jayjg wrote
No, the point was that if an admin doesn't behave well when it's absolutely essential that they do so, it's likely that they'll behave even worse when they aren't under the microscope. Please don't troll.
Great. An invitation to make all our elections a pillory, just so we can be sure people are made of the right stuff. The psychology is completely naff, too. Most people are much happier out of the spotlight.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 6/18/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
jayjg wrote
No, the point was that if an admin doesn't behave well when it's absolutely essential that they do so, it's likely that they'll behave even worse when they aren't under the microscope. Please don't troll.
Great. An invitation to make all our elections a pillory, just so we can be sure people are made of the right stuff. The psychology is completely naff, too. Most people are much happier out of the spotlight.
I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that entails.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
jayjg wrote
No, the point was that if an admin doesn't behave well when it's absolutely essential that they do so, it's likely that they'll behave even worse when they aren't under the microscope. Please don't troll.
Great. An invitation to make all our elections a pillory, just so we can be sure people are made of the right stuff. The psychology is completely naff, too. Most people are much happier out of the spotlight.
I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that entails.
It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job.
Ec
on 6/18/07 4:10 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
jayjg wrote
No, the point was that if an admin doesn't behave well when it's absolutely essential that they do so, it's likely that they'll behave even worse when they aren't under the microscope. Please don't troll.
Great. An invitation to make all our elections a pillory, just so we can be sure people are made of the right stuff. The psychology is completely naff, too. Most people are much happier out of the spotlight.
I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that entails.
It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job.
Ec
Ray,
In the interest of clarity, are you making a direct comparison between the status levels of a company and that of the WP Community?
Marc Riddell
On 6/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/18/07 4:10 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that entails.
It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job.
It has happened, famously, with some workers' cooperatives, and they inevitably fail for obvious reasons. Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/18/07 4:10 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that entails.
It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job.
It has happened, famously, with some workers' cooperatives, and they inevitably fail for obvious reasons. Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
What problems are caused by too many admins? The way I see it, having more admins is a very good way to prevent abuse on their part, since they are accountable to more people "on their level". ~~~~
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/18/07 4:10 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that entails.
It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job.
It has happened, famously, with some workers' cooperatives, and they inevitably fail for obvious reasons.
I believe you. Any idea how many people were in those co-ops?
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
I humbly beg to differ. The fact is that modern democracies allow the most menial to vote, and they expect that right. I perfectly understand the argument that voting should be limited to those who have met some sort of qualification criteria, but maintaining that position opens a whole new range of very serious issues. Having adminship as "no big deal" is not the problem in itself; our collected conflictedness about this point is a much bigger problem. We frequently see people who claim that it's no big deal, but whose actions are inconsistent with what they claim. The down side of having adminship as a big deal that consequentially getting rid of admins is also a big deal. A system where appointing admins is easier will also make it easier to get rid of admins who get out of line. We could also have short-term desysops just as we now have short term edit blocks. Extended absences could be more easily dealt with by suspensions that could be easily reversed if the person comes back. If the person was not a problem before his absence there would be no reason to believe that he would act differently when he came back, The severe problem people that concern you will always be there, but we cannot afford to make the problem seem worse that what it is; that only encourages them. To show their true colours they need to have opportunities to fall on their faces.
Your last point is especially erroneous. Creative solutions depend on the ability and willingness to take risks ([[Zack Warner]] was quick to raise that admonition earlier this evening to the current crop of potential Idols.) Jimbo himself took risks to get Wikipedia going; the risk at the time was that his financial investments could have gone down the tubes. A community of people who follow rules to the letter, and are too afraid to be bold are rarely able to get out of the box that they have created for themselves. That's not a small group when you remember that most of our teachers were also stuck in a box, and probably never knew how to teach their students to get out of the box.
Ec
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
Menial:
Adjective:
1. lowly and sometimes degrading: menial work. 2. servile; submissive: menial attitudes. pertaining to or suitable for domestic servants
Noun:
4. a domestic servant. 5. a servile person.
Synonyms 2. fawning. See servile. 4. attendant, underling, hireling, lackey. Antonyms 1. dignified. 2. proud.
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)
Is this a word we really want to use to describe ANYONE who is a member of the Wikipedia Community?
on 6/19/07 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Creative solutions depend on the ability and willingness to take risks <snip> A community of people who
follow rules to the letter, and
are too afraid to be bold are rarely able to get out of the box that they have created for themselves.
This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this in person, face to face?
That's not a small group when you remember that most of our teachers were also stuck in a box, and probably never knew how to teach their students to get out of the box.
Let us resolve to be better teachers for our students.
Marc Riddell
On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
Menial:
Adjective:
- lowly and sometimes degrading: menial work.
- servile; submissive: menial attitudes. pertaining to or suitable for domestic servants
Noun:
- a domestic servant.
- a servile person.
‹Synonyms 2. fawning. See servile. 4. attendant, underling, hireling, lackey. ‹Antonyms 1. dignified. 2. proud.
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary, (c) Random House, Inc. 2006.)
Is this a word we really want to use to describe ANYONE who is a member of the Wikipedia Community?
Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and despises maintenance workers--the one where a vandal fighter will fail an RfA, and some one has written a featured article and fought "trolls" will go on, become an admin, and do "important" things: gang up on good faith editors who happen to get in the way of some agenda, incite them to personal attacks and promptly accuse them of the same, argue on talk pages, and other items. It is they who will *make* adminship a big deal by gaining power, popularity, and influence galore. And if we classify the valuable maintenance work as "menial" (I mean, take a look at one maintenance individual edit out of thousands: hardly impressive, is it? Didn't think so), those that put in work to make Wikipedia feel like an encyclopedia will become less and less regarded as part of our community; they will fail RfA's. Those that currently work on maintenance will become disillusioned and leave. And I don't think anyone will give a damn, Sounds like a fun culture, huh? We're not there yet, but remember that you have a tool you can use: an oppose vote. Use it wisely, and we'll be well on our way. Oh, and I think we'll stop Trojan accounts as a side effect. Not sure how that works, though.
On 6/19/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal."
Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and despises maintenance workers ...
Gracenotes, you need to read what you're responding to. Someone else made the analogy of admins and editors to "menial employees." It was just an analogy; it said nothing about article creators v. maintenance workers. The hyperbole has to stop, because it's just an attempt to stoke things up.
On 6/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees"
are,
or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the
excuse
that adminship is "no big deal."
Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and despises maintenance workers ...
Gracenotes, you need to read what you're responding to. Someone else made the analogy of admins and editors to "menial employees." It was just an analogy; it said nothing about article creators v. maintenance workers. The hyperbole has to stop, because it's just an attempt to stoke things up.
I am aware that my paragraph is somewhat out of context, and is more meant as a general response to the so-called "culture" for which you've recently been advocating. But it's a piece of satire (so, like A Modest Proposal, it naturally employs hyperbole), and I hope to heaven that you realize that. Or else I shall get a wall to bang my head against. (Figuratively.) It's meant to intellectually stoke things up, to get people to *think* about things; I have talked to some editors who have indicated that they sense the atmosphere in some parts of Wikipedia discourages original thinking about extra-content situations. Now, if you can identify why I think this culture is a bad idea, congratulations, you're off to a super start! (Or you can claim to be confused.)
Cheers, Gracenotes
Eh, I forgot what happens to gadflies. May as well just buy a bottle of hemlock from the supermarket.
I apologize to all involved for taking the word "menial" out of the context of conversation; perhaps I did a disservice to effective dialogue about admins not shooting back (or whatever the subject is now). I hope that it does not diminish the value of my comment, if satire is up anyone's alley (if not, there will be no value to begin with).
Cheers, Gracenotes
on 6/19/07 9:24 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Eh, I forgot what happens to gadflies. May as well just buy a bottle of hemlock from the supermarket.
I apologize to all involved for taking the word "menial" out of the context of conversation; perhaps I did a disservice to effective dialogue about admins not shooting back (or whatever the subject is now). I hope that it does not diminish the value of my comment, if satire is up anyone's alley (if not, there will be no value to begin with).
Gracenotes,
Hemlock is old fashioned. How about locking yourself in a room with nothing but a TV monitor playing an endless loop of "Head On" commercials? :-)
Seriously, I understood where you were coming from - I visit there a lot myself :-).
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/19/07 9:24 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Eh, I forgot what happens to gadflies. May as well just buy a bottle of hemlock from the supermarket.
I apologize to all involved for taking the word "menial" out of the context of conversation; perhaps I did a disservice to effective dialogue about admins not shooting back (or whatever the subject is now). I hope that it does not diminish the value of my comment, if satire is up anyone's alley (if not, there will be no value to begin with).
