-----Original Message----- From: Jimmy Wales [mailto:jwales@wikia.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 01:01 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
jf_wikipedia wrote:
(a) What was done that we should not have done;
The change was made before a sufficient process had taken place to make the change, with the result that many good editors were unaware that such a fundamental change was about to take place. Many have reported being baffled and unhappy with the change.
(b) What was not done that we should have done;
A process which has worked well in the past is a process of discussion to arrive at a specific proposal, followed by a broad public poll (or "vote"), followed by a certification of the result.
This achieves something quite useful: broad notification, a serious assessment of the strength or weakness of support for some proposal, and a defined endpoint so that people know that policy has been changed. All of these things serve to promote harmony by making policy changes democratic rather than power struggles.
(c) How do we gauge consensus as it relates to policy changes.
We do not have a simple clear definition of this.
(d) Do we need to involve you in the final determination so this does not happen again?
I think this would be a good thing, yes. I do not want to have a veto over policy changes (other than perhaps WP:NPOV - if a vote of 90% of all editors was to turn Wikipedia into Conservapedia, I would not accept it at all of course :) ). But I think it is important that for really major shifts of policy, we have a clear and defined endpoint.
--Jimbo
This suggestion is an elaboration of a principle that was developed in an arbitration case. Policy doings need to be closed, just like a Request for Deletion. Someone, or a small group, needs to evaluate the depth and breath of the policy discussion and if there is consensus, proclaim the policy as adopted. And, I might add, consider whether a fundamental policy such as NPOV, is diminished or violated by the new policy.
Fred
On 3/21/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: This suggestion is an elaboration of a principle that was developed in an arbitration case. Policy doings need to be closed, just like a Request for Deletion. Someone, or a small group, needs to evaluate the depth and breath of the policy discussion and if there is consensus, proclaim the policy as adopted. And, I might add, consider whether a fundamental policy such as NPOV, is diminished or violated by the new policy.
My understanding of policy is that it should be largely descriptive, not prescriptive, so in other words it formalizes and details what good editors tend to do anyway. As someone said in another thread (I think it was David G), there should be no surprises.
When we were developing BLP, there was no committee, no poll, no seeking of specific authorization from Jimbo. It was clearly a good proposal, clearly needed in some form, and everyone who posted about it wanted it in broad terms. It was then just a question of filling in the details and making sure it was consistent with the other policies.
We had *exactly* that situation with the merge of V and NOR, and that wasn't even a policy change, just summarizing and a new title. And yet it has led to a claim that somehow consensus wasn't achieved in the right way.
This leaves us not knowing how policy is supposed to be developed.
Sarah
On Mar 21, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
This leaves us not knowing how policy is supposed to be developed.
I think that in the new, we have suggestion from Jimbo:
1. Develop the policy as a proposal as we have done with ATT; 2. Seek Jimbo's feedback when involved editors think it is time ; 3. Submit the proposed policy to a "public vote" via a poll, including the rationale for the policy, a summary of of the steps taken by involved editors (e.g time discussed, number of edits, advertising done to mailing lists, Village Pump, etc.) as well as Jimbo's comments.
Still to be agreed is who will "close" the poll.
-- Jossi
On 3/21/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
- Develop the policy as a proposal as we have done with ATT;
- Seek Jimbo's feedback when involved editors think it is time ;
- Submit the proposed policy to a "public vote" via a poll,
including the rationale for the policy, a summary of of the steps taken by involved editors (e.g time discussed, number of edits, advertising done to mailing lists, Village Pump, etc.) as well as Jimbo's comments.
I worry about the poll thing. When you're dealing with policy, you have to know that the new proposal is consistent with other policies and guidelines, consistent in letter *and* spirit. A poll might attract 200 editors who know about the policies and have carefully considered all the implications, which is great, but what if it attracts 200 editors who've barely read them?
Developing a content policy isn't like discussing an article for deletion, or a behavioral policy like 3RR. With the content policies, the bottom line is that people have to know what they're talking about, or else we'll end up with a dog's breakfast of pages that contradict each other in subtle ways. We can't afford to have that situation with pages that determine the content of Wikipedia.
Sarah
On Mar 21, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Slim Virgin wrote:
I worry about the poll thing. When you're dealing with policy, you have to know that the new proposal is consistent with other policies and guidelines, consistent in letter *and* spirit. A poll might attract 200 editors who know about the policies and have carefully considered all the implications, which is great, but what if it attracts 200 editors who've barely read them?
I see your point, and I share you concerns about trolls on these polls.
Maybe a safeguard can be put in place by having a proper process to close the poll, although I am not sure how this would work and who would be given the power to close the poll.
As this public polling was Jimbo's idea (I personally think that polls are indeed, evil), I would like to hear his comments about the potential pitfalls and the unintended consequences of voting.
-- Jossi
Yeah, see, there's the pesky problem with polling (and with democracy) - unfortunately, sometimes the majority are idiots. So it comes down to a question: how much do you trust the teeming hordes? Until we can come up with a better way of gauging community feeling, I think we're stuck with !voting.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Slim Virgin To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATT
On 3/21/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
- Develop the policy as a proposal as we have done with ATT;
- Seek Jimbo's feedback when involved editors think it is time ;
- Submit the proposed policy to a "public vote" via a poll,
including the rationale for the policy, a summary of of the steps taken by involved editors (e.g time discussed, number of edits, advertising done to mailing lists, Village Pump, etc.) as well as Jimbo's comments.
I worry about the poll thing. When you're dealing with policy, you have to know that the new proposal is consistent with other policies and guidelines, consistent in letter *and* spirit. A poll might attract 200 editors who know about the policies and have carefully considered all the implications, which is great, but what if it attracts 200 editors who've barely read them?
Developing a content policy isn't like discussing an article for deletion, or a behavioral policy like 3RR. With the content policies, the bottom line is that people have to know what they're talking about, or else we'll end up with a dog's breakfast of pages that contradict each other in subtle ways. We can't afford to have that situation with pages that determine the content of Wikipedia.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l