Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
On 31/01/2011 06:43, George Herbert wrote:
Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
As an advocate of keeping "user friendliness" and "friendliness" issues separate in discussing enWP, I'd like to note that the "gender gap" is basically a friendliness issue. It is all very well setting targets, but unless interactions become more polite and helpful on the site, it is hard to see how they are to be achieved. I'm not convinced that the community generally get it about this point.
Charles
On 31/01/2011 06:43, George Herbert wrote:
Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
on 1/31/11 7:30 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
As an advocate of keeping "user friendliness" and "friendliness" issues separate in discussing enWP,
I don't agree with you here, Charles. The tone of interaction, including "friendliness", should be appropriate for any interactive forum related to the Project. That is how the tone of a culture is established, encouraged and maintained.
I'd like to note that the "gender gap" is basically a friendliness issue.
You are right here if you mean that, in a male-dominated culture, "friendliness" implies weakness.
It is all very well setting targets, but unless interactions become more polite and helpful on the site, it is hard to see how they are to be achieved.
Agreed!
I'm not convinced that the community generally get it about this point.
If "more polite and helpful" interactions are a desired goal for the Project, how to you propose we help the larger Community to "get it"?
Marc
On 31/01/2011 14:00, Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/31/11 7:30 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
As an advocate of keeping "user friendliness" and "friendliness" issues separate in discussing enWP,
I don't agree with you here, Charles. The tone of interaction, including "friendliness", should be appropriate for any interactive forum related to the Project. That is how the tone of a culture is established, encouraged and maintained.
But I think you misunderstand: "user friendliness" is a term applied to software and interfaces, not communities.
I'd like to note that the "gender gap" is basically a friendliness issue.
You are right here if you mean that, in a male-dominated culture, "friendliness" implies weakness.
It is all very well setting targets, but unless interactions become more polite and helpful on the site, it is hard to see how they are to be achieved.
Agreed!
I'm not convinced that the community generally get it about this point.
If "more polite and helpful" interactions are a desired goal for the Project, how to you propose we help the larger Community to "get it"?
There are a number of steps, perhaps none sufficient in itself.
Admins carry a heavy burden in calming matters down, and being "helpful". Unfortunately RfA has got out of hand, and the evidence is (as I was shown recently) that the criteria used five years ago probably promoted more suitable people than those used in the past couple of years. So that is one area needing active reform. We probably need to renew the "essays" (position papers) around the site, taking into account the fact that WP has been around for a decade and has not gone into the meltdown many predicted. That's to try to take the "shrill" edge off numerous discussions. (I don't think the strategy wiki managed that.)
We need to bear down on the civility issue: this has been problematic in the past, as some of us know, but it still matters. Interaction problems require a problem-solving approach, and more should be done through existing dispute resolution channels, rather than AN/I which seems to represent the problem itself (lack of a measured approach - people are not "incidents") rather than the solution.
I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
Charles
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
But I think you misunderstand: "user friendliness" is a term applied to software and interfaces, not communities.
As far as new users go, the community, the software, and the interface are one in the same, for better or worse, so while the usage may not be correct, the concept behind it is a pretty accurate description. Wikipedia is the sum of the content, software, and community that powers it, and if the initial experiences someone has are negative - or even if later experiences are negative, people will treat it as a reflection on all of Wikipedia rather than as an experience with one editor.
-Stephanie
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by voting in December.
(I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at least a little explicit buy-in.)
- d.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by voting in December.
(I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at least a little explicit buy-in.)
- d.
They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to crack. Either the admins are bad, the rules are bad, or the whole idea is bad - many prominent, longtime 'pedians would argue all three are true.
Nathan
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:18 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by voting in December.
(I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at least a little explicit buy-in.)
- d.
They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to crack. Either the admins are bad, the rules are bad, or the whole idea is bad - many prominent, longtime 'pedians would argue all three are true.
Nathan
Mores are an expression of community values; even the most vigorous policing cannot succeed without community support. Wide participation in a friendly atmosphere is better. Thus everyone needs to be friendly and supportive if we are to maximize the value of our project.
It is not a matter of getting after bad apples but of being friendly and supportive yourself in interactions with both new and established editors, of focusing on encyclopedic issues, the work.
(After Wilfred Bion)
Fred Bauder
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to crack. Either the admins are bad, the rules are bad, or the whole idea is bad - many prominent, longtime 'pedians would argue all three are true.
We should propose a civility patrol. It would not require anyone to be an admin and would just give people a heads up that they are being uncivil. No judgment on the validity of somebody's argument, just on its degree of civility. Possibly along with a "ticket" describing the degree of the incivility on a scale of 1 to 10 and maybe a description of its nature.
-Ezra
On 31 January 2011 16:27, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
They could but they won't; anyone on this list knows that it's been tried before. Making admins the "civility police" as some folks like to call them is too difficult a nut for the Wikipedia community to crack. Either the admins are bad, the rules are bad, or the whole idea is bad - many prominent, longtime 'pedians would argue all three are true.
No, this is the arbcom being civility police to the admins, who are in fact in its direct remit.
- d.
On 31 January 2011 11:18, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as far as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by voting in December.
(I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at least a little explicit buy-in.)
I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the committee to do so. Aside from a genuinely urgent situation, or one that is outside of the community's ability to address (e.g., admin socking), there has been an unchanging view that Arbcom should not be prosecuting matters that have not been brought to it by the community; in other words, we aren't supposed to go hunting for our own cases . And, I disagree with the belief that David has just expressed; in my own observation the *better* admins (more civil, more thoughtful) are the first ones to throw in the bit when their administrative behaviour is challenged. To them, it is a tool, not something precious that they'll do anything to retain - or regain.
Nonetheless, this thread is supposed to be about the gender gap. For the first time AFAICT, Arbcom has three sitting members who are women; that's still only 17% of the committee. It's not possible to get an accurate breakdown of how many administrators are female; many admins do not reveal their gender, nor are they expected to. A reasonable estimate of the percentage of administrators who are *openly* female is around 10-15%.
The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of technical information before being able to edit. An example is the use of templates all over the place - they are difficult to understand and clutter the editing window horribly, but failure to use them means dunning notices on talk pages and reverts because something wasn't "done right". Entire areas of the project are very unfriendly to those who do not hold the extreme libertarian views of openness (I recently saw a comment on AN/I that suggested we should actively seek out video displays of all sexual acts), and sexism is blatant in certain topic areas. On the whole, women seek consensus in a different manner than men do - women tending to be more compromising and seeking middle ground, whereas men tend to use force of numbers and who argues the loudest. (Anyone else notice how "consensus" at RFA and AfD and ANI seems to be increasingly numerically based, instead of by quality of policy-based argument? Notice how administrators get pummeled for using common sense or relying on policy instead of the vox populi?)
It's also not very easy for new editors, male or female, to find places to ask questions or to receive some guidance. Heaven forbid that they find AN/I before they find a reference or help desk.
Risker/Anne
On 31 January 2011 17:49, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the committee to do so.
The problem is that the other two-thirds of Wikimedia are having their reputation adversely affected by en:wp's reputation.
e.g. Tim Starling feels there's no point working on technical measures to attract newbies until en:wp's terrible newbie-biting is fixed: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-December/050843.html
e.g. on the internal list, when I pushed WYSIWYG, the *first* reaction (from a board member) was "that's pointless to think about when people are treated so badly on en:wp."
Crossing the streams of project autonomy would be bad, but a good way to leave others feeling they need to is to make excuses to avoid solving the problem in question. So you may want to not do that.
The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of technical information before being able to edit.
As noted above, even the paid employees amongst the techies want the civility problem fixed before they'll work on that. I believe that puts the ball back in your court.
- d.
On 31 January 2011 13:01, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 17:49, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and
everyone
else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of
the
committee to do so.
The problem is that the other two-thirds of Wikimedia are having their reputation adversely affected by en:wp's reputation.
e.g. Tim Starling feels there's no point working on technical measures to attract newbies until en:wp's terrible newbie-biting is fixed: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-December/050843.html
e.g. on the internal list, when I pushed WYSIWYG, the *first* reaction (from a board member) was "that's pointless to think about when people are treated so badly on en:wp."
Crossing the streams of project autonomy would be bad, but a good way to leave others feeling they need to is to make excuses to avoid solving the problem in question. So you may want to not do that.
The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of
technical
information before being able to edit.
As noted above, even the paid employees amongst the techies want the civility problem fixed before they'll work on that. I believe that puts the ball back in your court.
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't Wikipedia Governance Central. I share the same frustration as the WMF staff and techies, and indeed many new and even experienced users, but you know as well as I do what the response of the community is when Arbcom tries to "make policy", let alone starts swooping down from on high on matters that the community has not brought to it. Meanwhile, over at RFA, this is the first time in donkey's years that we have four candidates all doing well, at least two of whom would have been getting a rough haul only a month ago; we seem to be going through a "nice" period there because more and more people are realising that we aren't getting the kind of admins we need for the project to succeed. There are still dozens of highly qualified editors who would make excellent admins, but refuse to participate in the nastiness that RFA has been for most of the last two years. I can only hope that this week's new trend continues for long enough to break the pattern of behaviour that had become endemic, so that other good candidates will be more willing to take the leap.
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L mailing list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where there are concerns. Themselves. Wearing their Board hat, rather than their "I'm just an editor" hat. They're actually selected to be leaders of the WMF, and it would make it a darn sight easier to change community practices if the Trustees would be much more public in their pronouncements and sharing their experiences and observations. Internal-L is the last place where that will be helpful, with its extremely restrictive distribution and chapter-heavy membership.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L mailing list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where there are concerns. Themselves. Wearing their Board hat, rather than their "I'm just an editor" hat. They're actually selected to be leaders of the WMF, and it would make it a darn sight easier to change community practices if the Trustees would be much more public in their pronouncements and sharing their experiences and observations. Internal-L is the last place where that will be helpful, with its extremely restrictive distribution and chapter-heavy membership.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________
Risker has pinned the issue; what the English Wikipedia suffers from is a lack of leadership. The global, decentralised, community self-managed nature of Wikipedia has allowed for many great things... but it has its drawbacks, among them the complete inability to enforce social norms.
Risker has pinned the issue; what the English Wikipedia suffers from
is a lack of leadership. The global, decentralised, community self-managed nature of Wikipedia has allowed for many great things... but it has its drawbacks, among them the complete inability to enforce social norms.
Ok. How do we create effective leadership for en.wp and eventually, other projects with similar growing pains?
What role does the community and consensus process retain in that model?
Can we get the consensus process back to a usable tool even when applied at "project scale" (ie, in decisions that affect all of en.wp)?
-Steph
I think Risker hit the nail on the head. ArbCom is organized purely as a "court of last resort", but in the absence of other effective and streamlined governance, or a vast political change within en.wp's community, the only likely way any reform could happen is for it to be imposed by the WMF.
Many of the same people who contribute to the problem are well-invested in keeping the status quo, because real reforms are threatening to them. Our current implementation of consensus is too far from the ideals of consensus - open participation where all views are heard and where decisions are made through collaboration and compromise has given way to fillibustering, contention, and in some cases personal attacks.
I honestly don't know what the fix would entail, but I do know that it starts with fixing how en.wp, and probably any other large WMF projects are governed to make sure that a handful of us can't undermine our ideals.