Gracenotes,
Hemlock is old fashioned. How about locking yourself in a room with nothing but a TV monitor playing an endless loop of "Head On" commercials? :-)
Using hemlock for gadflies helps keep the relationship platonic. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/19/07 9:24 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Eh, I forgot what happens to gadflies. May as well just buy a bottle of hemlock from the supermarket.
I apologize to all involved for taking the word "menial" out of the context of conversation; perhaps I did a disservice to effective dialogue about admins not shooting back (or whatever the subject is now). I hope that it does not diminish the value of my comment, if satire is up anyone's alley (if not, there will be no value to begin with).
Gracenotes,
Hemlock is old fashioned. How about locking yourself in a room with nothing but a TV monitor playing an endless loop of "Head On" commercials? :-)
Using hemlock for gadflies helps keep the relationship platonic. :-)
Ec
Ugh!
Gracenotes wrote:
On 6/19/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are,
or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse
that adminship is "no big deal."
Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and despises maintenance workers ...
Gracenotes, you need to read what you're responding to. Someone else made the analogy of admins and editors to "menial employees." It was just an analogy; it said nothing about article creators v. maintenance workers. The hyperbole has to stop, because it's just an attempt to stoke things up.
I am aware that my paragraph is somewhat out of context, and is more meant as a general response to the so-called "culture" for which you've recently been advocating. But it's a piece of satire (so, like A Modest Proposal, it naturally employs hyperbole), and I hope to heaven that you realize that.
When it comes to hyperbole and satire caution is warranted. Not everybody gets it, and there are some who are a little quick to take it literally, especially if it seems that it is a veiled attack. As I replied to Marc, when I use "menial" it simply refers to a low level domestic or other low skill job without any connotation about the more general worth of the person.
Or else I shall get a wall to bang my head against. (Figuratively.)
See Marc's references to the Head-On ads. :-)
It's meant to intellectually stoke things up, to get people to *think* about things; I have talked to some editors who have indicated that they sense the atmosphere in some parts of Wikipedia discourages original thinking about extra-content situations.
You're right. This happens, but the problem with intellectual stoking is that it can sometimes get the fire burning a little too hot.. As much as I grok what you are trying to say, "original thinking" may be the wrong term here because it sails too close to that other hot-button subject, "original research". There are some very serious social issues affecting Wikipedia, and finding common ground in these discouraging grounds is a huge challenge.
Ec
on 6/19/07 9:17 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
I am aware that my paragraph is somewhat out of context, and is more meant as a general response to the so-called "culture" for which you've recently been advocating. But it's a piece of satire (so, like A Modest Proposal, it naturally employs hyperbole), and I hope to heaven that you realize that. Or else I shall get a wall to bang my head against. (Figuratively.) It's meant to intellectually stoke things up, to get people to *think* about things; I have talked to some editors who have indicated that they sense the atmosphere in some parts of Wikipedia discourages original thinking about extra-content situations. Now, if you can identify why I think this culture is a bad idea, congratulations, you're off to a super start! (Or you can claim to be confused.)
Cheers, Gracenotes
Gracenotes,
I liked what you wrote, and knew from which perspective you were writing. I had no problem figuring out the angle or true meaning of your message. I encourage you to keep writing; letting your instincts, values, and personal ethics guide you. In short: I like your style!
Whereas, I agree somewhat with Ray's belief in a need for caution when writing; I would like to offer another perspective on the use of such caution in communication: Too much of it, or a preoccupation with it, can lead to no communication at all except dishonest, deceptive, politically-correct mush.
Satire is tricky to write, just ask the "Saturday Night Live" or "The Daily Show" writers; its purpose is to poke fun at something or someone, as well as to call attention to a social and/or political issue; to preach to the choir (that's how you get them to sing) as well as to those not yet converted. But one thing for sure - you're going to piss someone off in the process. And, if that happens, to write honestly, that needs to be OK with you.
Know your intent. If that intent is to teach - expect what you are teaching to be challenged. If that intent is to inflame - expect a conflagration. If that intent is to do harm expect to be called to account for it. If that intent is to communicate your truth expect their truth in return. The burden of truth and understanding in any form of communication must be shared equally between the two parties. If I liked what you said, I'll tell you; if I didn't I'll do the same.
If we are to have a creative, free-thinking, reasonably intelligent, articulate culture within Wikipedia, can we ask or expect anything less?
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
Whereas, I agree somewhat with Ray's belief in a need for caution when writing; I would like to offer another perspective on the use of such caution in communication: Too much of it, or a preoccupation with it, can lead to no communication at all except dishonest, deceptive, politically-correct mush.
I agree. You have an advantage if you know your audience, and another one if you know when to stop. One reason why the proxy debate became so problematical was that a single user chose to dig in his heels over it. If you are going to walk along the edge of a cliff, you damn well better be sure of where that edge is.
Satire is tricky to write, just ask the "Saturday Night Live" or "The Daily Show" writers; its purpose is to poke fun at something or someone, as well as to call attention to a social and/or political issue; to preach to the choir (that's how you get them to sing) as well as to those not yet converted. But one thing for sure - you're going to piss someone off in the process. And, if that happens, to write honestly, that needs to be OK with you.
When you turn the cited programs on you already have an idea about what is going on. You are forwarned to suspend your beliefs.
Ec
on 6/20/07 7:39 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
When you turn the cited programs on you already have an idea about what is going on. You are forwarned to suspend your beliefs.
But Ray, through weekly repetition these shows became know as satires; the real genius of satire is presenting it straight - and having the audience discover it is satire. This is as old as theatre itself.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/20/07 7:39 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
When you turn the cited programs on you already have an idea about what is going on. You are forwarned to suspend your beliefs.
But Ray, through weekly repetition these shows became know as satires; the real genius of satire is presenting it straight - and having the audience discover it is satire. This is as old as theatre itself.
That works with a literate audience. The people who don't realize that you're joking can take things to a completely different level. English humour doesn't always work with an American crowd.
Ec
on 6/20/07 9:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/20/07 7:39 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
When you turn the cited programs on you already have an idea about what is going on. You are forwarned to suspend your beliefs.
But Ray, through weekly repetition these shows became know as satires; the real genius of satire is presenting it straight - and having the audience discover it is satire. This is as old as theatre itself.
That works with a literate audience. The people who don't realize that you're joking can take things to a completely different level. English humour doesn't always work with an American crowd.
That still does not give anyone the right to beat up on the writer.
Know you've been spoofed - get back up - and finger your jaw in painful admiration.
And, "English humour" is still humor - but with a British accent.
Marc
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That works with a literate audience. The people who don't realize that you're joking can take things to a completely different level. English humour doesn't always work with an American crowd.
I would almost like to protest your classification of American crowds as dense, but... eh... we are. It would not be entirely untrue to say that the key to humor here is not making the right material, but finding the right crowd for it.
--Gracenotes
on 6/20/07 11:09 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That works with a literate audience. The people who don't realize that you're joking can take things to a completely different level. English humour doesn't always work with an American crowd.
I would almost like to protest your classification of American crowds as dense, but... eh... we are. It would not be entirely untrue to say that the key to humor here is not making the right material, but finding the right crowd for it.
Gracenotes & Ray,
Since the material in question was posted here, how would you classify this List's audience?
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/20/07 11:09 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That works with a literate audience. The people who don't realize that you're joking can take things to a completely different level. English humour doesn't always work with an American crowd.
I would almost like to protest your classification of American crowds as dense, but... eh... we are. It would not be entirely untrue to say that the key to humor here is not making the right material, but finding the right crowd for it.
Gracenotes & Ray,
Since the material in question was posted here, how would you classify this List's audience?
In a word: Mixed.
My sympathies, of course, lie with those who, like Brian, "always look on the bright side of life", but it's hard to share the comic stage with those true believers determined to [[Carry A. Nation]].
Ec
On 6/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/20/07 11:09 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That works with a literate audience. The people who don't realize that you're joking can take things to a completely different level. English humour doesn't always work with an American crowd.
I would almost like to protest your classification of American crowds as dense, but... eh... we are. It would not be entirely untrue to say that the key to humor here is not making the right material, but finding the right crowd for it.
Gracenotes & Ray,
Since the material in question was posted here, how would you classify this List's audience?
Marc
I thought we were progressing into general discussion about American humor vs. British humour, rather than discussion about this list in particular. Wikipedia has, by far, the most thoughtful, intelligent, perspicuous, and witty people I have had the fortune to interact with. The mailing list, despite its mud (and -slinging), has by large not proved to be an exception. Now, while responsibility is imperative, the "internets are serious business" attitude can ruin a good project (this has been noted by people other than me as well, especially in MfDs of *gasp* humorous pages).
--Gracenotes
On 6/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That works with a literate audience. The people who don't realize that you're joking can take things to a completely different level. English humour doesn't always work with an American crowd.
on 6/20/07 11:09 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
I would almost like to protest your classification of American crowds as dense, but... eh... we are. It would not be entirely untrue to say that the key to humor here is not making the right material, but finding the right crowd for it.
