G'day Joe,
Was this change in public tone and approach to BLP, DRV, et al discussedanywhere beyond this mailing list and on-wiki? Any other maillists, or IRC? It seems that suddenly a collection of senior people that work together are all on a unified page on something which is going to be very contententiousto many individuals. If this is the New Way, would one of you be so good as to specifically modify WP:BLP with these changes, to see if the communityaccepts them?
Wikis in general, including MediaWiki in particular, are very poor for conducting discussions. It's inevitable, and desirable, that there will be discussion --- even discussion between "a collection of senior people" --- about Wikipedia in other areas, be it mailing lists, IRC, Wikimania, or around the kitchen table after work.
I am unable or unwilling to access many of the fora used for off-wiki discussion --- for example, I have no wish to join foundation-L (unwilling); I am not allowed to join the arbcom list (unable). Likewise, you are not willing or able to join IRC --- or many of the other areas where off-wiki discussion occurs. This does not cause me any stress. It seems to stress you a great deal.
If something is discussed and/or agreed to in a forum that doesn't involve me, I say: fine. Now show me your reasoning and explain to me why I should accept what you said elsewhere. I don't say: You can't do that! We should shut down that mailing list/channel/kitchen table!
Off-wiki discussion is a Good Thing. You're worried about being locked out, and that's a legitimate concern. But the solution isn't to complain about off-wiki discussion, as you have repeatedly and shrilly done. The solution is for those who engage in off-wiki discussion to ensure, if they want to be taken seriously, that they explain themselves just as well on-wiki as they did off.
Compare: "I have made Decision X after discussion on IRC" "I have made Decision X because I believe it is the Right Thing to do. As discussed on IRC, this is the Right Thing because of Y, Z, A, and B."
Unexplained decisions are a problem whether accompanied by oogedy-boogedy about off-wiki discussion or not. Let's focus on the *real* problem and stop deriding useful means of communication.
Cheers,
Hi,
On 5/23/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Off-wiki discussion is a Good Thing. You're worried about being locked out, and that's a legitimate concern.
That's the primary one, from my understanding, coupled with accountability. If an admin proposes that you be banned on AN, ANI, ArbCom, CSN, CMTV or who knows where on-Wiki, anyone can see it. Anyone can contribute in the discussion. If an admin makes a questionable or false point of why you should be blocked, it can be publically logged and scrutinized and refuted if need be. Just recently, we had two scenarios like this, in fact!
1) Jeff got blocked by Zsinj based on IRC 'consensus'. Not good. No on-wiki input. Private unlogged channel. Who was at fault? Zsinj. But if 4 people gave him bad info on his talk page, and he did this, they'd be on the hook to a degree now too. Since it's a private unsanctioned unlogged 3rd party channel, they're off the hook and get a free ride for instigating a major disruption of Wikipedia.
2) (note: not taking sides here, I don't care either way) Jayjg asked boldy for PalestineRemembered to be blocked for certain reasons. Others cried foul, saying no way. They said the evidence doesn't support blocking. He was semi blocked or probationed or something--it's a mess, I don't want to sort it all out. Now it's ArbCom. But every thing was on wiki, and logged, and tagged, and bagged. If Jay did something wrong, he's now potentially on the hook. This is a good thing, if he did something wrong. Ditto for PR, but by keeping it all above board, everyone is accountable.
But the solution isn't to complain about off-wiki discussion, as you have
repeatedly and shrilly done.
I wouldn't say shrilly, just thoroughly.
The solution is for those who engage in off-wiki discussion to ensure, if
they want to be taken seriously, that they explain themselves just as well on-wiki as they did off.
That's the problem; many are unable or unwilling to do. Public logging takes care of that and keeps us all honest.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Wikis in general, including MediaWiki in particular, are very poor for
conducting discussions
The thing I find is that on-wiki, anything you say which you later think better of stays around to haunt you forever. Obviously, however, openness is also a Good Thing, so I think that the bottom line is that IRC is a place for informal opinion-gathering, not for actual decision-making.
David
On 24/05/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 5/23/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Off-wiki discussion is a Good Thing. You're worried about being locked out, and that's a legitimate concern.
That's the primary one, from my understanding, coupled with accountability. If an admin proposes that you be banned on AN, ANI, ArbCom, CSN, CMTV or who knows where on-Wiki, anyone can see it. Anyone can contribute in the discussion. If an admin makes a questionable or false point of why you should be blocked, it can be publically logged and scrutinized and refuted if need be. Just recently, we had two scenarios like this, in fact!