-Stephanie
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't Wikipedia Governance Central. I share the same frustration as the WMF staff and techies, and indeed many new and even experienced users, but you know as well as I do what the response of the community is when Arbcom tries to "make policy", let alone starts swooping down from on high on matters that the community has not brought to it. Meanwhile, over at RFA, this is the first time in donkey's years that we have four candidates all doing well, at least two of whom would have been getting a rough haul only a month ago; we seem to be going through a "nice" period there because more and more people are realising that we aren't getting the kind of admins we need for the project to succeed. There are still dozens of highly qualified editors who would make excellent admins, but refuse to participate in the nastiness that RFA has been for most of the last two years. I can only hope that this week's new trend continues for long enough to break the pattern of behaviour that had become endemic, so that other good candidates will be more willing to take the leap.
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L mailing list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where there are concerns. Themselves. Wearing their Board hat, rather than their "I'm just an editor" hat. They're actually selected to be leaders of the WMF, and it would make it a darn sight easier to change community practices if the Trustees would be much more public in their pronouncements and sharing their experiences and observations. Internal-L is the last place where that will be helpful, with its extremely restrictive distribution and chapter-heavy membership.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 31/01/2011 19:07, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
I think Risker hit the nail on the head. ArbCom is organized purely as a "court of last resort", but in the absence of other effective and streamlined governance, or a vast political change within en.wp's community, the only likely way any reform could happen is for it to be imposed by the WMF.
Some assumptions there, surely. But it is probably true that if the community fails long-term to deal with a specific issue, it becomes an item on the WMF agenda.
Many of the same people who contribute to the problem are well-invested in keeping the status quo, because real reforms are threatening to them. Our current implementation of consensus is too far from the ideals of consensus
- open participation where all views are heard and where decisions are made
through collaboration and compromise has given way to fillibustering, contention, and in some cases personal attacks.
Certainly. The issue of the "vested" editors has been aired in the past. Basically the vested (some of them) have their posses, and therefore consider themselves immune from RfCs. Mediation can be turned aside by being awkward enough. And so we get back to the ArbCom saying they cannot deal with the issues. Actually it is not precisely their fault, but the community's. We actually prefer editing to drama, but the nettle hasn't been grasped in the past, and so things are not in as good a state as they might be (in an ideal world).
Anyway, at the top of the thread I had some suggestions that aren't of the form "radical change required but won't happen".
I honestly don't know what the fix would entail, but I do know that it starts with fixing how en.wp, and probably any other large WMF projects are governed to make sure that a handful of us can't undermine our ideals.
The WMF is in a position to hire staff to "guide" the communities. Which of course won't happen any time soon.
Charles
I think most of the responses here have people attempting to chain their own personal hobby horses to the issue of the gender gap. Sure, we have preexisting issues that could possibly alleviate that gap if addressed, but does anyone think that increasing RFA standards or ArbCom policies regarding admin civility are really the reason why we only have a preposterously large 13-87% gender gap. That isn't a gap, it's a canyon.
In the article, Joseph Reagle notes that we're “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,” and I think maybe those sorts of people are coddled too much on Wikipedia. For all the talk about admin civility, a newcomer is likely to be more put off by other editors than admins and a newcomer will likely have no idea how or where to seek redress. Even for established editors it is difficult to obtain assistance when faced with persistent incivility. Most websites have a "report a problem" link. Why don't we have one that directs newcomers to the appropriate noticeboard where they can request assistance?
Most of the text of the article is given over to a discussion of the gender gap in content. I had to start the article on Manolo Blahnik mentioned in the Times, and if you know how little I know about fashion, you'd know that's pretty sad. If the gender gap in content is off putting to potential female contributors and thus fosters a gender gap in contributors, perhaps we could help close the latter by closing the former. Contests to create more articles, featuring more of them on the front page, etc.
On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't Wikipedia Governance Central.
It's the closest en:wp has.
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L mailing list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where there are concerns.
You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm not, I'm telling you about it.
Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body - to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort.
- d.
On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't
Wikipedia
Governance Central.
It's the closest en:wp has.
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L
mailing
list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where
there
are concerns.
You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm not, I'm telling you about it.
Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body - to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort.
David, I'm not snapping at you particularly, although I do think you've hijacked this thread, which is intended to be about the gender gap. (I'll resist the urge to insert a sexist comment here. :) )
The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees. I would love to see them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations and their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground level. I am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a monthy "Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to Translatewiki or wherever to share with multiple other projects.
It is all well and good for (I count three) former arbitrators to say that Arbcom should be enforcing the civility policy, and to act as the governors of the project. But we are not the governors; in July 2009 the community soundly reminded us of that when we tried to set up an advisory council. And by the time a case gets to us, rude behaviour is often only an offshoot of the core problems of the case.
Arbcom is hardly in the position to go through and review the actions of all admins with the hope of rooting out which ones are "uncivil" and which ones aren't. Even with the diminished number of active administrators, there are still 800 of them, and we aren't a human resources department. I believe Rob also has a good point; most entry-level rudeness and newbie-biting comes from non-administrators, be they RC patrollers who often revert and leave templated user messages without really reviewing the edits, or new page patrollers who are tagging articles for deletion less than 3 minutes after their creation. (I note that WereSpielChequers makes the same point.)
Fred, yes, if someone files a request for arbitration, it's going to be taken seriously and reviewed seriously; the point is that people are not filing requests for arbitration that turn on this issue.
And finally, I'll point out that if you're reading this list, you're a vested contributor. Please stop using that term as if it's a bad thing.
Risker/Anne
Regarding vested contributors, they are both a good and a bad thing - good in that retaining them means retaining experience, bad in that some of them have a sense of entitlement and that a few attract a "posse" that helps them to realize that entitlement.
Cabalism is an unfortunate side effect of weak governance - banding into factions helps some to pursue their own agendas even if that is just to derail any sort of change that would weaken their position.
Rfa reform and attempts to streamline desysopping have been largely stonewalled by relatively few people. Thats just one area but one of the longest running ones.
I think a good next step might be to start a public debate on the issues we are now facing and invite the wmf trustees to participate in and lead the discussion.
I don't think we need to rush headfirst into changes but we can't keep letting a few particularly loud and persistant voices keep throwing us off track for years at a time either so someone is going to have to get the ball rolling and have enough push to keep it moving.
On 1/31/11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't
Wikipedia
Governance Central.
It's the closest en:wp has.
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L
mailing
list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where
there
are concerns.
You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm not, I'm telling you about it.
Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body - to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort.
David, I'm not snapping at you particularly, although I do think you've hijacked this thread, which is intended to be about the gender gap. (I'll resist the urge to insert a sexist comment here. :) )
The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees. I would love to see them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations and their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground level. I am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a monthy "Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to Translatewiki or wherever to share with multiple other projects.
It is all well and good for (I count three) former arbitrators to say that Arbcom should be enforcing the civility policy, and to act as the governors of the project. But we are not the governors; in July 2009 the community soundly reminded us of that when we tried to set up an advisory council. And by the time a case gets to us, rude behaviour is often only an offshoot of the core problems of the case.
Arbcom is hardly in the position to go through and review the actions of all admins with the hope of rooting out which ones are "uncivil" and which ones aren't. Even with the diminished number of active administrators, there are still 800 of them, and we aren't a human resources department. I believe Rob also has a good point; most entry-level rudeness and newbie-biting comes from non-administrators, be they RC patrollers who often revert and leave templated user messages without really reviewing the edits, or new page patrollers who are tagging articles for deletion less than 3 minutes after their creation. (I note that WereSpielChequers makes the same point.)
Fred, yes, if someone files a request for arbitration, it's going to be taken seriously and reviewed seriously; the point is that people are not filing requests for arbitration that turn on this issue.
And finally, I'll point out that if you're reading this list, you're a vested contributor. Please stop using that term as if it's a bad thing.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Truth is, I'm not even sure I want to get into this. And, for the record, this inquiry concerns only the English Wikipedia Project. I spend 99% of the time I have to devote to the English Wikipedia Project at editing articles; the other 1% being spent on the Mailing Lists. So, consequently, I know very little about the authority structure that exists in the Project. But something that has been bothering me for some time now; something that has been touched on very cautiously at various times on this List; and something that I firmly believe is at the root of many of the problems that have been discussed on this List (and elsewhere) for some time now. What is the actual chain of authority that now exists in the Project? This I am certain of: Sue Gardner is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Just like any corporate structure, her line of authority is clear enough. The Foundation oversees (my term) and provides the technical equipment and funding to operate the Project. Is there a similar "structure", "line of authority" or "buck stops here" entity within the English Wikipedia Project. Would, could, someone please help me to see and understand it? I need some basics here so that I can take part in any discussion.
Marc Riddell
on 1/31/11 7:07 PM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding vested contributors, they are both a good and a bad thing - good in that retaining them means retaining experience, bad in that some of them have a sense of entitlement and that a few attract a "posse" that helps them to realize that entitlement.
Cabalism is an unfortunate side effect of weak governance - banding into factions helps some to pursue their own agendas even if that is just to derail any sort of change that would weaken their position.
Rfa reform and attempts to streamline desysopping have been largely stonewalled by relatively few people. Thats just one area but one of the longest running ones.
I think a good next step might be to start a public debate on the issues we are now facing and invite the wmf trustees to participate in and lead the discussion.
I don't think we need to rush headfirst into changes but we can't keep letting a few particularly loud and persistant voices keep throwing us off track for years at a time either so someone is going to have to get the ball rolling and have enough push to keep it moving.
On 1/31/11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't
Wikipedia
Governance Central.
It's the closest en:wp has.
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L
mailing
list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where
there
are concerns.
You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm not, I'm telling you about it.
Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body - to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort.
David, I'm not snapping at you particularly, although I do think you've hijacked this thread, which is intended to be about the gender gap. (I'll resist the urge to insert a sexist comment here. :) )
The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees. I would love to see them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations and their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground level. I am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a monthy "Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to Translatewiki or wherever to share with multiple other projects.
It is all well and good for (I count three) former arbitrators to say that Arbcom should be enforcing the civility policy, and to act as the governors of the project. But we are not the governors; in July 2009 the community soundly reminded us of that when we tried to set up an advisory council. And by the time a case gets to us, rude behaviour is often only an offshoot of the core problems of the case.
Arbcom is hardly in the position to go through and review the actions of all admins with the hope of rooting out which ones are "uncivil" and which ones aren't. Even with the diminished number of active administrators, there are still 800 of them, and we aren't a human resources department. I believe Rob also has a good point; most entry-level rudeness and newbie-biting comes from non-administrators, be they RC patrollers who often revert and leave templated user messages without really reviewing the edits, or new page patrollers who are tagging articles for deletion less than 3 minutes after their creation. (I note that WereSpielChequers makes the same point.)
Fred, yes, if someone files a request for arbitration, it's going to be taken seriously and reviewed seriously; the point is that people are not filing requests for arbitration that turn on this issue.
And finally, I'll point out that if you're reading this list, you're a vested contributor. Please stop using that term as if it's a bad thing.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Truth is, I'm not even sure I want to get into this. And, for the record, this inquiry concerns only the English Wikipedia Project. I spend 99% of the time I have to devote to the English Wikipedia Project at editing articles; the other 1% being spent on the Mailing Lists. So, consequently, I know very little about the authority structure that exists in the Project. But something that has been bothering me for some time now; something that has been touched on very cautiously at various times on this List; and something that I firmly believe is at the root of many of the problems that have been discussed on this List (and elsewhere) for some time now. What is the actual chain of authority that now exists in the Project? This I am certain of: Sue Gardner is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Just like any corporate structure, her line of authority is clear enough. The Foundation oversees (my term) and provides the technical equipment and funding to operate the Project. Is there a similar "structure", "line of authority" or "buck stops here" entity within the English Wikipedia Project. Would, could, someone please help me to see and understand it? I need some basics here so that I can take part in any discussion.