On 6/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Gracenotes & Ray,
Since the material in question was posted here, how would you classify this List's audience?
Marc
on 6/21/07 3:18 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
I thought we were progressing into general discussion about American humor vs. British humour, rather than discussion about this list in particular. Wikipedia has, by far, the most thoughtful, intelligent, perspicuous, and witty people I have had the fortune to interact with. The mailing list, despite its mud (and -slinging), has by large not proved to be an exception. Now, while responsibility is imperative, the "internets are serious business" attitude can ruin a good project (this has been noted by people other than me as well, especially in MfDs of *gasp* humorous pages).
--Gracenotes
I second your emotion about the Wikipedia people.
And, perhaps there needs to be a banner at the top of each edit mode page of the encyclopedia that reads: LIGHTen up - you might be able to see things in a different way. :-)
And, it was none other than Aristotle who said: "The secret to humor is surprise."
Marc
On 6/19/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal."
Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and despises maintenance workers ...
on 6/19/07 9:01 PM, Slim Virgin at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Gracenotes, you need to read what you're responding to. Someone else made the analogy of admins and editors to "menial employees." It was just an analogy; it said nothing about article creators v. maintenance workers. The hyperbole has to stop, because it's just an attempt to stoke things up.
Slim Virgin,
I owe you an apology. I mistakenly attributed the use of the word "menial" to you. I see that was incorrect. In fact, having read your past contributions to the List, I was struggling to believe you had used the term. I'll pay closer attention to the order of the posts in a long thread from now on.
Sorry,
Marc Riddell
On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 6/19/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal."
Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and despises maintenance workers ...
on 6/19/07 9:01 PM, Slim Virgin at slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Gracenotes, you need to read what you're responding to. Someone else made the analogy of admins and editors to "menial employees." It was just an analogy; it said nothing about article creators v. maintenance workers. The hyperbole has to stop, because it's just an attempt to stoke things up.
Slim Virgin,
I owe you an apology. I mistakenly attributed the use of the word "menial" to you. I see that was incorrect. In fact, having read your past contributions to the List, I was struggling to believe you had used the term. I'll pay closer attention to the order of the posts in a long thread from now on.
That's okay, Marc. It's easy to get posts mixed up. Thanks for the apology.
Marc Riddell wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.
Menial:
Adjective:
- lowly and sometimes degrading: menial work.
- servile; submissive: menial attitudes.
pertaining to or suitable for domestic servants
Noun: 4. a domestic servant. 5. a servile person.
‹Synonyms 2. fawning. See servile. 4. attendant, underling, hireling, lackey. ‹Antonyms 1. dignified. 2. proud.
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)
Is this a word we really want to use to describe ANYONE who is a member of the Wikipedia Community?
Since I rather than Slim introduced the word "menial" I should comment on the matter, though it appears from her context that she has interpreted the word correctly. It appears that Canadian usage of this word more closely follows British usage than American usage. Thus my 2001 New Oxford refers only to jobs which lack skill or prestige and to domestic servants. Since the word applies merely to those who perform the least prestigious tasks there is no need to imply that the work is necessarily degrading. Similarly, the fact that an individual may only perform unskilled physical labour for his employer should not imply that he is necessarily degraded or submissive.
The descent into disparagement appears to be an Americanism. Does Random House give any evidence for the drift that it applies to the word?
on 6/19/07 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Creative solutions depend on the ability and willingness to take risks <snip> A community of people who
follow rules to the letter, and
are too afraid to be bold are rarely able to get out of the box that they have created for themselves.
This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this in person, face to face?
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.
In an American context the principals laid down in the Federalist Papers were at least thought out, but now the politicians often behave in a manner that is inconsistent with those principles. (Just watch the way that CNN's Lou Dobbs carries on.) At one time the purpose of religion was to bring people together in a common belief, and that did bring people together. In some communities it still does. But with the notion of God being brought into question it pulls the rug out from beneth the feet of those who used God as a major premise upon which to establish all their other beliefs. If the notion of God is really total nonsense, how do you convince the true believers of that without producing a psychological basket case.
Children are told certain received truths by their parents and terachers, but they go online and with minimal research find out that those received truths are completely wrong. The parents are relatively clueless about the online world. Evil as they may be, the sexual predators remain only a tiny part of the problem. At least we can catch them and cut their balls off. But how do you protect kids against anomie when you don't even understand what it is? How do you convincingly say "Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad generation of disbelief, and Kuhn did warn us that in the great paradigm shifts there will be significant losses.
I apologize if this appears as a rant of unremitting pessimism, and if I detect a suggestion of paranoia in Slim's comments I hope it's not taken as too personal. I fully appreciate that she has suffered unjust treatment by certain online persons, but I would fervantly hope that she can work with some of us who would prefer to find some basis for developpin a more trustful environment.
That's not a small group when you remember that most of our teachers were also stuck in a box, and probably never knew how to teach their students to get out of the box.
Let us resolve to be better teachers for our students.
We need to teach ourselves first.
Ec
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Just watch the way that CNN's Lou Dobbs carries on.
Ray,
You mean ole' one note, 'lock the borders', 'tro' da' bums out', 'you're not here to be interviewed, you're here to listen to my lecture', Louie? Never heard of him :-).
More response to the rest of your post tomorrow (it's bedtime for me where I am.)
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Just watch the way that CNN's Lou Dobbs carries on.
Ray,
You mean ole' one note, 'lock the borders', 'tro' da' bums out', 'you're not here to be interviewed, you're here to listen to my lecture', Louie? Never heard of him :-).
Yeah, I guess there is a certain monootone to what he says. As a Canadian, I can't agree with everything that he says. Nevertheless, I get a chuckle over his observations about how the American worker is being treated by American business.
In "Tte Foolish Dictionary" by Gideon Wurdz, published in 1904, there is an entry at "pro and con" letting us know that these are prefixes of opposite meanings as in "progress and congress'. Maybe what Lou has discovered isn't very new after all.
Ec
Marc wrote:
Let us resolve to be better teachers for our students.
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
We need to teach ourselves first.
Yes!
The bulk of your post asks some profound questions; I'd like some more time to digest them. Full response soon.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this in person, face to face?
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.
What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to drive home for some time now.
A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can you trust?" becomes the pervading question.
At one time the purpose of religion was to bring people together in a common belief, and that did bring people together. In some communities it still does. But with the notion of God being brought into question it pulls the rug out from beneth the feet of those who used God as a major premise upon which to establish all their other beliefs. If the notion of God is really total nonsense, how do you convince the true believers of that without producing a psychological basket case.
Children are told certain received truths by their parents and terachers, but they go online and with minimal research find out that those received truths are completely wrong. The parents are relatively clueless about the online world. Evil as they may be, the sexual predators remain only a tiny part of the problem. At least we can catch them and cut their balls off. But how do you protect kids against anomie when you don't even understand what it is? How do you convincingly say "Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad generation of disbelief, and Kuhn did warn us that in the great paradigm shifts there will be significant losses.
Ray, the questions you raise here are crucial ones, but I believe a discussion of them here goes beyond the scope of this List. If you would like to discuss them privately, I would be open to it; if they were asked rhetorically you have given us much to ponder.
I fully appreciate that she has suffered unjust treatment by certain online persons, but I would fervantly hope that she can work with some of us who would prefer to find some basis for developpin a more trustful environment.
Yes!
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this in person, face to face?
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.
What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to drive home for some time now.
A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can you trust?" becomes the pervading question.
It either produces a culture of everyone-for-himself, or it exploits such a culture that was already there. I do get the impression over the months that you are somewhat more structured in your outlook on these points than I, but there is still plenty of room for common ground.
1. There needs to be a "rules committee" to thread its way through the swamp of rules creep. I am not committed to that name; if there is a better name that beter reflects reality that's great. Let's just consider "rules committee" to be a provisional discussion title. A rules committee would make rules itself. It could synthesize a proposed wording from all the variations that might be offered, present that to the relevant community for adoption or rejection, and monitor the acceptance process.. This is a particularly wide mandate. One of the earliest issues that it would need to consider would be the extent of its own mandate, and a general review of the rule making process. Key to its duties would be to insure that seemingly small and unnoticed changes to the rules do not unexpectedly become a problem long after they are made. It could begin to apply a form of stable versioning to policy.
