessary evil.
I urge you to go back and actually read the discussion, and you will see that you are the only person to mention the Foundation and we're actually talking about the Wikipedia community here. Then you will be less likely to post responses that look like keyword-triggered cut'n'paste.
Actually, the Wikipedia community is in a sense a "necessary evil". Without it, WP would be just another underpowered, well-meaning website. With it, people who are not natural collaborators work together effectively, if not without friction.
But the reply I made was contra being painted into a corner (singular issue), and in favour of an analysis of the actual problem. I see [[Blind men and an elephant]] is an article. I won't go further in Marc's direction than saying that our discussions can seem sometimes like a post-mortem to that parable, with everyone saying, "you know, I still think I was right along". But the remedies - for a bigger picture - have the disadvantages of requiring a great deal of investment of time. I believe I have tried a number of those, without yet getting a complete view of the elephant.
Charles
At 11:19 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
[...] remedies - for a bigger picture
- have the disadvantages of requiring a great deal of investment of
time. I believe I have tried a number of those, without yet getting a complete view of the elephant.
Right. Sensible. There is a solution to that, which is structured discussion and investigation. Deliberative process, where each issue involved is examined carefully. Yes. It takes a lot of time, but with good structure, it's a collective effort and very practical. Without good structure, it's basically impossible. And what we get is one effort after another, never completely examined, rejected or fought over without ever finding true consensus, which represents, in the end, much more "waste of time," whereas effort to find consensus, done intelligently -- which often requires some skilled facilitation or process assistance -- isn't wasted. It builds something that will last.
The blind men can come up with a complete description of the elephant if they trust each other's good faith, and move around just a little bit, so that each one gets more than one "view." It is only when they insist that their own experience must be all-encompassing that they fail to grasp the truth.
What do you get when you can see from more than one point of view at a time?
At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it.
As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument "if you want to fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first" is routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more than "be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do".
Eh? Is this coherent?
Who is the "you" who wants "people" to do thankless tasks?
What is the "pet gripe" in the discussion?
What is being discussed is "declining numbers of EN wiki admins," and how to address it. In that, surely it is appropriate and even necessary to examine the entire administrative structure, both how admin privileges are created and how they are removed.
So "A" here would be declining numbers. "B," then, must be the difficulty of removal, which leads to stronger standards for accepting admins in the first place, which leads to declining applications and denial of some applications that might have been just fine.
There is no evidence that there are declining applications because of fear of being criticized as an adminstrator, and the numbers of admin removals are trivial, so Charles is expressing a fear that is imaginary. If it were easier to gain tools and still difficult to lose them unless you disregard guidelines and consensus, there would be no loss of applications, there would be a gain. A large gain.
What I'm seeing here, indeed, is an illustration of the problem. The attitude that Charles expresses is clearly part of the problem, and Charles is suggesting no solutions but perhaps one of ridiculing and rejecting all the suggestions for change.