Marc Riddell
Editing, content, and on-wiki policy is in the hands of the editing community, limited by their ability to agree.
The exception is actions which create potential liabilities.
Heavy responsibility I know...
Fred Bauder
on 1/31/11 7:07 PM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding vested contributors, they are both a good and a bad thing - good in that retaining them means retaining experience, bad in that some of them have a sense of entitlement and that a few attract a "posse" that helps them to realize that entitlement.
Cabalism is an unfortunate side effect of weak governance - banding into factions helps some to pursue their own agendas even if that is just to derail any sort of change that would weaken their position.
Rfa reform and attempts to streamline desysopping have been largely stonewalled by relatively few people. Thats just one area but one of the longest running ones.
I think a good next step might be to start a public debate on the issues we are now facing and invite the wmf trustees to participate in and lead the discussion.
I don't think we need to rush headfirst into changes but we can't keep letting a few particularly loud and persistant voices keep throwing us off track for years at a time either so someone is going to have to get the ball rolling and have enough push to keep it moving.
On 1/31/11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 14:38, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 18:23, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In what way, David? I'm sorry, but the Arbitration Committee isn't
Wikipedia
Governance Central.
It's the closest en:wp has.
I have no idea what the board members are saying on the internal-L
mailing
list; however, if they're expressing concerns about behaviour there, they might want to actually mention it onwiki on the projects where
there
are concerns.
You're snapping at me, as if I'm causing this problem for you. I'm not, I'm telling you about it.
Are you saying you would need them to intervene directly? It may be feasible for the arbcom - the closest en:wp has to a governing body - to invite WMF to do so. This would likely avoid directly crossing the streams (which would be bad) but get an outside force in there if the internal one really feels it isn't up to the effort.
David, I'm not snapping at you particularly, although I do think you've hijacked this thread, which is intended to be about the gender gap. (I'll resist the urge to insert a sexist comment here. :) )
The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees. I would love to see them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations and their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground level. I am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a monthy "Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to Translatewiki or wherever to share with multiple other projects.
It is all well and good for (I count three) former arbitrators to say that Arbcom should be enforcing the civility policy, and to act as the governors of the project. But we are not the governors; in July 2009 the community soundly reminded us of that when we tried to set up an advisory council. And by the time a case gets to us, rude behaviour is often only an offshoot of the core problems of the case.
Arbcom is hardly in the position to go through and review the actions of all admins with the hope of rooting out which ones are "uncivil" and which ones aren't. Even with the diminished number of active administrators, there are still 800 of them, and we aren't a human resources department. I believe Rob also has a good point; most entry-level rudeness and newbie-biting comes from non-administrators, be they RC patrollers who often revert and leave templated user messages without really reviewing the edits, or new page patrollers who are tagging articles for deletion less than 3 minutes after their creation. (I note that WereSpielChequers makes the same point.)
Fred, yes, if someone files a request for arbitration, it's going to be taken seriously and reviewed seriously; the point is that people are not filing requests for arbitration that turn on this issue.
And finally, I'll point out that if you're reading this list, you're a vested contributor. Please stop using that term as if it's a bad thing.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Truth is, I'm not even sure I want to get into this. And, for the record, this inquiry concerns only the English Wikipedia Project. I spend 99% of the time I have to devote to the English Wikipedia Project at editing articles; the other 1% being spent on the Mailing Lists. So, consequently, I know very little about the authority structure that exists in the Project. But something that has been bothering me for some time now; something that has been touched on very cautiously at various times on this List; and something that I firmly believe is at the root of many of the problems that have been discussed on this List (and elsewhere) for some time now. What is the actual chain of authority that now exists in the Project? This I am certain of: Sue Gardner is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Just like any corporate structure, her line of authority is clear enough. The Foundation oversees (my term) and provides the technical equipment and funding to operate the Project. Is there a similar "structure", "line of authority" or "buck stops here" entity within the English Wikipedia Project. Would, could, someone please help me to see and understand it? I need some basics here so that I can take part in any discussion.
Marc Riddell
Editing, content, and on-wiki policy is in the hands of the editing community, limited by their ability to agree.
The exception is actions which create potential liabilities.
Heavy responsibility I know...
Fred Bauder
And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them?
Marc
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
[...] And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them?
The community, by consensus, for approval. Whoever chose to participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with what the consensus stands for).
We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led to reductions in founder bit authority. I personally disagree with that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now. Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an effective tiebreaker.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
[...] And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them?
on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The community, by consensus, for approval. Whoever chose to participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do you determine consensus?
Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with what the consensus stands for).
We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led to reductions in founder bit authority. I personally disagree with that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now. Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an effective tiebreaker.
People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting them. It¹s a cautionary tale.
I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its members are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed are led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but have the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has a voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest. That leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group stays focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is needed.
Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision, someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other people's lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to inspire us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we can't imagine yet."
And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the former without feeling they must defend the latter.
It's time.
Marc
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
It's time.
To march on Tahrir Square?
I think you will find that "Choosing a leader" only works if you have the mechanisms in place to do so.
I'm not even sure it is *possible* to lead an entity like Wikipedia.
Horses being led to water to drink and old dogs being taught new tricks come to mind.
Carcharoth
on 1/31/11 11:43 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
It's time.
To march on Tahrir Square?
Or the tower of babble :-)
I think you will find that "Choosing a leader" only works if you have the mechanisms in place to do so.
Then let's create that mechanism.
I'm not even sure it is *possible* to lead an entity like Wikipedia.
If the whole of an entity is composed of a single entity - such as a community - then is is possible to lead. Even a riot needs leadership if the group that is rioting has any hope of calling attention to its issues. A group without a leader is just a mob.
Horses being led to water to drink and old dogs being taught new tricks come to mind.
If the horse is thirsty enough it doesn't care how it gets to the water. And an old dog will learn new tricks when he discovers that the old ones don't work anymore.
Marc
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
[...] And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them?
on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The community, by consensus, for approval. Whoever chose to participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do you determine consensus?
Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with what the consensus stands for).
We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led to reductions in founder bit authority. I personally disagree with that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now. Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an effective tiebreaker.
People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting them. It¹s a cautionary tale.
I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its members are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed are led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but have the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has a voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest. That leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group stays focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is needed.
Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision, someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other people's lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to inspire us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we can't imagine yet."
And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the former without feeling they must defend the latter.
It's time.
Marc
I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no. We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other than having a great leader)
Fred Bauder
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.
-Stephanie
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
[...] And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them?
on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The community, by consensus, for approval. Whoever chose to participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do you determine consensus?
Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with what the consensus stands for).
We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led to reductions in founder bit authority. I personally disagree with that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now. Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an effective tiebreaker.
People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting them. It¹s a cautionary tale.
I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its members are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed are led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but have the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has a voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest. That leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group stays focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is needed.
Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision, someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other people's lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to inspire us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we can't imagine yet."
And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the former without feeling they must defend the latter.
It's time.
Marc
I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no. We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other than having a great leader)
Fred Bauder
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
[...] And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them?
on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The community, by consensus, for approval. Whoever chose to participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do you determine consensus?
Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with what the consensus stands for).
We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led to reductions in founder bit authority. I personally disagree with that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now. Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an effective tiebreaker.
People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting them. It¹s a cautionary tale.
I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its members are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed are led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but have the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has a voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest. That leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group stays focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is needed.
Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision, someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other people's lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to inspire us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we can't imagine yet."
And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the former without feeling they must defend the latter.
It's time.
Marc
on 1/31/11 11:48 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no. We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other than having a great leader)
Fred Bauder
Fred, this "authority" could bring order to the present chaos. As for my proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them out with persons who also believe this change is necessary.
This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
Fred, this "authority" could bring order to the present chaos. As for my proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them out with persons who also believe this change is necessary.
This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
I think you need to define the problem. What problems are not being addressed by lack of centralized authority? As Stephanie suggested we could have an elected council. What would their role be?
Fred
The problems are those things where there's a trade-off.
For example, a highly productive member may be very abrasive.
Are they too abrasive for their productivity or not? In other words, are they of net benefit to the project or not?
That's a trade-off.
If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can lose the most productive members.
Basically whenever there's a tradeoff, consensus on any individual thing (e.g. 'civility') is highly likely to fail- that everyone should be civil will normally be consensus, but what about other factors surrounding contributors? Consensus on civility would be that everyone uncivil MUST be banned!!!!
That's where leadership of one form or another comes in; you have to say that civility is important, and how important other things are as WELL. It's the relative importance that matters.
What arbcom does is that the candidates state what they stand for on the areas that have to be traded off and then they get elected and make decisions (hopefully) along the lines that they were voted in for. That's why arbcom more or less works.
What other trade offs are there in/around the Wikipedia?
Other areas might be things like policies, there very much are areas where people are deliberately writing the policies differently in different parts so that they can delete things they don't like, even though the policies, on the whole, probably don't permit them to do that; if you write something into the corner of a policy somewhere and then edit war that to stick with a group, then it's very hard to remove, even if people in general looked at them wouldn't agree with it.
So the Wikipedia could go to more of a parliamentary type system where parliament writes the policies and tries to keep them consistent.
What other trade-offs do people see?
If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can lose the most productive members.
Good propaganda, and it worked, but our most productive members are not habitually nasty, only a few are.
Other areas might be things like policies, there very much are areas where people are deliberately writing the policies differently in different parts so that they can delete things they don't like, even though the policies, on the whole, probably don't permit them to do that; if you write something into the corner of a policy somewhere and then edit war that to stick with a group, then it's very hard to remove, even if people in general looked at them wouldn't agree with it.
So the Wikipedia could go to more of a parliamentary type system where parliament writes the policies and tries to keep them consistent.
-Ian Woollard
That is a good example. I wanted to change Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not the other day and just went and changed it. Put a note on the talk page and on the effected project page and that was all there was to it.
I doubt I would have even bothered to try if I had to get onto an agenda, convince a dozen people unfamiliar with the issue that there was a problem, that a certain change should be made, etc.
However, we have had experience with people skulking around changing policy in order to have something to point to when they were violating every policy Wikipedia has.
Fred
On 01/02/2011, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can lose the most productive members.
Good propaganda, and it worked, but our most productive members are not habitually nasty, only a few are.
This is a good example. I resent you for referring to my general discussion as 'propaganda'. This is rather uncivil. So please can Bauder be suspended from this list as he violates civility???? Many thx. ;-)
/tongue in cheek example
The point is that it's a continuum, what some people consider incivility may not be considered by others, and they vary on how much is needed for action. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any statute of limitations, so I've seen numerous cases where people come along with a dirty laundry list from several years; implicitly this may overwhelm thousands and thousands of positive edits, and the incivility may be directed at people that are objectively up to no good.
That's the trade-off. As George says, everyone is incivil sometimes.
But my fundamental point is that perhaps it's about trade-offs between things; so identifying the trade-offs identifies the areas that require leadership. Things that aren't traded, don't require leadership, since consensus will very typically do the right thing for things that aren't traded off.
Fred
Fred, this "authority" could bring order to the present chaos. As for my proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them out with persons who also believe this change is necessary.
This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 11:01 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I think you need to define the problem. What problems are not being addressed by lack of centralized authority? As Stephanie suggested we could have an elected council. What would their role be?
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus" and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community"!
Marc
On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus" and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community"!
Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.
- d.
on 2/1/11 12:43 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus" and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community"!
Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.
David, yes and the road becomes more complex and hazardous with every new mile that is traveled. And, if that continues, then I am afraid for a Project and a Community that I have come to have a great deal of respect and affection for.