2. The presence of a firwall between the activities of the Foundation and of each of its projects needs to be made clear. It is impossible to guarantee that all activities on all projects will be legal. This is not said to promote illegality. In a context of multiple languages and uncertain legal interpretations on an international scale there will always be doubts. Unduly rigid views of the law stifle creativity; unduly flexible views breed disrespect. At the same time two distinct projects can arrive at a different analysis of the same problem.. Anyone who tries to choose which is correct falls into the same trap. With a firewall the Foundation would abjure the right to _decide_ what is legal in any project. It's action on content would be strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law. If it receives a proper takedown order it takes things down. Otherwise it knows nothing about it. To some, this may seem maddeningly literal, but that's what makes firewalls work. What a project does about the same material is its own business, but it is entirely within its rights to have rules that are stricter than what the law may allow.
3. With project autonomy each project has the right to be run by a gang of absolute idiots, but one should not assume that another project will submit itself to the same brand of idiocy. There can be Meta level rules, but these need to be kept to a minimum. The concept of NPOV is a good meta level rule, as is a consistent use of Wiki markup. A rules committee could very well propose the same policy for two or more projects, but there is no requirement that they would all need to adopt that proposal.
Any other concrete proposals?
At one time the purpose of religion was to bring people together in a common belief, and that did bring people together. In some communities it still does. But with the notion of God being brought into question it pulls the rug out from beneth the feet of those who used God as a major premise upon which to establish all their other beliefs. If the notion of God is really total nonsense, how do you convince the true believers of that without producing a psychological basket case.
Children are told certain received truths by their parents and terachers, but they go online and with minimal research find out that those received truths are completely wrong. The parents are relatively clueless about the online world. Evil as they may be, the sexual predators remain only a tiny part of the problem. At least we can catch them and cut their balls off. But how do you protect kids against anomie when you don't even understand what it is? How do you convincingly say "Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad generation of disbelief, and Kuhn did warn us that in the great paradigm shifts there will be significant losses.
Ray, the questions you raise here are crucial ones, but I believe a discussion of them here goes beyond the scope of this List. If you would like to discuss them privately, I would be open to it; if they were asked rhetorically you have given us much to ponder
A fair enough criticism. I did get a wee bit philosophical there. One point remains: When you hear someone say, "Trust me," it triggers a flight response. Given that premise, one can hardly make the same request.
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this in person, face to face?
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.
Marc Riddell wrote:
What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to drive home for some time now.
A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can you trust?" becomes the pervading question.
on 6/21/07 4:55 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It either produces a culture of everyone-for-himself, or it exploits such a culture that was already there. I do get the impression over the months that you are somewhat more structured in your outlook on these points than I,
Not "structure" in the classic stone and concrete sense; but, rather, a structure originally and specifically designed and created to suit the spirit of the Project.
but there is still plenty of room for common ground.
Common ground? Absolutely! Because I believe we would be (and are) both working toward a common end.
- There needs to be a "rules committee" to thread its way through the
swamp of rules creep. I am not committed to that name; if there is a better name that beter reflects reality that's great. Let's just consider "rules committee" to be a provisional discussion title. A rules committee would make rules itself. It could synthesize a proposed wording from all the variations that might be offered, present that to the relevant community for adoption or rejection, and monitor the acceptance process.. This is a particularly wide mandate. One of the earliest issues that it would need to consider would be the extent of its own mandate, and a general review of the rule making process. Key to its duties would be to insure that seemingly small and unnoticed changes to the rules do not unexpectedly become a problem long after they are made. It could begin to apply a form of stable versioning to policy.
- The presence of a firwall between the activities of the Foundation
and of each of its projects needs to be made clear. It is impossible to guarantee that all activities on all projects will be legal. This is not said to promote illegality. In a context of multiple languages and uncertain legal interpretations on an international scale there will always be doubts. Unduly rigid views of the law stifle creativity; unduly flexible views breed disrespect. At the same time two distinct projects can arrive at a different analysis of the same problem.. Anyone who tries to choose which is correct falls into the same trap. With a firewall the Foundation would abjure the right to _decide_ what is legal in any project. It's action on content would be strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law. If it receives a proper takedown order it takes things down. Otherwise it knows nothing about it. To some, this may seem maddeningly literal, but that's what makes firewalls work. What a project does about the same material is its own business, but it is entirely within its rights to have rules that are stricter than what the law may allow.
- With project autonomy each project has the right to be run by a gang
of absolute idiots, but one should not assume that another project will submit itself to the same brand of idiocy. There can be Meta level rules, but these need to be kept to a minimum. The concept of NPOV is a good meta level rule, as is a consistent use of Wiki markup. A rules committee could very well propose the same policy for two or more projects, but there is no requirement that they would all need to adopt that proposal.
Thank you. This is exactly the type of thinking I have been trying to encourage the Community to engage in.
But, before any real, worthwhile planning takes place there needs to be an agreement, beyond just you and me, that such planning is needed. It is going to take you, and others with your degree of credibility in this Project, to encourage and fuel the debate.
I feel like a meteorologist trying to warn the citizenry of an impending hurricane; but finding the majority of these citizens are looking out of the windows of their own secure structures and saying, "Huh, the sky looks clear to me".
How do you convincingly say "Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad generation of disbelief
One point remains: When you hear someone say, "Trust me," it triggers a flight response. Given that premise, one can hardly make the same request.
As to the issue of trust: To me the phrase "I trust you" is just the beginning of a complete sentence. What is really being said is "I trust you not to harm me". Likewise, "Trust me" is really "Trust me not to harm you". That's powerful! But for you to have this power, I must first grant it to you.
But in the context and medium we are engaged in here, what power would I really have, and what harm could I possibly do you? I encourage everyone working in this Project to stop and really think about this. One of the greatest things we can all take away from having been a part of this Project, is the learning and experience of having worked constructively with another person.
Marc Riddell
I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can continue. The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many of them work really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone. Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who come to the capitol only on special occasion.
On 6/22/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this in person, face to face?
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.
Marc Riddell wrote:
What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to drive home for some time now.
A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can you trust?" becomes the pervading question.
on 6/21/07 4:55 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It either produces a culture of everyone-for-himself, or it exploits such a culture that was already there. I do get the impression over the months that you are somewhat more structured in your outlook on these points than I,
Not "structure" in the classic stone and concrete sense; but, rather, a structure originally and specifically designed and created to suit the spirit of the Project.
but there is still plenty of room for common ground.
Common ground? Absolutely! Because I believe we would be (and are) both working toward a common end.
- There needs to be a "rules committee" to thread its way through the
swamp of rules creep. I am not committed to that name; if there is a better name that beter reflects reality that's great. Let's just consider "rules committee" to be a provisional discussion title. A rules committee would make rules itself. It could synthesize a proposed wording from all the variations that might be offered, present that to the relevant community for adoption or rejection, and monitor the acceptance process.. This is a particularly wide mandate. One of the earliest issues that it would need to consider would be the extent of its own mandate, and a general review of the rule making process. Key to its duties would be to insure that seemingly small and unnoticed changes to the rules do not unexpectedly become a problem long after they are made. It could begin to apply a form of stable versioning to policy.
- The presence of a firwall between the activities of the Foundation
and of each of its projects needs to be made clear. It is impossible to guarantee that all activities on all projects will be legal. This is not said to promote illegality. In a context of multiple languages and uncertain legal interpretations on an international scale there will always be doubts. Unduly rigid views of the law stifle creativity; unduly flexible views breed disrespect. At the same time two distinct projects can arrive at a different analysis of the same problem.. Anyone who tries to choose which is correct falls into the same trap. With a firewall the Foundation would abjure the right to _decide_ what is legal in any project. It's action on content would be strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law. If it receives a proper takedown order it takes things down. Otherwise it knows nothing about it. To some, this may seem maddeningly literal, but that's what makes firewalls work. What a project does about the same material is its own business, but it is entirely within its rights to have rules that are stricter than what the law may allow.
- With project autonomy each project has the right to be run by a gang
of absolute idiots, but one should not assume that another project will submit itself to the same brand of idiocy. There can be Meta level rules, but these need to be kept to a minimum. The concept of NPOV is a good meta level rule, as is a consistent use of Wiki markup. A rules committee could very well propose the same policy for two or more projects, but there is no requirement that they would all need to adopt that proposal.
Thank you. This is exactly the type of thinking I have been trying to encourage the Community to engage in.
But, before any real, worthwhile planning takes place there needs to be an agreement, beyond just you and me, that such planning is needed. It is going to take you, and others with your degree of credibility in this Project, to encourage and fuel the debate.
I feel like a meteorologist trying to warn the citizenry of an impending hurricane; but finding the majority of these citizens are looking out of the windows of their own secure structures and saying, "Huh, the sky looks clear to me".
How do you convincingly say "Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad generation of disbelief
One point remains: When you hear someone say, "Trust me," it triggers a flight response. Given that premise, one can hardly make the same request.
As to the issue of trust: To me the phrase "I trust you" is just the beginning of a complete sentence. What is really being said is "I trust you not to harm me". Likewise, "Trust me" is really "Trust me not to harm you". That's powerful! But for you to have this power, I must first grant it to you.