- Jeff got blocked by Zsinj based on IRC 'consensus'. Not good. No
on-wiki input. Private unlogged channel. Who was at fault? Zsinj. But if 4 people gave him bad info on his talk page, and he did this, they'd be on the hook to a degree now too. Since it's a private unsanctioned unlogged 3rd party channel, they're off the hook and get a free ride for instigating a major disruption of Wikipedia.
- (note: not taking sides here, I don't care either way) Jayjg asked
boldy for PalestineRemembered to be blocked for certain reasons. Others cried foul, saying no way. They said the evidence doesn't support blocking. He was semi blocked or probationed or something--it's a mess, I don't want to sort it all out. Now it's ArbCom. But every thing was on wiki, and logged, and tagged, and bagged. If Jay did something wrong, he's now potentially on the hook. This is a good thing, if he did something wrong. Ditto for PR, but by keeping it all above board, everyone is accountable.
But the solution isn't to complain about off-wiki discussion, as you have
repeatedly and shrilly done.
I wouldn't say shrilly, just thoroughly.
The solution is for those who engage in off-wiki discussion to ensure, if
they want to be taken seriously, that they explain themselves just as well on-wiki as they did off.
That's the problem; many are unable or unwilling to do. Public logging takes care of that and keeps us all honest.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.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
David Mestel wrote:
Wikis in general, including MediaWiki in particular, are very poor for
conducting discussions
The thing I find is that on-wiki, anything you say which you later think better of stays around to haunt you forever. Obviously, however, openness is also a Good Thing, so I think that the bottom line is that IRC is a place for informal opinion-gathering, not for actual decision-making.
OK, but you still need to make the arguments in a public place, where after discussion on IRC some of the more stupid elements can be eliminated. Agreement on IRC is not on-wiki agreement. The new people that become involved may have very different ideas.
Ec
Indeed. That was what I was trying to say - I must have been unclear.
David
On 26/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Mestel wrote:
Wikis in general, including MediaWiki in particular, are very poor for
conducting discussions
The thing I find is that on-wiki, anything you say which you later think better of stays around to haunt you forever. Obviously, however,
openness
is also a Good Thing, so I think that the bottom line is that IRC is a
place
for informal opinion-gathering, not for actual decision-making.
OK, but you still need to make the arguments in a public place, where after discussion on IRC some of the more stupid elements can be eliminated. Agreement on IRC is not on-wiki agreement. The new people that become involved may have very different ideas.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Ray,
David Mestel wrote:
Wikis in general, including MediaWiki in particular, are very poor for
conducting discussions
The thing I find is that on-wiki, anything you say which you later think better of stays around to haunt you forever. Obviously, however, openness is also a Good Thing, so I think that the bottom line is that IRC is a place for informal opinion-gathering, not for actual decision-making.
OK, but you still need to make the arguments in a public place, where after discussion on IRC some of the more stupid elements can be eliminated. Agreement on IRC is not on-wiki agreement. The new people that become involved may have very different ideas.
That's exactly right. There's nothing wrong with going to IRC and saying, "Here's my idea. Can anyone get rid of the Suck before I propose it on-wiki?"
I've done this several times, and benefited enormously. I also think I have been of benefit to others when they seek to discuss something informally and --- gasp! --- PRIVATELY before potentially making fools of themselves on-wiki.
Refusing to adequately explain an admin action (or, indeed, any challenge action) is a Bad Thing, but it's a Bad Thing whether the spectre of IRC is raised or not. Those who fear IRC need to press home the whole "explain it on-wiki" thing, rather than spend sleepless nights wondering if the married couple Admin A and B said something private at the kitchen table last night.
Most of the significant off-wiki discussion on these matters takes place, as far as I'm aware, on various official mailing lists operated by Wikimedia.
Wikimedia is the company that runs Wikipedia. You want them to stop talking about their business? Sorry, no. You want them to tell the whole world everything they're thinking about doing? Sorry, no.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Refusing to adequately explain an admin action (or, indeed, any challenge action) is a Bad Thing, but it's a Bad Thing whether the spectre of IRC is raised or not. Those who fear IRC need to press home the whole "explain it on-wiki" thing, rather than spend sleepless nights wondering if the married couple Admin A and B said something private at the kitchen table last night.
I have nothing to do with IRC myself. I wouldn't say that it's out of fear, but it comes more from having a deliberative personality that likes to mull over ideas before responding to them. Waiting 15 minutes to respond to a comment while I think it over or reach out to a reference book to back up my ideas simply does not work in a chat line.
Peremptory admin actions are a different issue. Saying that something was decided on IRC, or saying, "I can do this because I'm an admin," serves only to raise the temperature of the discussion.
Ec