Marc
How about this for starters for a leadership council. 5 members, serving staggered 3 year terms, and possibly subject to recall, with the following duties: - To engage members of the community in open and frank discussions about policy, technical, and content/style issues. - To participate in discussions of broad-reaching issues, lending moderation and reminding the community of it's core responsibility and values. - To rule on the presence or absence of consensus where it is contested. - To occasionally impose decisions based on the advice of the community where the consensus process cannot produce a decision, and where the decision would reflect both a majority viewpoint and the long-term interests of the project. - To occasionally call referendums on technical and policy matters after sufficient discussion has taken place, and where the wishes of the community are not clear. - To use the site notice and watchlist notice functions to call attention to broad-reaching policy and technical discussions requiring more community input. - To impose temporary policy decisions where timeliness is critical due to potential for disruption to the community or gross violation of our core values.
The community would retain the ability to govern through consensus, and would further have the ability to call referendums on any decision imposed by the council. Overturning a council decision would be by simple majority, so that the council would lack the ability to go completely against the wishes of the community.
Someone take this and keep editing please :)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 12:43 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus" and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community"!
Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.
David, yes and the road becomes more complex and hazardous with every new mile that is traveled. And, if that continues, then I am afraid for a Project and a Community that I have come to have a great deal of respect and affection for.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How about this for starters for a leadership council. 5 members, serving staggered 3 year terms, and possibly subject to recall, with the following duties:
- To engage members of the community in open and frank discussions
about policy, technical, and content/style issues.
- To participate in discussions of broad-reaching issues, lending
moderation and reminding the community of it's core responsibility and values.
- To rule on the presence or absence of consensus where it is contested.
- To occasionally impose decisions based on the advice of the
community where the consensus process cannot produce a decision, and where the decision would reflect both a majority viewpoint and the long-term interests of the project.
- To occasionally call referendums on technical and policy matters
after sufficient discussion has taken place, and where the wishes of the community are not clear.
- To use the site notice and watchlist notice functions to call
attention to broad-reaching policy and technical discussions requiring more community input.
- To impose temporary policy decisions where timeliness is critical
due to potential for disruption to the community or gross violation of our core values.
The community would retain the ability to govern through consensus, and would further have the ability to call referendums on any decision imposed by the council. Overturning a council decision would be by simple majority, so that the council would lack the ability to go completely against the wishes of the community.
Someone take this and keep editing please :)
Later with elaboration, but very very promising initiative.
Fred
On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus" and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community"!
Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.
- d.
I'm going to answer his question, it is a very good one, but I do manage to do a few things besides answer email.
Fred
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement.
Fred
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement.
C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached?
Marc
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement.
C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached?
Marc
People agree and support the decision.
Fred
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement.
C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached?
Marc
on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
Marc
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement.
C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached?
Marc
on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
Marc
The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and follow it.
Fred
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
Marc
on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement.
C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached?
Marc
on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
Marc
on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and follow it.
And how many of these Talk Page "votes" are usually cast before the results are announced as being the "consensus" of the entire Wikipedia Community?
Marc
> I could make out the last sentence > which > contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the > entire > community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of > consensus", > nor > described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is > determined. > > Marc > on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement.
C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached?
Marc
on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
Marc
on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and follow it.
And how many of these Talk Page "votes" are usually cast before the results are announced as being the "consensus" of the entire Wikipedia Community?
Marc
That depends on how important and significant the issue is. Remember watch lists. A change that is consistent with existing policy does not call for debate; a major change to one of the "pillars of policy" would call forth major participation and debate.
Fred
Fred
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer.
This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
That's the way it works, though.
I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer.
This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
That's the way it works, though.
I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
Marc
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer.
This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
That's the way it works, though.
I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
Consensus is the method which was chosen for Wikipedia to determine things (in general). Raw majority voting (or supermajority voting) was intentionally not chosen.
It's entirely fine to point out that this leads to existential angst over what consensus is, means, or how anyone ever determines it. But that's what we do, every day for the last 10 years. Something worked, at least some of the time.
You're looking for a deeper meaning (fair) and a way to legitimately and concretely get approval for changes (fair to ask for) that gives you an answer you feel was unambiguously arrived at.
We have no guarantee that the last clause will ever be satisfied under the consensus system. Some issues are uncontroversial and it's not really challenged that consensus exists. Some issues are very controversial, and calling the consensus either way is ambiguous.
I understand and acknowledge that the ambiguity is a pain point for you. That is the system, for better or worse. There is no magic wand.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer.
This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
That's the way it works, though.
I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
on 2/1/11 11:12 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus is the method which was chosen for Wikipedia to determine things (in general). Raw majority voting (or supermajority voting) was intentionally not chosen.
It's entirely fine to point out that this leads to existential angst over what consensus is, means, or how anyone ever determines it. But that's what we do, every day for the last 10 years. Something worked, at least some of the time.
You're looking for a deeper meaning (fair) and a way to legitimately and concretely get approval for changes (fair to ask for) that gives you an answer you feel was unambiguously arrived at.
We have no guarantee that the last clause will ever be satisfied under the consensus system. Some issues are uncontroversial and it's not really challenged that consensus exists. Some issues are very controversial, and calling the consensus either way is ambiguous.
I understand and acknowledge that the ambiguity is a pain point for you. That is the system, for better or worse. There is no magic wand.
George, your equivocation surprises me. My assessment of the Wikipedia "consensus" process remains the same. And your implied suggestion that it works because Wikipedia is still here and going strong: you are mistaking size for strength, mass for solidity. Wikipedia's structure may be massive, but it is by no means solid. My prognosis if some basic lifestyle changes aren't made: Poor.
Marc
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
People agree and support the decision.
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be factually validated?
on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer.
This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
That's the way it works, though.
I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
Marc
We make decisions according to our long-standing policy of making decisions by consensus and have successfully for many years. You saying that our experience is bogus does not make it so. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Consensus
Fred
On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
Marc, you're still looking for a driver. There's no-one driving.
- d.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
Marc, you're still looking for a driver. There's no-one driving.
Or everyone is.
The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken over by single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and continued participation by a reasonable number of independent editors with new voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification stagnation. At various times, one or the other person will drive an initiative, and some will voice concerns about short-term and long-term issues, but overall, as long as the atmosphere doesn't drive people away, things will get done. If things aren't getting done, they should be identified and something done about them, but problems won't get solved if people walk away from them.
Carcharoth
The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken over by single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and continued participation by a reasonable number of independent editors with new voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification stagnation. At various times, one or the other person will drive an initiative, and some will voice concerns about short-term and long-term issues, but overall, as long as the atmosphere doesn't drive people away, things will get done. If things aren't getting done, they should be identified and something done about them, but problems won't get solved if people walk away from them.
Carcharoth
Any culture is a function of the people participating in that culture, and the only way to change the culture is to change the people in it. We need a critical mass of mature, knowledgeable editors; people who participate because they are knowledgeable, and not because they have strong opinions.
The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing.
Andreas (Jayen466)
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing.
This is an excellent point. Though you may get some angst from those already present who may feel pushed out as they see the culture of Wikipedia changing (think how hard it has been for some of those present from the very beginning, or near the beginning, to adapt over the last ten years). How to manage such change is an interesting problem.
Carcharoth
On 2/3/11 11:59 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing.
This is an excellent point. Though you may get some angst from those already present who may feel pushed out as they see the culture of Wikipedia changing (think how hard it has been for some of those present from the very beginning, or near the beginning, to adapt over the last ten years). How to manage such change is an interesting problem.
It's important to make sure we do maintain the aspects of Wikipedia's culture that have made it work, though. I'm a professor in my day job (though I was an undergrad when I became a Wikipedian), and I don't see academia and academic experts as holding all advantages, though they/we do do well in the having-a-lot-of-domain-knowledge arena.
What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for the most part? That's something Nupedia didn't succeed in, and on the second point is something even most academic-press books don't succeed in--- the median overview book on a subject sneaks in quite a bit of opinion and original research, and sometimes even digs at academic opponents if the editors let them get away with it, which is why you can't really read an academic book without *also* reading a few journals' reviews of it.
-Mark
On 3 February 2011 11:26, Mark delirium@hackish.org wrote:
What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for the most part?
Nerds are obsessive about things being right and not wrong. This leads to most things about Wikipedia.
That's something Nupedia didn't succeed in, and on the second point is something even most academic-press books don't succeed in--- the median overview book on a subject sneaks in quite a bit of opinion and original research, and sometimes even digs at academic opponents if the editors let them get away with it, which is why you can't really read an academic book without *also* reading a few journals' reviews of it.
NPOV is IMO W
On 3 February 2011 11:28, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO W
... Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting everyone edit the website.
-d.
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting everyone edit the website.
Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is akin to what we are attempting (and they often succeed better at it than we do). But the way NPOV is defined in Wikipedia may be new, and relatively few academic and expert writers will have contributed to an encyclopedia before. Most have published their own books and papers, in which they are free to present their original research and opinions.
Any outreach to scholars and universities needs to communicate that idea clearly. The reality gap between our NPOV aim and the actual state of our articles may otherwise give new contributors the wrong idea. They shouldn't do as we do, they should do better.
We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from mature, and still beset with problems. First and foremost, we lack clarity on the topic of media vs. scholarly sources, and the weight to assign to each of them. We simply say,
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
As the term "reliable sources" encompasses everything from gossip websites, The Sun and The Daily Mail to university press publications and academic journals, it is not easy to say what "fair, proportionate representation" actually ought to mean in practice.
The other day, I discussed Wikipedia with a religious scholar. I had asked why there were no scholars contributing. His comments were illuminating. Here is what he said:
---o0o---
"To take an example of a topic with which I'm familiar - Jehovah's Witnesses - I would really need to start all over again, and I don't know whether it's OK to delete an entire article and rewrite another one, even if I had the time. It's a bit like the joke about the motorist who asked for directions, only to be told, 'If I were you, I wouldn't be starting from here!'
The JW article begins with an assortment of unrelated bits of information, it fails to locate the Witnesses within their historical religious origins, it says it was updated in December 2010 yet ignores important recent academic material. The citations may look impressive, but they are patchy, and sometimes the sources state the exact opposite of what the text conveys. So what does one do?"
---o0o---
What we have going for us is that Wikipedia has become so big that it has become hard to ignore. And scholars have begun to notice that if their publications are cited in Wikipedia, this actually drives traffic to them.
If our success and our faults can induce those who know better than our average editor to come along and help, then we might actually get to the point where Wikipedia provides free access to the sum of human knowledge. It would be no mean achievement.
Andreas
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me.
-MuZemike
On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting everyone edit the website.
Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is akin to what we are attempting (and they often succeed better at it than we do). But the way NPOV is defined in Wikipedia may be new, and relatively few academic and expert writers will have contributed to an encyclopedia before. Most have published their own books and papers, in which they are free to present their original research and opinions.
Any outreach to scholars and universities needs to communicate that idea clearly. The reality gap between our NPOV aim and the actual state of our articles may otherwise give new contributors the wrong idea. They shouldn't do as we do, they should do better.
We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from mature, and still beset with problems. First and foremost, we lack clarity on the topic of media vs. scholarly sources, and the weight to assign to each of them. We simply say,
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
As the term "reliable sources" encompasses everything from gossip websites, The Sun and The Daily Mail to university press publications and academic journals, it is not easy to say what "fair, proportionate representation" actually ought to mean in practice.
The other day, I discussed Wikipedia with a religious scholar. I had asked why there were no scholars contributing. His comments were illuminating. Here is what he said:
---o0o---
"To take an example of a topic with which I'm familiar - Jehovah's Witnesses
- I would really need to start all over again, and I don't know whether it's
OK to delete an entire article and rewrite another one, even if I had the time. It's a bit like the joke about the motorist who asked for directions, only to be told, 'If I were you, I wouldn't be starting from here!'