But in the context and medium we are engaged in here, what power would I really have, and what harm could I possibly do you? I encourage everyone working in this Project to stop and really think about this. One of the greatest things we can all take away from having been a part of this Project, is the learning and experience of having worked constructively with another person.
Marc Riddell
-- "Come to the edge. We might fall! Come to the edge. It's too high!
COME! TO! THE! EDGE!!
So they came and he pushed -- and they flew."
Guillaume Apollinaire
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can continue. The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many of them work really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone. Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who come to the capitol only on special occasion.
David,
Just thinking here: It would seem there are many active editors who are not formal members of an established WP Project (myself included). This would include persons who do mostly statistical editing (birth & death dates, place of birth, sports stats, etc.) as well as grammatical cleanup and the like. So as to involve all active editors in the Project's organization, how about grouping them in their own Project?
Marc
There are also de facto projects. For example, the few people who devote themselves to TfD, or the ones grouped around image fair use. Or, as George Herbert implied, the ones who assemble here.
Or at AfD--people specialize, and the only person who attempted to comment on them all just got indefinitely blocked as an SPA, to general relief.
There are of course problems with multiple self-organizing mini-groups--for one, they get isolated; I found out by accident just now that a major question which is just beginning to be discussed at one place has been almost fully decided & implemented at another. For another, one persona can dominate, and then there are no fixed limits on what they can consider their scope.
There is no way to deal with this many things going on without a considerable human overhead--at present it's done by volunteers from the ordinary people, selected by interest and perseverance and thickness of skin--in your model, they'd be selected from above. Just whom among the present WP people do you think qualified to do that? Or are to elect our judges? -- that doesn't have any better a record.
On 6/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can continue. The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many of them work really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone. Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who come to the capitol only on special occasion.
David,
Just thinking here: It would seem there are many active editors who are not formal members of an established WP Project (myself included). This would include persons who do mostly statistical editing (birth & death dates, place of birth, sports stats, etc.) as well as grammatical cleanup and the like. So as to involve all active editors in the Project's organization, how about grouping them in their own Project?
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
On 6/24/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
The projects are organized around interest in a topic, not necessarily a controversial topic--that's what projects are: groups of editors interested in a topic, and ready and able to contribute to articles in that topic area.
I think the biggest problems is what David mentions, that projects are not necessarily aware of each other and each other's decisions. Some areas try to realize that with over-arching projects like Tree of Life for organisms. When an issue impacts all organisms, many members will post on WP:ToL, rather than only on their respective projects.
I don't see any other way of getting any structure in Wikipedia, since ultimately it is about volunteers, and you have to start with some method that acknowledges the volunteer nature of the editors--this means understanding they are editing articles they are interested in for some reason.
KP
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience. People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong" in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
Bduke
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience. People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong" in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
Wikiprojects can still be susceptible to a scaled back version of a lot of the issues that we face elsewhere. Deletion issues need to be guided by the projects to minimize the effect of those who delete things because thay never heard of it. I agree that they can be more critical of non-notable topics, but they have more to base their criticism on. Two separate Wikiprojects can indeed come to different conclusions about rules issues, and as long as neither is trying to impose its view on the other I have no problem with that. Where the projects actually interface it must be a matter of negotiation.
The issue of editors who don't have a clue about the topic can be a problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel welcome and a part of the decision making process.
Ec
On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The issue of editors who don't have a clue about the topic can be a problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel welcome and a part of the decision making process.
This is much in accordance with what I am inadequately expressing. A couple of times here people have used "assume good faith" not in cause of civility, but in what amounts to making statements about human nature. In that wise we cannot afford it; a more realistic level of pessimism is called for.
On 6/26/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The issue of editors who don't have a clue about the topic can be a problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel welcome and a part of the decision making process.
This is much in accordance with what I am inadequately expressing. A couple of times here people have used "assume good faith" not in cause of civility, but in what amounts to making statements about human nature. In that wise we cannot afford it; a more realistic level of pessimism is called for.
"The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things that it becomes authoritarian. "
This seems to be a problem with some projects and not others. With the botanists any article is more likely to be torpedoes from within due to the non-authoritarian nature of the project, or lack of accord among members on fundamental issues. I don't think this is really a problem so much as it is a reflection of the science and the exciting times we live in as botanists today.
I've run into a couple of projects where the editors are locked into their way of doing things, even when it is not WP:MOS (and to the detriment of the reader), or not particularly useful.
Again, botany sets its own MOS, bu that is due to the problems mentioned in the first paragraph.
I still find it much more useful to ask someone knowledgable on a topic about an article's overall relevancy to Wikipedia, than to use google or something to find information about which I know nought--again, it removes some of the potential for idiocy (AfD:Rock climbing). It seems strange to start with the presumption of bad faith from those who know a topic. I don't want junkie plant articles on Wikipedia--and we're very short-handed in this area. What's so difficult about asking the plant folks if an article belongs or not? (I don't think I've ever seen a plant article up for deletion, though--everyone knows animals, not plants.)
KP
The Mangoe wrote:
On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The issue of editors who don't have a clue about the topic can be a problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel welcome and a part of the decision making process.
This is much in accordance with what I am inadequately expressing. A couple of times here people have used "assume good faith" not in cause of civility, but in what amounts to making statements about human nature. In that wise we cannot afford it; a more realistic level of pessimism is called for.
"Assume good faith" has a very broad application., but like any assumption is rebuttable. Statements about human nature are subject to the assumption as much as any other. Many such statements reflect the culture that a person comes from. Something that is perfectly acceptable in one person's culture can sound outrageous in another. People use words differently as a recent discussion over the word "menial" showed; the derogatory overtones are only there in US usages of the word.
Assuming good faith requires that we attempt to understand where the speaker is coming from before taking ooffence to his comments.
Ec
on 6/27/07 1:28 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Assuming good faith requires that we attempt to understand where the speaker is coming from before taking ooffence to his comments.
And this requires lowering our in-place defenses; asking ourselves, honestly, "what the hell am I defending - and against what - and why?"
Many times, the only thing in our way is ourselves.
Marc
It can work the other way too--projects aren't closed. I've joined projects that i think are moving in undesirable ways for the sake of seeing and perhaps even modifying the arguments. If I know I have a different attitude than the great majority, I say so when I join.
for example, I'm a member of both the Deletionism and the Incluclsion project, & I'm by no means alone in doing this. I see a good number of self-declared atheists in the various religion projects, and they are usually helpful--they can know about religion too. Many Christians are interested in Judaism, and vice versa.
Although there are lots of little worlds in WP, they do mix. DGG
On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience. People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong" in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
Wikiprojects can still be susceptible to a scaled back version of a lot of the issues that we face elsewhere. Deletion issues need to be guided by the projects to minimize the effect of those who delete things because thay never heard of it. I agree that they can be more critical of non-notable topics, but they have more to base their criticism on. Two separate Wikiprojects can indeed come to different conclusions about rules issues, and as long as neither is trying to impose its view on the other I have no problem with that. Where the projects actually interface it must be a matter of negotiation.
The issue of editors who don't have a clue about the topic can be a problem, but one which is distinct from having no clue about the project. The risk here is for a project to so protect its way of doing things that it becomes authoritarian. While we cannot accept every piece of idiocy that is added to an article, we still need to make room for new ideas, and, even more importantly, newcomers need to feel welcome and a part of the decision making process.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/24/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience. People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong" in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
Bduke
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
Projects are a good place to find knowledgable people--only deletionists fear knowledge introduced. One word from the fishes guy led to an acceptable keep all around on an article.
KP
on 6/24/07 2:44 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
There are also de facto projects. For example, the few people who devote themselves to TfD, or the ones grouped around image fair use. Or, as George Herbert implied, the ones who assemble here.
Or at AfD--people specialize, and the only person who attempted to comment on them all just got indefinitely blocked as an SPA, to general relief.
There are of course problems with multiple self-organizing mini-groups--for one, they get isolated; I found out by accident just now that a major question which is just beginning to be discussed at one place has been almost fully decided & implemented at another. For another, one persona can dominate, and then there are no fixed limits on what they can consider their scope.
There is no way to deal with this many things going on without a considerable human overhead--at present it's done by volunteers from the ordinary people, selected by interest and perseverance and thickness of skin--in your model, they'd be selected from above. Just whom among the present WP people do you think qualified to do that? Or are to elect our judges? -- that doesn't have any better a record.
On 6/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can continue. The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many of them work really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone. Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who come to the capitol only on special occasion.
David,
Just thinking here: It would seem there are many active editors who are not formal members of an established WP Project (myself included). This would include persons who do mostly statistical editing (birth & death dates, place of birth, sports stats, etc.) as well as grammatical cleanup and the like. So as to involve all active editors in the Project's organization, how about grouping them in their own Project?