The JW article begins with an assortment of unrelated bits of information, it fails to locate the Witnesses within their historical religious origins, it says it was updated in December 2010 yet ignores important recent academic material. The citations may look impressive, but they are patchy, and sometimes the sources state the exact opposite of what the text conveys. So what does one do?"
---o0o---
What we have going for us is that Wikipedia has become so big that it has become hard to ignore. And scholars have begun to notice that if their publications are cited in Wikipedia, this actually drives traffic to them.
If our success and our faults can induce those who know better than our average editor to come along and help, then we might actually get to the point where Wikipedia provides free access to the sum of human knowledge. It would be no mean achievement.
Andreas
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, MuZemike muzemike@gmail.com wrote:
From: MuZemike muzemike@gmail.com I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me.
See for example use of radaronline.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=radaronl...
Andreas
"I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me."-MuZemike
All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily Mail, Sun and various other tabloids are regularly used as sources on BLPs. The typical way of getting round the reliability issue will be to use phrases likes "it was reported in the popular press that...", on the pretext that that anything tabloids report is notable by virtue of being reported in popular newspapers (regardless of whether the source is reliable or not wrt the facts). After all: "surely that The Sun has said x is notable, and The Sun is a reliable source regarding what The Sun has said." :(
As has been said, Wikipedia has yet to define what it means by "reliable source", and "notable source" is very easily substituted as a metric, with the small safeguard of attribution (sometimes).
Scott
"I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me."-MuZemike
All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily Mail, Sun and various other tabloids are regularly used as sources on BLPs. The typical way of getting round the reliability issue will be to use phrases likes "it was reported in the popular press that...", on the pretext that that anything tabloids report is notable by virtue of being reported in popular newspapers (regardless of whether the source is reliable or not wrt the facts). After all: "surely that The Sun has said x is notable, and The Sun is a reliable source regarding what The Sun has said." :(
As has been said, Wikipedia has yet to define what it means by "reliable source", and "notable source" is very easily substituted as a metric, with the small safeguard of attribution (sometimes).
Scott
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject.
Fred Bauder
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject.
That requires people be familiar with such things on an international scale. In practice most such sources will be the result of people using the first thing that comes up on Google that looks like a news source (and the daily mail does rank so well these days) rather than any deliberate attempt to use tabloids as references.
Other than getting a database report to list every link to such a site within a ref tag there isn't much we can do about it.
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject.
That requires people be familiar with such things on an international scale. In practice most such sources will be the result of people using the first thing that comes up on Google that looks like a news source (and the daily mail does rank so well these days) rather than any deliberate attempt to use tabloids as references.
Other than getting a database report to list every link to such a site within a ref tag there isn't much we can do about it.
-- geni
Totally.
This sort of problem is well suited to the wiki editing style. Subsequent editors can look for better sources or hedge or even delete the material. References to blogs, which often contain information much to an editors liking, are a good example.
Then there is state-controlled media, China's media and government websites being an interesting example. In China even bold cutting-edge journals are self-censored; But how can that be differentiated from any journal's blind spot. For example, peer review for an academic journal can, in practice, amount to exclusion of material that reflect an approach to the discipline the peer jury doesn't approve of rather than actual proof of reliability.
Remember though that the entry point to this discussion was use of British tabloids for BLP purposes. There controversial material, a tabloid's stock in trade, may be removed if there is no reliable source. WP:BEANS There can be no exhaustive list of what might be an appropriate source for each type of subject.
Fred
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject.
OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings" - stating "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&... 5705319
The citations he provided for the "popular press" were from "Brisbane Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now, neither could be deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a "cult leader" in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is "often said" or what is "reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said"? I guess I'm unsure.
The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns "[[anti-cult]] writings". Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what "anti-cult" people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)
Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead.
The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may be true, and "the most important thing readers need to know" - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.
Scott
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings" - stating "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&... 5705319
The citations he provided for the "popular press" were from "Brisbane Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now, neither could be deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a "cult leader" in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is "often said" or what is "reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said"? I guess I'm unsure.
The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns "[[anti-cult]] writings". Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what "anti-cult" people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)
Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead.
The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may be true, and "the most important thing readers need to know" - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.
As the freshly-banned user pointed out on Jimbo's talk page, Bob Larson is famous for doing "exorcisms on air":
Have a look, it's good fun. I am not sure if that is in any way, shape or form an encyclopedic source though.
Here is another example. The article on "New Village Leadership Academy" sources the following statement to this website:
Again, have a look at the site. An encyclopedic source?
This is the statement concerned that we have in our article:
---o0o---
Cales stated: "Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted."[24]
---o0o---
Now, Jada Pinkett-Smith is on record as stating that she is not a Scientologist. Here is a quote:
---o0o---
Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion - - until she met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the greatest men I know."
http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-set...
---o0o---
Needless to say, Pinkett-Smith was listed for ages in our List of Scientologists, along with Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and other non-Scientologists.
Andreas
I think we also need to take into account what the subject is and type of information.
I wouldn't trust one of our fleet street tabloids for a "WWII bomber found on the moon" story, and I was somewhat cynical about the following week's "WWII bomber mysteriously disappears from the Moon" headline, or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage, so xxxx has signed for yyy FC or zzzz died is probably usable. As for the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway?
WereSpielChequers.
On 4 February 2011 13:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings" - stating "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&... 5705319
The citations he provided for the "popular press" were from "Brisbane Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now, neither could be deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a "cult leader" in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is "often said" or what is "reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said"? I guess I'm unsure.
The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns "[[anti-cult]] writings". Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what "anti-cult" people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)
Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead.
The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may be true, and "the most important thing readers need to know" - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.
As the freshly-banned user pointed out on Jimbo's talk page, Bob Larson is famous for doing "exorcisms on air":
Have a look, it's good fun. I am not sure if that is in any way, shape or form an encyclopedic source though.
Here is another example. The article on "New Village Leadership Academy" sources the following statement to this website:
Again, have a look at the site. An encyclopedic source?
This is the statement concerned that we have in our article:
---o0o---
Cales stated: "Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted."[24]
---o0o---
Now, Jada Pinkett-Smith is on record as stating that she is not a Scientologist. Here is a quote:
---o0o---
Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion -
- until she met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because
I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the greatest men I know."
http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-set...
---o0o---
Needless to say, Pinkett-Smith was listed for ages in our List of Scientologists, along with Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and other non-Scientologists.
Andreas
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think we also need to take into account what the subject is and type of information.
I wouldn't trust one of our fleet street tabloids for a "WWII bomber found on the moon" story, and I was somewhat cynical about the following week's "WWII bomber mysteriously disappears from the Moon" headline, or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage, so xxxx has signed for yyy FC or zzzz died is probably usable. As for the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway?
Yes, I use Chinese controlled media and government sites all the time as references for information that is not politically sensitive. The problem is that it takes real expertise to know what is, and in that gray area, a bogus assertion by the government may pass as reliable.
Fred.
Note that the statement about Pinkett-Smith I quoted in the previous post was not sourced to radaronline.com, but to the West Australian, a Perth newspaper.
What is sourced to radaronline.com
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/08/exclusive-will-jada-new-school...
in the [[New Village Leadership Academy]] article is the statement that the school principal, Piano Foster, has "Scientology associations". Radar in turn sources this to what it calls "an official Scientology list". In fact, this is a private website, truthaboutscientology.com, which since a recent AE thread is no longer considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. The site says the woman once did a Scientology course (Basic Study Manual). Sorry for the mix-up.
Here are some other uses of radaronline.com:
- Used in the [[Rachel Uchitel]] BLP to state that she was photographed entering Tiger Woods's room.
- Used in [[Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew]] to state that "On August 31, RadarOnline reported that Rachel Uchitel, who had been living at a sober living facility in Malibu, California, left the facility with Dr. Pinsky's permission in order to visit the World Trade Center site, where her fiance, James Andrew O'Grady, was killed during the September 11, 2001 attacks."
- Used in [[Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 9)]] to state that "During rehearsal on September 28, Lacey Schwimmer "severely strained" her hip flexors and abductors. Her injuries required 3 weeks of physical therapy. She continued to dance on the show during her treatments."
- Used in the [[Brian Gazer]] BLP, along with primary court sources, to provide a detailed financial breakdown of Gazer's divorce settlement.
- Used in [[Suleman octuplets]] as a source for stating that the octuplets' grandmother has complained that "her daughter does not contribute toward housing or food costs".
- Used in the [[Brittany CoxXx]] BLP to state that 'Borat's producers first contacted [Stonie's Manager, David Forest] in June 2005, he tells Radar. "They wanted to find someone who would look 13 or 14 but was actually of legal age and would do frontal nudity," he recalls. Cortez immediately sprang to mind, he says, because "he's a small-framed boy but has a large organ." How large? "About eight inches, and thick."'
We have a policy about not spreading gossip, but I see little evidence that we adhere to it.
Andreas
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership}) To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 4 February, 2011, 13:25 --- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often
been
termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as
[[anti-cult]]
writings" - stating "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing
readers
need to know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&... 5705319
The citations he provided for the "popular press" were
from
"Brisbane Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now, neither could be deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap
a
cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings
of
journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research.
Anyone
who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in
quality
papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor
research,
dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having
said
that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a
"cult
leader" in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is "often said" or what is "reliably,
authoritively,
or neutrally said"? I guess I'm unsure. The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns
"[[anti-cult]]
writings". Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to
what
"anti-cult" people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources.
The
sources in this case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both
evangelical
Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for
his
troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php
title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)
Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to
include.
But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue
weight,
when included so prominently in the lead.
The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph,
is to
invite the reader to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may
be
true, and "the most important thing readers need to know" - but is this
really
neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.
As the freshly-banned user pointed out on Jimbo's talk page, Bob Larson is famous for doing "exorcisms on air":
Have a look, it's good fun. I am not sure if that is in any way, shape or form an encyclopedic source though.
Here is another example. The article on "New Village Leadership Academy" sources the following statement to this website:
Again, have a look at the site. An encyclopedic source?
This is the statement concerned that we have in our article:
---o0o---
Cales stated: "Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist, have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted."[24]
---o0o---
Now, Jada Pinkett-Smith is on record as stating that she is not a Scientologist. Here is a quote:
---o0o---
Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion -
- until she met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a
Scientologist because I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I realize it is a religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the greatest men I know."
http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-set...
---o0o---
Needless to say, Pinkett-Smith was listed for ages in our List of Scientologists, along with Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and other non-Scientologists.
Andreas
We have a policy about not spreading gossip, but I see little evidence that we adhere to it.
Andreas
After such examples are found they still need to be edited. The editing community varies in its tolerance, experience, and compliance. What in one context might slip though will not in another. BLP is an area of focus and for good reason; it is productive of nasty publicity and potential liability.
Fred
We have a policy about not spreading gossip, but I see
little evidence
that we adhere to it.
Andreas
After such examples are found they still need to be edited. The editing community varies in its tolerance, experience, and compliance. What in one context might slip though will not in another. BLP is an area of focus and for good reason; it is productive of nasty publicity and potential liability.
These are not isolated cases. The presence of this type of material is systemic, arguably within present policy, and, it seems to me, supported by community consensus.
The Sun is used as a source in several thousand articles on Wikipedia, including many BLPs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redir...
We might consider generating a list of sources like radaronline and The Sun, identifying them as unwelcome, and creating a noticeboard where editors can apply for exceptions in the few cases where a source like that has something of encyclopedic value to say. I am fairly convinced though that a proposal like that would result in 2 MB of arguments and in the end come to nothing.
For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way.
Andreas
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way.
Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover, or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge there.
Carcharoth
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&... hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch &advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search
'Nuff said.
Scott
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: 04 February 2011 16:13 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is more of a news aggregator than an educational resource, and the reason is that the community likes it that way.
Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover, or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge there.
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&... hesun.co.uk+%22Living+people%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch &advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search
'Nuff said.
Scott
Said but not done. We need to take a good look at this, and similar uses of dubious sources.
Fred
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
For better or worse, Wikipedia in its present state is
more of a news
aggregator than an educational resource, and the
reason is that the
community likes it that way.
Parts of Wikipedia are more like a news aggregator, yes. Other parts are clearly not. Most obviously the stuff that newspapers don't cover, or where other sources exist. Has anyone tried to do one of those network diagrams showing correlations between types of articles and particular types of sources? Some interesting patterns might emerge there.
Even parts of Wikipedia where other sources do exist frequently restrict themselves to aggregating news.
There are no end of scholarly sources on [[Doris Lessing]], say. Our article on her cites (news and web sources listed left, book sources indented):
NobelPrize.org The Guardian BBC News Toronto Star The Times Bloomberg The New York Times http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi The New York Times BBC News Online ------------------------------------- A book by Harper Collins biography.jrank.org ------------------------------------- A book by Broadview Press Newsweek Voices of America dorislessing.org Huffington Post BBC Radio rslit.org The New York Times Daily Mail Herald Sun The Telegraph CBS News New York Daily News BBC News Online dorislessing.org The New York Times dorislessing.org ------------------------------------- "Worldcon Guest of Honor Speeches" otago.ac.nz hrc.utexas.edu/press/releases/2007/lessing.html lib.utulsa.edu/speccoll/collections/lessingdoris/index.htm gencat.cat/pic/cat/index.htm
That's 32 media/web references (some of them with multiple citations), and 3 book references (each cited once).
We've been doing this for ten years. We have always said, "articles will develop eventually". But by now, some articles are actually degrading again, and on the whole we have failed to attract great numbers of competent experts with real-life credentials.
There are some promising signs that this is changing, and I am glad of it. But we should remember that the image we project through the quality and seriousness of our articles has a lot to do with what sort of editors we attract. There are virtuous circles as well as vicious circles.
Another scholar for example who I asked for advice a while back volunteered the information that
---o0o---
"I do not permit any of my students to cite your encyclopedia as any kind of reliable source when they write papers for me. Wikipedia is too much a playground for social activists of whatever editorial bent wherein the lowest common denominator gets to negotiate reality for the readers. No thanks."
---o0o---
Reactions like that are our loss, and perpetuate the problems we have.
Our efforts at outreach could be coupled with efforts to make Wikipedia a more reputable publication. Charles Matthews mentioned at a recent meet-up a BLP where editors were all focused on whether the subject was gay or not, while no one had any interest in adding information explaining what made the person notable. This seems rather typical.
Our beloved media gossip, complete with divorce details from thesmokinggun.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&redirs=0&se...
may be keeping those editors away who we most need to turn articles like Doris Lessing's into something worthy of an actual encyclopedia.
In other words, the more tabloid sources we cite, the more editors we attract who like tabloids, while turning off those potential contributors who don't read tabloids.
Andreas
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
That's 32 media/web references (some of them with multiple citations), and 3 book references (each cited once).
I would suggest finding out who added those book references and seeing if they still have the books, and then building on the article from there. It would help if it was easy to find who added a particular reference. Incidentally, NobelPrize.org would be one of the more biographical sources. The Nobel Foundation gets each recipient to write a biography, and they are published in a regular series of books.
Here is an example:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-bio.htm...
"This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate."
The Nobel Foundation lectures are also fascinating, though less useful for Wikipedia articles.
Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles. As always, you need to look in detail at the sources to really see what is going on.
Carcharoth
Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles.
While Lessing was born in 1919, last time I looked she was still alive. ;) Tough old bird.
Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism, and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries when the announcement of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to nothing about what she won the prize for.
Andreas
Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles.
While Lessing was born in 1919, last time I looked she was still alive. ;) Tough old bird.
Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism, and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries when the announcement of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to nothing about what she won the prize for.
Andreas
So? Hardly the only article that could use major improvement. To some people that would be an opportunity.
Fred
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Also, some of those media references may be obituaries, which are a different sort of source to news articles.
While Lessing was born in 1919, last time I looked she was still alive. ;)
Oops! :-)
Tough old bird.
Indeed.
Our article talks about her dalliances with communism, feminism, and sufism, and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries when the announcement of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to nothing about what she won the prize for.
Human interest rather than encyclopedic?
Carcharoth
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Our article talks about her dalliances with communism,
feminism, and sufism,
and tells us that she was out shopping for groceries
when the announcement
of the Nobel Prize win came, but it tells us next to
nothing about what she
won the prize for.
Human interest rather than encyclopedic?
Yes. Though I wouldn't want to get rid of the human interest. I watched that interview with the "royal flush" quote, her sitting, with her shopping, on the steps of her house, talking to the assembled reporters. It was hilarious.
But we need to recognise that our present system and demographics are biased towards adding spice to our articles, rather than meat. All spice and no meat is no good.
Andreas
talking to the assembled
In other words, the more tabloid sources we cite, the more editors we attract who like tabloids, while turning off those potential contributors who don't read tabloids.
Andreas
We are already nastier then we need to be or ought to be to ordinary people who try to edit. We are not going in the direction you suggest, but you might try Citizendium or Knowino.
Fred
On 2/4/11 6:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
"I do not permit any of my students to cite your encyclopedia as any kind of reliable source when they write papers for me. Wikipedia is too much a playground for social activists of whatever editorial bent wherein the lowest common denominator gets to negotiate reality for the readers. No thanks."
I run into these kinds of reactions fairly frequently, but honestly I don't see how they're in tune with reality. There at least seems to be a bit of knee-jerk reactionary sentiment going on (and among academics, some turf-defending and credentialism).
I certainly encourage my students to read Wikipedia, though I also encourage them to follow up the sources and consult alternative sources. There are indeed "social activists of whatever editorial bent", but that's true of academic presses as well! A well-developed Wikipedia article in my experience is less likely than an academic book to completely ignore a large number of sources; academics are much more willing to decide "field X is crap" and ignore it entirely, e.g. if you look at how economists treat critical theorists and vice versa (and how economists treat economists from rival camps).
Consider, say, our article [[History of U.S. foreign policy]]. It could be better, certainly could be more detailed (though some sections point to more detailed separate articles), but it's not bad overall imo. It covers some opposing views, both in terms of historiographic disputes and political disputes. Now compare it to a recently published Princeton University Press book on the history of U.S. foreign policy, "Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz". The book is of course more detailed than our article, and includes some excellent material that we should cover. But if you were to ask which one is influenced more by "social activists" and which one more neutrally covers conflicting views of U.S. history and foreign policy, we beat the book by a large margin!
And it's hardly an isolated example, if you look at the list of recent publications by academic presses, there is a whole lot of social activism going on. Not that that's even necessarily bad; academic presses don't serve the same role as an encyclopedia. But it's strange to criticize Wikipedia from that standpoint!
-Mark
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, Mark delirium@hackish.org wrote:
From: Mark delirium@hackish.org On 2/4/11 6:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
"I do not permit any of my students to cite your
encyclopedia as any
kind of reliable source when they write papers for me.
Wikipedia is too
much a playground for social activists of whatever
editorial bent wherein
the lowest common denominator gets to negotiate
reality for the readers.
No thanks."
I run into these kinds of reactions fairly frequently, but honestly I don't see how they're in tune with reality. There at least seems to be a bit of knee-jerk reactionary sentiment going on (and among academics, some turf-defending and credentialism).
I certainly encourage my students to read Wikipedia, though I also encourage them to follow up the sources and consult alternative sources. There are indeed "social activists of whatever editorial bent", but that's true of academic presses as well! A well-developed Wikipedia article in my experience is less likely than an academic book to completely ignore a large number of sources; academics are much more willing to decide "field X is crap" and ignore it entirely, e.g. if you look at how economists treat critical theorists and vice versa (and how economists treat economists from rival camps).
Consider, say, our article [[History of U.S. foreign policy]]. It could be better, certainly could be more detailed (though some sections point to more detailed separate articles), but it's not bad overall imo. It covers some opposing views, both in terms of historiographic disputes and political disputes. Now compare it to a recently published Princeton University Press book on the history of U.S. foreign policy, "Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz". The book is of course more detailed than our article, and includes some excellent material that we should cover. But if you were to ask which one is influenced more by "social activists" and which one more neutrally covers conflicting views of U.S. history and foreign policy, we beat the book by a large margin!
And it's hardly an isolated example, if you look at the list of recent publications by academic presses, there is a whole lot of social activism going on. Not that that's even necessarily bad; academic presses don't serve the same role as an encyclopedia. But it's strange to criticize Wikipedia from that standpoint!
-Mark
Of course academic books engage in social activism, and represent a spectrum of opinions. But compiling an authoritative reference work is quite a different job from writing a book with a provocative thesis that stirs debate, as Immerman has done. Publishers of general-purpose and specialised encyclopedias realise that, and so do the scholars writing for them, who are accountable to the work's editors.
We don't have any similar accountability. Perhaps that is another way scholars and universities could become involved, besides personal editing involvement and setting their students Wikipedia projects: by reviewing the material we have in their area of expertise, providing a quality rating similar to those of our own quality rating processes, and providing improvement suggestions that the community can then follow up on.
Andreas
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject.
OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings" - stating "This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&... 5705319
The citations he provided for the "popular press" were from "Brisbane Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now, neither could be deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a "cult leader" in the popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting what is "often said" or what is "reliably, authoritively, or neutrally said"? I guess I'm unsure.
The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns "[[anti-cult]] writings". Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what "anti-cult" people are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both evangelical Christians. (NB, the editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)
Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so prominently in the lead.
The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may be true, and "the most important thing readers need to know" - but is this really neutrality? Are we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.
Scott
Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is "single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC)." with a link to "single-party state" an artificial construct for which there is little published authority.
We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden.
By the way, I know of what I speak. I lived in Denver and was well acquainted with the Divine Light Mission, friends even with several of them their leaders. A cult.
Fred
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is "single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC)." with a link to "single-party state" an artificial construct for which there is little published authority.
We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden.
It's easy for someone who is a little too anal-retentive at following rules to cause trouble, because the fact that he *is* following rules makes it so much easier for him to push his demands. And if you rules-lawyer, it's still easy to get away with it.
The reason is that having the rules on your side gives you one *heck* of an edge in any dispute. It's occasionally possible for common sense to triumph over rules, but only in the very obvious cases will this happen--if the person following the rules isn't demanding something so outrageous that anyone can see how bad it is instantly, it'll work.
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is "single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC)." with a link to "single-party state" an artificial construct for which there is little published authority.
We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden.
If we are serious about letting the sources dictate the content, and not the sources justify the content we want, then this comparison does not work.
To have China described as a "totalitarian dictatorship" is in my mind not neutral, because it is simply to apply populist boo words to something we don't like. However, be that as it may, it would be reasonable to apply such a label if it were attributed to a leading Sinologist or some Professor of International Politics, who is an authority on comparative governmental systems, it would not be appropriate if it were attributed to wehatecommmies.com, freechina.org, or Fox News.