Marc
David, George, Ray, Mangoe and all others concerned with the structure of Wikipedia,
Wait a minute! I woke up this morning and, in all senses, smelled the coffee. What are we doing here!?! We appear to be embarking on a serious discussion of structuring an entity that, supposedly, already exists. We are not developers staring at a blank screen, or sheet of paper (to place it in my era) planning something from the ground up.
Before I spend another second of my time on this issue, or ask anyone else to do the same, I need to be taught some things:
1) Where does the founder, Jimmy Wales, fit into all of this? Isn't this something he should be initiating, or, at the very least, directly involved in? And what do you, Jimmy, think of the present day-to-day operating structure of the Project?
2) What is the Foundation's role in the issue of the Project's structure? And, what responsibility does it have in overseeing such a venture.
3) Who, or what, in fact does direct the day-to-day functioning of the Project right now?
4) If we did come up with an extraordinarily creative plan for structuring the Project (and with Berks in the works no doubt we would :-)) to whom would we present it for implementation?
Our work on this should not be seen as simply a catharsis for some restless natives.
Marc Riddell
1.The founder gives speeches and cultivates donors. His pronouncements are quoted whenever someone thinks they might serve the purpose. 2.The foundation runs the servers. 3.What day to day functioning? OTRS is volunteers. 4.I was describing not what I thing ought to be, but what I think actually is. The cellular structure that I describe is what I think I see. (Agreed, some sociometrics would be helpful as evidence)
There are things this doesn't do. it is a total failure at keeping all the parts up to standards, and getting people to work where work is needed. Can't have everything. If what is wanted is consistency and quality, nobody ever thought a wiki was the way to go. Try the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
I'm far from urging revolution, and too well adjusted to the chaos to be restless--those who want to put order into the project are the revolutionaries. Those who want polish are the ones getting restless.
Allow for a few percent exaggeration in anything i say.
On 6/24/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/24/07 2:44 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
There are also de facto projects. For example, the few people who devote themselves to TfD, or the ones grouped around image fair use. Or, as George Herbert implied, the ones who assemble here.
Or at AfD--people specialize, and the only person who attempted to comment on them all just got indefinitely blocked as an SPA, to general relief.
There are of course problems with multiple self-organizing mini-groups--for one, they get isolated; I found out by accident just now that a major question which is just beginning to be discussed at one place has been almost fully decided & implemented at another. For another, one persona can dominate, and then there are no fixed limits on what they can consider their scope.
There is no way to deal with this many things going on without a considerable human overhead--at present it's done by volunteers from the ordinary people, selected by interest and perseverance and thickness of skin--in your model, they'd be selected from above. Just whom among the present WP people do you think qualified to do that? Or are to elect our judges? -- that doesn't have any better a record.
On 6/23/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can continue. The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many of them work really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone. Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who come to the capitol only on special occasion.
David,
Just thinking here: It would seem there are many active editors who are not formal members of an established WP Project (myself included). This would include persons who do mostly statistical editing (birth & death dates, place of birth, sports stats, etc.) as well as grammatical cleanup and the like. So as to involve all active editors in the Project's organization, how about grouping them in their own Project?
Marc
David, George, Ray, Mangoe Š and all others concerned with the structure of Wikipedia,
Wait a minute! I woke up this morning and, in all senses, smelled the coffee. What are we doing here!?! We appear to be embarking on a serious discussion of structuring an entity that, supposedly, already exists. We are not developers staring at a blank screen, or sheet of paper (to place it in my era) planning something from the ground up.
Before I spend another second of my time on this issue, or ask anyone else to do the same, I need to be taught some things:
- Where does the founder, Jimmy Wales, fit into all of this? Isn't this
something he should be initiating, or, at the very least, directly involved in? And what do you, Jimmy, think of the present day-to-day operating structure of the Project?
- What is the Foundation's role in the issue of the Project's structure?
And, what responsibility does it have in overseeing such a venture.
- Who, or what, in fact does direct the day-to-day functioning of the
Project right now?
- If we did come up with an extraordinarily creative plan for structuring
the Project (and with Berks in the works no doubt we would :-)) to whom would we present it for implementation?
Our work on this should not be seen as simply a catharsis for some restless natives.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 6/25/07 1:22 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
1.The founder gives speeches and cultivates donors. His pronouncements are quoted whenever someone thinks they might serve the purpose.
This may be where the role has evolved to, but is it the same as when it began?
A person decides to begin a project of some kind. The planning involves the subject, focus and goals of that project; who will be the persons involved in that project; where the home base of the project will be; and the myriad of other practical details necessary to launch it. Key to this is how that project will be managed day to day - the human and institutional issues that could, if not dealt with, interfere with the primary purpose of the project. This oversight role, initially, would be filled by that founder, or someone he designates. But, whether by he, or this designee, this crucial role must exist if the project is to survive much less thrive. Does such a day-to-day oversight role exist in today's Wikipedia; and, if so, who is filling it?
2.The foundation runs the servers.
Thanks, I¹m learning.
3.What day to day functioning? OTRS is volunteers.
Policy creation, revision and oversight; conflict management and resolution, to name just two. What difference does it make to the management of a project or organization whether the participants are volunteer or paid? the focus must be on fulfilling the purpose and goals of that project.
4.I was describing not what I thing ought to be, but what I think actually is. The cellular structure that I describe is what I think I see. (Agreed, some sociometrics would be helpful as evidence)
David, I wasn't responding directly to your last post; that is why I altered the subject heading. My purpose was to interrupt the dialogue with these basic questions wanting to go back to the drawing board as it were.
<snip> > it is a total failure at keeping all
the parts up to standards, and getting people to work where work is needed.
And this isn't an issue that needs to be dealt with now?
Can't have everything.
Without these you don't have much of anything.
I'm far from urging revolution,
Neither am I.
and too well adjusted to the chaos to be restless--
The Project is only 6 years old without direct management, this chaos will become catastrophe.
those who want to put order into the project are the revolutionaries.
David, if wanting to bring order to something is considered revolutionary, it doesn't say much for its present condition.
Those who want polish are the ones getting restless.
What good is polishing a pair of shoes if the seams are in danger of coming apart?
I see Wikipedia as a large research project, made up of many smaller, individual projects. The goal of the main project is to compile knowledge and to disseminate information. There is someone getting the word out about the project and assuring there is enough funding to sustain it. There are people managing the electronics and medium the project is utilizing. There are countless persons gathering and editing the information that is going into the Project. But, once again, who is actively overseeing all of this?
Marc
On 6/24/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Wait a minute! I woke up this morning and, in all senses, smelled the coffee. What are we doing here!?! We appear to be embarking on a serious discussion of structuring an entity that, supposedly, already exists. We are not developers staring at a blank screen, or sheet of paper (to place it in my era) planning something from the ground up.
Before I spend another second of my time on this issue, or ask anyone else to do the same, I need to be taught some things:
- Where does the founder, Jimmy Wales, fit into all of this? Isn't this
something he should be initiating, or, at the very least, directly involved in? And what do you, Jimmy, think of the present day-to-day operating structure of the Project?
- What is the Foundation's role in the issue of the Project's structure?
And, what responsibility does it have in overseeing such a venture.
- Who, or what, in fact does direct the day-to-day functioning of the
Project right now?
- If we did come up with an extraordinarily creative plan for structuring
the Project (and with Berks in the works no doubt we would :-)) to whom would we present it for implementation?
Our work on this should not be seen as simply a catharsis for some restless natives.
Marc Riddell
I hate to be the one who rains on your moment of revelation, but your questions seem to be underpinned by the fallacy that, because a structure exists, it was created. Wikipedia and many of the structures attached to it are examples of emergent systems. Not only do the structures you keep expecting to find not exist, but the structural foundations they would rest on also do not exist.
An appropriate metaphor is that of a hurricane; it's large and "organized", but nobody (well, no meteorologist) would claim that there is any agency or intention behind the organization; that's just what sometimes happens when you have water, angular momentum, and heat. Now let us say that you have a big mirror in space that can warm or cool the planet by directing more or fewer of the sun's rays at the Earth. Could you potentially use this mirror to affect hurricanes? Yes. Could you do so with any precision or assurance of success? Absolutely not. You would be using an instrument far too large and blunt to have any idea what the result would be.
You keep making the presupposition that we can create a new culture and new structures, because we have a culture and structures that we must have created once, and we can easily repeat what we have already done. The trap is that we did not create what we have today; it arose organically. And we don't know what changes we may try to make will converge to zero and fizzle, or which ones will have a multiplier effect that will spin them out of our control, like something out of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. We don't know; we provably cannot know, until we try. But we need to know going in that our tools are very large and very blunt.