To take Jimbo's and Prem Rawat, that's exactly what he did. He used two evangelical anti-cult exorcists, and a couple of tabloids, and the circumvention of "popular press" and "anti-cult" attribution, to negatively label the subject in the most prominent weighted way possible. (And I notice the edit remains in the article - probably because it appeals to the house POV). Now, the chap may be a cultist - but my question would be: how are serious specialist scholars, working in the field, assessing him? And should that not be given more weight than eccentric critics and non-critical journalists?
The sources here are chaff and, even if not excluded, should be weighted as such.
Scott
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
Clearly there are issues. I'm on Jimbo's side with this though. Some of my earliest edit wars were over whether The People's Republic of China could be described in the introduction as a totalitarian dictatorship. What has currently been hit on is "single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC)." with a link to "single-party state" an artificial construct for which there is little published authority.
We can't get so picky and bound up in rules that stating the obvious is forbidden.
If we are serious about letting the sources dictate the content, and not the sources justify the content we want, then this comparison does not work.
To have China described as a "totalitarian dictatorship" is in my mind not neutral, because it is simply to apply populist boo words to something we don't like. However, be that as it may, it would be reasonable to apply such a label if it were attributed to a leading Sinologist or some Professor of International Politics, who is an authority on comparative governmental systems, it would not be appropriate if it were attributed to wehatecommmies.com, freechina.org, or Fox News.
To take Jimbo's and Prem Rawat, that's exactly what he did. He used two evangelical anti-cult exorcists, and a couple of tabloids, and the circumvention of "popular press" and "anti-cult" attribution, to negatively label the subject in the most prominent weighted way possible. (And I notice the edit remains in the article - probably because it appeals to the house POV). Now, the chap may be a cultist - but my question would be: how are serious specialist scholars, working in the field, assessing him? And should that not be given more weight than eccentric critics and non-critical journalists?
The sources here are chaff and, even if not excluded, should be weighted as such.
Scott
You've certainly framed the issue, but there are four lights.
http://videosift.com/video/How-many-lights-do-you-see-Captain-Great-Picard-M...
Fred
You've certainly framed the issue, but there are four lights. http://videosift.com/video/How-many-lights-do-you-see-Captain-Great-Picard-
Moment
Fred
Hm, yes but {{citation needed}}.
Otherwise it just comes down to "my reality is better than yours" and either brute force, or attrition posing as consensus.
Scott
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from mature, and still beset with problems
[...]
it is not easy to say what "fair, proportionate representation" actually ought to mean in practice.
I agree strongly with the opening part of your post (about NPOV), which I snipped, and am focusing in on the point you raised above, as one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some people take a "percentage" approach to it. My view is that the amount of weight something has in an article is a function not just of the *amount* of text, but also how it is written (and also the sources it uses).
It may not be clear from the wording of policy, but if something is sourced to a lightweight source, then it should carry less "weight" (in the sense of being taken seriously) than something sourced to a really authoritative source. It might seem that this is not what WP:WEIGHT is talking about, but in some sense it is. Also, the wording used: if something is said in a weaselly, vague and wishy-washy way (*regardless* of the volume of text used), then that carries less weight than a strongly-worded and forceful sentence. Similarly, a rambling set of paragraphs actually weights an article less than a single sentence that due to the way it is written jumps up and down on the page and says "this is the real point of the article".
In other words, the *way* an article is written affects the weighting of elements within in, not just the volume. Which all come back to the tone used in writing, which often affects the reader more than the volume of text used. Ideally, a succinct, dispassionate, non-rhetorical tone will be used, and articles looked at as a whole. It is extremely depressing when arguments devolve into the minutiae of sentence structure in an effort to find a compromise wording. It often chokes the life out of the prose of an article.
Carcharoth
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote: <snip>
one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some people take a "percentage" approach to it. My view is that the amount of weight something has in an article is a function not just of the *amount* of text, but also how it is written (and also the sources it uses).
It may not be clear from the wording of policy, but if something is sourced to a lightweight source, then it should carry less "weight" (in the sense of being taken seriously) than something sourced to a really authoritative source. It might seem that this is not what WP:WEIGHT is talking about, but in some sense it is. Also, the wording used: if something is said in a weaselly, vague and wishy-washy way (*regardless* of the volume of text used), then that carries less weight than a strongly-worded and forceful sentence. Similarly, a rambling set of paragraphs actually weights an article less than a single sentence that due to the way it is written jumps up and down on the page and says "this is the real point of the article".
In other words, the *way* an article is written affects the weighting of elements within in, not just the volume. Which all come back to the tone used in writing, which often affects the reader more than the volume of text used. Ideally, a succinct, dispassionate, non-rhetorical tone will be used, and articles looked at as a whole. It is extremely depressing when arguments devolve into the minutiae of sentence structure in an effort to find a compromise wording. It often chokes the life out of the prose of an article.
That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint.
I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography.
Andreas
That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint.
I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography.
Andreas
No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight to give various sources.
Fred
Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions.
A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out.
But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance. Let those who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will express their personal view.
In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished, it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold: bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; and increasing our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside the current English speaking world, in the other .
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint.
I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography.
Andreas
No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight to give various sources.
Fred
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions.
A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out.
But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance. Let those who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will express their personal view.
David, as always with your posts, this is an interesting view, and there is much in it that I half-agree with.
This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming for is FA. FAs are not written in the way you describe; they typically are polished, they do explain things, apply discrimination in the selection of sources, and place appropriate weight on mainstream opinion, rather than focusing on tabloids and POVs from either end of the bell curve.
The same is true about all good encyclopedia or textbook writing, to use your expression.
FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. The process you describe rarely results in FAs. Once anonymous community editing takes over, with an opinion inserted here, and a factoid inserted there, articles usually degrade, and lose FA status. That for example is the way the Atheism FA seems to be going currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&action=history
The question is if we want a jumble of POVs, with duelling extremist sources inserted by anonymous drive-by editors, or sober articles that give a balanced overview of the knowledge compiled by society's institutions of learning.
The problem with the anonymous crowdsourcing process, as it stands, is that the attraction of a good, emotive soundbyte, motivating an anonymous editor to insert it in knee-jerk fashion, outweighs the attraction exercised by a wealth of well-researched published educational content. Researching the latter takes time and serious effort; inserting a soundbyte does not.
FA writers do survey, access and reflect this educational content. I believe in good encyclopedia writing. I believe we should aspire to it, and do what we can to foster it.
Andreas
In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished, it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold: bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; and increasing our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside the current English speaking world, in the other .
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: 05 February 2011 10:21 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming
for is FA.
Is it?
The quality standard FA writers are aiming at is clear, I'm not sure that's the aim of the rest of the project. The rest of the project is governed by crowd sourcing and consensus, and tends to operate in a different manner.
FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams.
Precisely. It is also the case why FA tend to be on more obscure subjects, where it is possible for a small group (or usually one writer) to commandeer the article with little squealing. It is also possible here to totally re-write whatever one finds (if indeed there is an existing article).
If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA standard, we'd need to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer was allowed to start from scratch and write a new article, and then demonstrate to the community that it was superior to the existing one. Good writers with expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive to begin with the mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers for every change they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts, or indeed careful research/writers off.
The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and what is the (usually welcome) by-product.
*Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd sourcing and consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put aside if a certain article is better written a different way. In these cases we'll put up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until and unless something better is offered.
*Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created articles. In which case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only in the gaps. If the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then this is to be preferred, and the FA with his superior article must necessarily go elsewhere.
I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined which of these is core and which is "the means to the end", on the occasions when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another we are all at sea.
Scott
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: wiki doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com
If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA standard, we'd need to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer was allowed to start from scratch and write a new article, and then demonstrate to the community that it was superior to the existing one. Good writers with expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive to begin with the mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers for every change they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts, or indeed careful research/writers off.
Precisely. FWIW, this is what I recommended to the scholar I mentioned earlier (who has written several books on the Jehovah's Witnesses): Go ahead, announce your intention on the article's talk page and at the relevant WikiProject, write the article, and then present it to the wider community for adoption.
I assured him that Wikipedia would welcome the article, once it was formatted and referenced correctly, over the likely objections of both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Witness-bashers frequenting the article.
I haven't heard back from him ... :)
If we want to have scholars contributing, this is an option that has to be on the table.
Andreas
The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and what is the (usually welcome) by-product.
*Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd sourcing and consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put aside if a certain article is better written a different way. In these cases we'll put up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until and unless something better is offered.
*Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created articles. In which case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only in the gaps. If the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then this is to be preferred, and the FA with his superior article must necessarily go elsewhere.
I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined which of these is core and which is "the means to the end", on the occasions when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another we are all at sea.
Scott
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined which of these is core and which is "the means to the end", on the occasions when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another we are all at sea.
Scott
Scott,
We are not "all at sea". The point is to make useful information available to the public. If that goal is keep in mind it is possible to resolve most issues by discussion. Focusing on the task at hand is the key.
Fred
On 05/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.)
A wikipedia article is NOT, in that sense, an academic paper that you would get published. It's an *encyclopedia* article. They're not supposed to come to a conclusion, they're supposed to summarise all of what is known.
I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions.
No.
The Wikipedia article should then contain multiple different conclusions, even conclusions that disagree with each other. Academic papers almost never do that.
The only responsibility of each editor is the responsibility of accurately reporting their sources. That's why having sources is essential, in the long term, in the short term we need(ed) to get articles off the ground even if we haven't found really good sources for everything.
A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out.
No. Absolutely not!
They don't cancel out, they are ALL listed, with suitable emphasis. The reader may come to a conclusion, but the article should only do so if there really is a strong consensus in the world.
But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV.
No. A true understanding implies including knowing and understanding *all* POVs.
This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance.
We don't only include facts, we include POVs as well.
NPOV is pretty much the inclusion of ALL POVs (with suitable weightings).
The Wikipedia is not AN academic paper, it's supposed to be a summary of all reliable sources (most of which should ideally be academic).
That's NOT about creating a POV!
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
Editing, content, and on-wiki policy is in the hands of the editing community, limited by their ability to agree.
The exception is actions which create potential liabilities.
Heavy responsibility I know...
Fred Bauder
And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them?
Marc
The community. The board cannot take control over content without assuming a crushing legal liability. To say nothing of losing most of their volunteers.
They can, as editors, take the lead in policy discussions much as members of the arbitration committee can, but many such initiatives fail.
Fred Bauder
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The only people in the WMF projects I regularly participate in who are formally recognized as leaders are the WMF trustees. I would love to see them being more public in sharing their opinions, their observations and their experiences; they have the opportunity to see things from a very different and much broader perspective than those of us at ground level. I am sure that HaeB would be happy to find a place on Signpost for a monthy "Discussion with a Trustee" that could then be flipped over to Translatewiki or wherever to share with multiple other projects.
Not a bad idea, I'll mention it to the rest of the Board.
Note that I think sometimes board members hesitate to speak up on various topics because of the danger of one's personal opinion being taken as an Official Board Position or Official Foundation Policy. (Even when one knows better this is an easy distinction to blur). Opinions are as diverse and numerous among the board as they are among any group of thoughtful and experienced Wikimedians, but when the board has an official position on something of course we speak as a body.
As for Marc's question about project governance, Fred has it right; projects are run by their communities. The Wikimedia Foundation, which provides infrastructure support to those projects, is run by Sue and her team, with ultimate responsibility for the Foundation (legal and fiduciary) in the hands of the WMF Board of Trustees. The board concerns itself with Foundation-level and global questions, not with project-level issues. However, of course there are global questions that affect all of the projects. In practice the board only makes official statements about a limited number of things; you can see the resolutions that the board has issued here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions.
best, phoebe (trustee 2010-2012)
On 31 January 2011 11:18, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I have stated my views on site politics on this list not so long ago. Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as
far
as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So I'd like to see people standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by voting in December.