Our article on emergence, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence, is actually not that good; it doesn't lend itself to the layman, although as usual it does present a somewhat decent overview. However, the external links section is stuffed with gems, including http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/emergence/, which uses cellular automata to introduce basic ideas (requires java) and http://www.timgooding.com/, which talks about emergence in human behavior. I highly recommend reading up extensively on the topic of emergence, because until you grok it, very, very little of this place is going to make any sense at all.
Thank you, -Michael Noda
On 6/24/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Wait a minute! I woke up this morning and, in all senses, smelled the coffee. What are we doing here!?! We appear to be embarking on a serious discussion of structuring an entity that, supposedly, already exists. We are not developers staring at a blank screen, or sheet of paper (to place it in my era) planning something from the ground up.
Before I spend another second of my time on this issue, or ask anyone else to do the same, I need to be taught some things:
- Where does the founder, Jimmy Wales, fit into all of this? Isn't this
something he should be initiating, or, at the very least, directly involved in? And what do you, Jimmy, think of the present day-to-day operating structure of the Project?
- What is the Foundation's role in the issue of the Project's structure?
And, what responsibility does it have in overseeing such a venture.
- Who, or what, in fact does direct the day-to-day functioning of the
Project right now?
- If we did come up with an extraordinarily creative plan for structuring
the Project (and with Berks in the works no doubt we would :-)) to whom would we present it for implementation?
Our work on this should not be seen as simply a catharsis for some restless natives.
Marc Riddell
on 6/26/07 3:00 AM, Michael Noda at michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
I hate to be the one who rains on your moment of revelation, but your questions seem to be underpinned by the fallacy that, because a structure exists, it was created. Wikipedia and many of the structures attached to it are examples of emergent systems. Not only do the structures you keep expecting to find not exist, but the structural foundations they would rest on also do not exist.
What you point out here is troubling to me as regards the future of the project.
An appropriate metaphor is that of a hurricane; it's large and "organized", but nobody (well, no meteorologist) would claim that there is any agency or intention behind the organization; that's just what sometimes happens when you have water, angular momentum, and heat. Now let us say that you have a big mirror in space that can warm or cool the planet by directing more or fewer of the sun's rays at the Earth. Could you potentially use this mirror to affect hurricanes? Yes. Could you do so with any precision or assurance of success? Absolutely not. You would be using an instrument far too large and blunt to have any idea what the result would be.
I agree, you certainly cannot control an active hurricane. You can only warn people to get out of its path and seek safer ground.
You keep making the presupposition that we can create a new culture and new structures, because we have a culture and structures that we must have created once, and we can easily repeat what we have already done. The trap is that we did not create what we have today; it arose organically.
From what seeds did they grow, and who planted them?
And we don't know what changes we may try to make will converge to zero and fizzle, or which ones will have a multiplier effect that will spin them out of our control, like something out of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. We don't know; we provably cannot know, until we try. But we need to know going in that our tools are very large and very blunt.
Yes. Risk.
Our article on emergence, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence, is actually not that good; it doesn't lend itself to the layman, although as usual it does present a somewhat decent overview. However, the external links section is stuffed with gems, including http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/emergence/, which uses cellular automata to introduce basic ideas (requires java) and http://www.timgooding.com/, which talks about emergence in human behavior. I highly recommend reading up extensively on the topic of emergence, because until you grok it, very, very little of this place is going to make any sense at all.
Thank you, -Michael Noda
Michael,
I agree; your perception of the Project as organic is much closer to reality than my own. Wikipedia is organic: it is living, and it is growing.
My fundamental question was, is, and will remain: who is actively overseeing the day-to-day growth of this organism with the wisdom, judgment, expertise and, yes, authority, to keep it in check? Without such active oversight, this growth will develop into a jungle - beautiful to observe, but impossible to navigate without a very sharp instrument.
I have asked this question many times on this List, but all I keep getting back from some very frequent and usually vocal contributors is either evasion or silence.
Marc Riddell
PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.
Marc Riddell schreef:
My fundamental question was, is, and will remain: who is actively overseeing the day-to-day growth of this organism with the wisdom, judgment, expertise and, yes, authority, to keep it in check?
Basically: we are. There are a few formal structures, like the ArbCom, but they are too small to have any direct influence on Wikipedia. So the day-to-day running of Wikipedia is done by us all, the editors.
Without such active oversight, this growth will develop into a jungle - beautiful to observe, but impossible to navigate without a very sharp instrument.
That is a very good description of Wikipedia.
PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle
from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living
Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.
I don't like it. Why should we change a phrase which we have grown accustomed to, to a bland metaphore?
Eugene
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle
from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living
Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.
I don't like it. Why should we change a phrase which we have grown accustomed to, to a bland metaphore?
Yes. If a catchphrase is working, don't change it. I wouldn't go so far as to call the suggestion bland. Changing symbols involves unnecessary risks.
Ec
Returning to the basic issue, Marc proposes centralization in order to have more effective collaboration in a structured environment. However, he does not propose what structure he wishes to adopt, or demonstrate that it would work better, or maintain the community trust, or keep the most productive contributors.
Unfortunately, this proposal has come simultaneous with considerable expressions of disapproval of one of the few organs for the small amount of centralized decision making that we do have, and the specific rejection by the community of some of the proposals of those most involved in that structure.
The people who are here at WP are, by and large, the ones who like chaos. Many are here, particularly the younger people, specifically because of a greater comfort with this sort of extremely loose and spontaneous group. And some of the older people are here because of disappointment with the fixed agendas of more organized groups.
We should work towards our strengths, and do what the present structure is best suited to do. This does not include writing the 21st century version of the 9th edition of the Brittanica, a scholarly compendium of formal knowledge--I agree with Marc that we are not suited to that.
DGG
On 6/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle
from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living
Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.
I don't like it. Why should we change a phrase which we have grown accustomed to, to a bland metaphore?
Yes. If a catchphrase is working, don't change it. I wouldn't go so far as to call the suggestion bland. Changing symbols involves unnecessary risks.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 7/5/07 3:05 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Returning to the basic issue, Marc proposes centralization in order to have more effective collaboration in a structured environment. However, he does not propose what structure he wishes to adopt, or demonstrate that it would work better, or maintain the community trust, or keep the most productive contributors.
I have deliberately not proposed a specific structure for the Project because I believe it is premature to do so. What must occur first is a discussion of whether such a restructuring is needed. If the majority of Members of the Community (starting with those on this List) believe the present structure is working, it would be a gross waste of time to propose the specific details of an alternative one. I have already articulated many times, in many posts, why I believe a rethinking of the Project's structure is needed. I am now asking what the rest of you think.
Unfortunately, this proposal has come simultaneous with considerable expressions of disapproval of one of the few organs for the small amount of centralized decision making that we do have, and the specific rejection by the community of some of the proposals of those most involved in that structure.
What is your meaning here?
The people who are here at WP are, by and large, the ones who like chaos.
Most creative persons do. A work of art is the artist's way of sorting out the chaos. What's needed is a structure that prevents this creative process from being stifled, and getting bogged down by bullshit.
Many are here, particularly the younger people, specifically because of a greater comfort with this sort of extremely loose and spontaneous group.
As are some of us "older people" too :-).
And some of the older people are here because of disappointment with the fixed agendas of more organized groups.
And to show that an alternative can succeed and thrive.
We should work towards our strengths, and do what the present structure is best suited to do.
At present, the Wikipedia Project is not a user-friendly environment. It is the survival of the fittest. I would like to see it be the survival of the best.
Marc
On 05/07/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 7/5/07 3:05 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Returning to the basic issue, Marc proposes centralization in order to have more effective collaboration in a structured environment. However, he does not propose what structure he wishes to adopt, or demonstrate that it would work better, or maintain the community trust, or keep the most productive contributors.
I have deliberately not proposed a specific structure for the Project because I believe it is premature to do so. What must occur first is a discussion of whether such a restructuring is needed. If the majority of Members of the Community (starting with those on this List) believe the present structure is working, it would be a gross waste of time to propose the specific details of an alternative one. I have already articulated many times, in many posts, why I believe a rethinking of the Project's structure is needed. I am now asking what the rest of you think.
Unfortunately, this proposal has come simultaneous with considerable expressions of disapproval of one of the few organs for the small amount of centralized decision making that we do have, and the specific rejection by the community of some of the proposals of those most involved in that structure.
What is your meaning here?
The people who are here at WP are, by and large, the ones who like chaos.
Most creative persons do. A work of art is the artist's way of sorting out the chaos. What's needed is a structure that prevents this creative process from being stifled, and getting bogged down by bullshit.
Many are here, particularly the younger people, specifically because of a greater comfort with this sort of extremely loose and spontaneous group.
As are some of us "older people" too :-).
And some of the older people are here because of disappointment with the fixed agendas of more organized groups.
And to show that an alternative can succeed and thrive.