(I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at least a little explicit buy-in.)
I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the committee to do so. Aside from a genuinely urgent situation, or one that is outside of the community's ability to address (e.g., admin socking), there has been an unchanging view that Arbcom should not be prosecuting matters that have not been brought to it by the community; in other words, we aren't supposed to go hunting for our own cases . And, I disagree with the belief that David has just expressed; in my own observation the *better* admins (more civil, more thoughtful) are the first ones to throw in the bit when their administrative behaviour is challenged. To them, it is a tool, not something precious that they'll do anything to retain - or regain.
Nonetheless, this thread is supposed to be about the gender gap. For the first time AFAICT, Arbcom has three sitting members who are women; that's still only 17% of the committee. It's not possible to get an accurate breakdown of how many administrators are female; many admins do not reveal their gender, nor are they expected to. A reasonable estimate of the percentage of administrators who are *openly* female is around 10-15%.
The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of technical information before being able to edit. An example is the use of templates all over the place - they are difficult to understand and clutter the editing window horribly, but failure to use them means dunning notices on talk pages and reverts because something wasn't "done right". Entire areas of the project are very unfriendly to those who do not hold the extreme libertarian views of openness (I recently saw a comment on AN/I that suggested we should actively seek out video displays of all sexual acts), and sexism is blatant in certain topic areas. On the whole, women seek consensus in a different manner than men do - women tending to be more compromising and seeking middle ground, whereas men tend to use force of numbers and who argues the loudest. (Anyone else notice how "consensus" at RFA and AfD and ANI seems to be increasingly numerically based, instead of by quality of policy-based argument? Notice how administrators get pummeled for using common sense or relying on policy instead of the vox populi?)
It's also not very easy for new editors, male or female, to find places to ask questions or to receive some guidance. Heaven forbid that they find AN/I before they find a reference or help desk.
Risker/Anne
This is a very good post; there is a lot of stuff here, and I might respond to several points, but to address one:
I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and everyone else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of the committee to do so.
Please review https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration Committee to address the question.
If you think that is not in your remit, please review: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#...
The real issue, however, is to establish customs of courtesy and friendliness among the community at large, not to scapegoat egregious offenders. For that purpose it is not rigorous enforcement of the rules that is called for but leadership.
Fred Bauder
On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please review https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration Committee to address the question. If you think that is not in your remit, please review: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#...
Yes. Civility is *core* policy and that's directly in arbcom's remit.
If the community don't want that, arbcom should suggest they repeal the policy in question.
The real issue, however, is to establish customs of courtesy and friendliness among the community at large, not to scapegoat egregious offenders. For that purpose it is not rigorous enforcement of the rules that is called for but leadership.
+1
If the admins - who the arbcom do in fact directly supervise - are enlightened as to the importance of civility, they *will* enforce it in the rest of the community. Because they won't put up with others behaving badly when they're not being allowed to.
This is directly in the arbcom's power *and remit* per current policy and precedent. Only a lack of will stops the arbcom at this point.
- d.
On 31 January 2011 19:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If the admins - who the arbcom do in fact directly supervise - are enlightened as to the importance of civility, they *will* enforce it in the rest of the community. Because they won't put up with others behaving badly when they're not being allowed to. This is directly in the arbcom's power *and remit* per current policy and precedent. Only a lack of will stops the arbcom at this point.
I should point out that I may appear to be falling into the fallacy of "we must do something effective, this is something effective, therefore we must do this." That is fallacious, and there are undoubtedly alternatives, possibly better ones.
But something must in fact be done, and it must be *effective*. The appearance of action is an error that must be avoided.
- d.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please review https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration Committee to address the question. If you think that is not in your remit, please review: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#...
Yes. Civility is *core* policy and that's directly in arbcom's remit.
If the community don't want that, arbcom should suggest they repeal the policy in question.
The real issue, however, is to establish customs of courtesy and friendliness among the community at large, not to scapegoat egregious offenders. For that purpose it is not rigorous enforcement of the rules that is called for but leadership.
+1
If the admins - who the arbcom do in fact directly supervise - are enlightened as to the importance of civility, they *will* enforce it in the rest of the community. Because they won't put up with others behaving badly when they're not being allowed to.
This is directly in the arbcom's power *and remit* per current policy and precedent. Only a lack of will stops the arbcom at this point.
+2 to all of this.
This topic is especially tricky, as civility is not equivalent to the absence of bad words, and there's a lot of controversy and significant pushback when people act in ways that indicate that a bad words police state is emerging on Wikipedia.
It's also tricky as *all of us* (myself included) break down and do rude things from time to time - in particular when tired, sick, or stressed from Real World - and we have to balance "Hey, can you knock that off" with not acting in ways that drive away experienced contributors and admins for minor or negligent infractions.
That said - Civility, NPA, and the like are policy, we had the civility policy enforcement poll a year and ... a half? ago, and that indicated that people both despaired of effective enforcement and wanted effective and fair enforcement, including more focus on admins when they transgress. Arbcom does have this in its remit. It might be constructive if some cases regarding this were filed and accepted for incidents over which desysopping and/or banning are not really necessary, but for which admonishment or warnings or restrictions might be - holding a small, foam hammer of someone's head in the test case is probably a smoother way to move into the problem than holding the sledgehammer of loving permanent correction.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 January 2011 19:42, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please review https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration Committee to address the question. If you think that is not in your remit, please review: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy# Rules
Yes. Civility is *core* policy and that's directly in arbcom's remit.
If the community don't want that, arbcom should suggest they repeal the policy in question.
The real issue, however, is to establish customs of courtesy and friendliness among the community at large, not to scapegoat egregious offenders. For that purpose it is not rigorous enforcement of the rules that is called for but leadership.
+1
If the admins - who the arbcom do in fact directly supervise - are enlightened as to the importance of civility, they *will* enforce it in the rest of the community. Because they won't put up with others behaving badly when they're not being allowed to.
This is directly in the arbcom's power *and remit* per current policy and precedent. Only a lack of will stops the arbcom at this point.
on 1/31/11 2:59 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
+2 to all of this.
This topic is especially tricky, as civility is not equivalent to the absence of bad words, and there's a lot of controversy and significant pushback when people act in ways that indicate that a bad words police state is emerging on Wikipedia.
It's also tricky as *all of us* (myself included) break down and do rude things from time to time - in particular when tired, sick, or stressed from Real World - and we have to balance "Hey, can you knock that off" with not acting in ways that drive away experienced contributors and admins for minor or negligent infractions.
That said - Civility, NPA, and the like are policy, we had the civility policy enforcement poll a year and ... a half? ago, and that indicated that people both despaired of effective enforcement and wanted effective and fair enforcement, including more focus on admins when they transgress. Arbcom does have this in its remit. It might be constructive if some cases regarding this were filed and accepted for incidents over which desysopping and/or banning are not really necessary, but for which admonishment or warnings or restrictions might be - holding a small, foam hammer of someone's head in the test case is probably a smoother way to move into the problem than holding the sledgehammer of loving permanent correction.
The problem of abusive, combative, counter-productive behavior between (and among) persons in the Project is not going to be solved with new rules or policies - but by example. If each person takes the time to really review what they have written, and ask themselves: If the person were sitting across from me would I say the very same thing, in the very same way? - I believe much of the Project would have a very different tone. And we may even be able to get more substantive work done, and in a shorter period of time.
Community Members need to keep in mind that we are here to present to, and focus on, issues related to the Project. In all cases, and at all times, we need to keep what we are saying focused on the subject at hand - not on the person we are discussing it with. If we ask ourselves: Is what we have said helping to advance the discussion or, by switching the focus to the other person, stopping it dead in its tracks?
Personally, before I send any message, I speak it aloud. Try it once, it can really be revealing.
If you find yourself being taunted by another, this may be helpful:
Learn your vulnerable spots - we all have them. They are like bruises on the body; when touched - we react. Learn that reaction. When communicating with someone, if you feel that reaction: Stop - Know what it is - Acknowledge it to yourself - Take a breath - and Stay on subject. Or, simply, don't respond. Remember: We teach people how to treat us.
Someone who truly wants to communicate with you will deliberately try to avoid any spot they think might be a bruise - especially if they have a similar one of their own.
I believe if we all take a pledge to stay focused on the issue being discussed; to direct our emotions at the substance of the message, and not at the person delivering it, the Project might not be so painful at times to work on.
If we all pledge to follow this, it will ultimately become the culture of the Project; and anyone deliberately attacking another person will simply not be responded to - or, ultimately, not tolerated.
If you have a personal problem with another Community Member - take it to private email. Or, as my favorite bartender says at least twice an evening: "Take it outside!" :-).
Don't be the issue.
Marc Riddell
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
[...] The problem of abusive, combative, counter-productive behavior between (and among) persons in the Project is not going to be solved with new rules or policies - but by example. [...]
Agreed, but it's not just that simple. We have numerous good examples already. You, Fred Bauder, Brad, a few others are shining examples, and there are plenty of good ones.
The problem is that humans are much more attentive to negative interactions than positive. We can have 10 incidents on ANI which were resolved politely and constructively, and then the one thing that someone was rude about blows up and gets 10x more contributions and fighting over it than the other 10 combined. Little bits of abuse multiply and take over.
We need people not to start abusive behavior. We also need to develop social and policy mechanisms to defuse abusive situations. The ultimate endpoint is that Arbcom needs to be willing to step in for serious long term bad ones - particularly with admins.
Arbcom can't help with the social and policy mechanisms to defuse abusive situations, no. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't work their end of it. Even if we all acknowledge that those are a hard problem, and may be really difficult to actually resolve, the elements of this that can be resolved in some way should be worked on.
On 31/01/2011 19:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration Committee to address the question.
If you think that is not in your remit, please review: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#...
The real issue, however, is to establish customs of courtesy and friendliness among the community at large, not to scapegoat egregious offenders. For that purpose it is not rigorous enforcement of the rules that is called for but leadership.
And not appeasement, either. (To reply to Risker also - please treat ex-arbs as if they are familiar with the arguments, because a moment's thought will convince you that they are.)
Charles
I agree that Arbcom could and should act against any incivil admins. But I'm not convinced that incivil admins are a big part of our civility problem.
Nor do I think it is primarily about Vested contributors, who know that their contribution history means they can get away with rudeness that would be unacceptable in real life or for that manner from an admin. Though I concede we have a problem there which Arbcom could easily fix by desysopping the next admin who unblocks a vested contributor because they are so valuable that we have to tolerate their incivility.
I think we have two major areas where we see newbies bitten:
Firstly Newpage patrollers who template bomb or tag articles for deletion with little regard for our actual deletion policies and scant regard for the sensitivities of the contributors. You really don't have to spend long at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion to find some bad examples
Secondly editors who revert unsourced edits from newbies without checking if they are true or tagging them with a citation needed tag for a few days. We currently have a policy of verifiable rather than verified, but many editors think it is the opposite, hence the conflicts when editors who think they can change things without quoting a source have their edits reverted by other editors who think they do. My preferred solution would be to change our editing interface so that we have the reverse issue, editors who think they need to cite their source patrolled by editors who help the newbies who add info without citing sources.
WereSpielChequers
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:43 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Good interviews with Sue, Kat, others...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?hpw
I note that the question I was asked was specifically, "is Wikipedia's culture unfriendly to women?"
My feelings on the topic are more complicated than could be encapsulated by a one-sentence sound bite, so I wrote them down: http://www.mindspillage.org/wiki/Women_on_Wikipedia
-Kat