We should work towards our strengths, and do what the present structure is best suited to do.
At present, the Wikipedia Project is not a user-friendly environment. It is the survival of the fittest. I would like to see it be the survival of the best.
Marc
Riddell's Law says that of every post in the list 20/100 will state that "Wikipedia is NOT the encyclopedia that everyone can write.".
Wikipedia is structured and practically no article can survive without some kind of interaction with a band of other editors. If they are sole projects they are demeed unnotable or just filling in red links on other articles. Some articles are started by a band of merry editors who get so tired of fighting they just leave and its often left to one editor to defend an article. Cruft articles never go through that process be they sport, game or TV related.
If projects were adopted to oversee all articles, it wouldn't help general editors who need to research "other stuff" and work on articles outside their own interest.
The structure of editors at the moment isn't the best. When I first joined a year ago there was still a movement to create sourced articles that filled red links. Since most of the red links were connected to WP:BLP, its upset a lot of editors who weren't cruft-ites but who wanted to expand the scope of Wikipedia. Deletions are running high and have been for months. If making a narrower better Wikipedia is the goal - Amen. To create new Project supervisors with watchlists of thousands of articles is not a way forward.
mike
On 7/5/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
[...] The people who are here at WP are, by and large, the ones who like chaos. Many are here, particularly the younger people, specifically because of a greater comfort with this sort of extremely loose and spontaneous group. And some of the older people are here because of disappointment with the fixed agendas of more organized groups.
We should work towards our strengths, and do what the present structure is best suited to do. This does not include writing the 21st century version of the 9th edition of the Brittanica, a scholarly compendium of formal knowledge--I agree with Marc that we are not suited to that.
I would disagree that people on the project like chaos, or with the idea that the project is really chaos.
Real chaos were some of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroups back in the day, or IRC in its wilder days.
WP as a project is... the largest most active focused online open community project to date. It's hard to say that we're chaotic, or attract people who like it that way... we have little to compare it to.
What you can compare it with, other online communities, have similar or worse records.
What I will agree with is that we keep running into areas that the current semi-structured semi-unstructured organically grown management model does badly. That's nothing new; all online communities and projects hit things like this. We have idiosyncratic reactions to those, but so have all the other projects and communities before.
I both agree and disagree that we're poorly suited to write the 21st century equivalent to Britannica 9. I agree that we're poorly suited to just sit down and coherently write a world-class reference source. But we're effectively evolving one.
The whole open wiki reference idea works. It probably shouldn't, but we are stumbling towards goodness. It can work better. But it is working.
On 7/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I would disagree that people on the project like chaos, or with the idea that the project is really chaos.
<
WP as a project is... the largest most active focused online open community project to date. It's hard to say that we're chaotic, or attract people who like it that way... we have little to compare it to.
Both of these statements are spot on.
The whole open wiki reference idea works. It probably shouldn't, but we are stumbling towards goodness. It can work better. But it is working.
And then again, perhaps it should. Many sea-change large-scale reference works over the past few hundred years (including great early dictionaries and encyclopedias) have adopted a broadly collaborative approach -- though shaped and limited by what mechanisms were available. Likewise the whole open publishing model that lets just anyone grab paper and typewriter and produce and distribute manuscripts or even purported math proofs and experimental results... hasn't been great for the scribners and alchemists, but worked out well enough for readers and modern writers and scientists.
SJ
Marc Riddell wrote:
My fundamental question was, is, and will remain: who is actively overseeing the day-to-day growth of this organism with the wisdom, judgment, expertise and, yes, authority, to keep it in check?
No one, and everyone. (How's that for evasiveness? :-) ) Both the Foundation issuing a pronouncement, and the newbie anon editor reverting vandalism as one of his/her first edits, are keeping growth in check, each exercising authority in their own ways.
A good analogy is the anthill; the ant society as a whole behaves more intelligently than any individual ant. You're not going to find some superbrainy ant secretly directing things, instead the intelligence emerges solely from the interactions of ants that each have only a handful of neurons.
It's a hard concept to get one's head around, especially for those who've been trained in reductionist analysis.
Without such active oversight, this growth will develop into a jungle - beautiful to observe, but impossible to navigate without a very sharp instrument.
What, you have a crystal ball? This particular experiment has never been tried on this scale before, and it's been far more successful than even many of the optimists imagined. While there are reasons to be concerned, I don't think you have any hard evidence that things will go any particular way in the future.
Stan
On 26/06/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
My fundamental question was, is, and will remain: who is actively overseeing the day-to-day growth of this organism with the wisdom, judgment, expertise and, yes, authority, to keep it in check? Without such active oversight, this growth will develop into a jungle - beautiful to observe, but impossible to navigate without a very sharp instrument.
The answer, as far as I can tell, is "we're in utterly uncharted territory here." We're making it up as we go along.
It's like riding a tiger, except it's not a tiger and I'm not really sure what sort of animal it is or anything much about it.
Yes, this is scary ... I find myself somewhat comforted by the fact that Wikipedia is in fact free content, so a fork is possible in the event of the Foundation or the community going completely insane or melting down.
Mind you, forking and then maintaining a database this size is likely to be exceedingly difficult. Citizendium started with forking the whole of en:wp, but quickly decided it really wasn't feasible with the number of volunteers they had, so decided instead to start mostly afresh (keeping the Wikipedia articles they'd already been working on).
I have asked this question many times on this List, but all I keep getting back from some very frequent and usually vocal contributors is either evasion or silence.
I hope the above doesn't count as evasion ...
PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.
Sorry, I meant to reply to it. I like it as a slogan, and it's very descriptive of an important thing about us. The amount of community buy-in that would be needed to effect the change strikes me at first impression as infeasible, but calling it "a living encyclopedia" is a useful way to describe this important difference between wiki-based encyclopedias and how the previous generation (Britannica, Brockhaus et al) did it with the "get a bunch of smart guys to write it" model. Because I seriously think no-one will ever start a general encyclopedia again on that model, and even specialist encyclopedias written on the "bunch of smart guys" or "one smart guy" haven't a hope against the wiki model - wikis, and the MediaWiki software in particular, are a natural for the task of gathering the knowledge of enthusiasts.
- d.
On 26/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I meant to reply to it. I like it as a slogan, and it's very descriptive of an important thing about us. The amount of community buy-in that would be needed to effect the change strikes me at first impression as infeasible, but calling it "a living encyclopedia" is a useful way to describe this important difference between wiki-based encyclopedias and how the previous generation (Britannica, Brockhaus et al) did it with the "get a bunch of smart guys to write it" model. Because I seriously think no-one will ever start a general encyclopedia again on that model, and even specialist encyclopedias written on the "bunch of smart guys" or "one smart guy" haven't a hope against the wiki model - wikis, and the MediaWiki software in particular, are a natural for the task of gathering the knowledge of enthusiasts.
And I should say I'd prefer keeping the current "The Free Encyclopedia", as in free content - because that's an important thing distinguishing us from one failed past Internet collaborative knowledge-gathering exercise, the [[Open Directory Project]] - which is not quite dead but is largely moribund, because when the corporation no longer cared much and the community failed it was impossible to fork and start over. Wikipedia will survive its community or corporate organisation failing, even if not in particularly good health.
- d.
On 6/26/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I agree; your perception of the Project as organic is much closer to reality than my own. Wikipedia is organic: it is living, and it is growing.
"Organic" is a tricky word here, because it tends to imply the structure that is not there. Assuming you believe in evolution :) you see real organisms as developing complexity and organization over time in a way that we don't see here. On one level the project is self-sustaining, in that people do continue to add articles and edit whatever may happen. Whether this produces an encyclopedia is at first entirely beside the point; as long as people are will to participate, and the website is there and functioning, the basic metabolism of the project continues.
The thing is that (to continue the analogy) this isn't classic Darwinian evolution at work; it is a kind of Intelligent Design, intended to manifest a purpose. All of the problems we are discussing relate to the perception that this manifestation isn't as effective as we would like. And to a very great degree, the failures reflect that this Purpose is not entirely real. In the first place, people come to WIkipedia with a lot of varied personal purposes. Some are patently at cross-purposes with anyone's conception of encyclopedia writing, such as the various true trolls and vandals who simply use it as the vehicle for their personal entertainment. But other people, through cultural differences or variation in the quality of their education, don't see the project of writing in the same terms as an overly intellectualized, humanized and Westernized college grad such as myself would. They may not be truly committed to neutrality, or may be incapable of executing it.
At any rate, the thing is that the Purpose manifested in the actual work isn't one single Purpose; it is whatever is manifested in the writing of whoever is editing that particular passage. And since the thing is far too big for anyone to be everywhere, there is definitely fragmentation. On top of the that, I get the sense that what organs we do have seem to have developed particularly to deal with that very first class of people. They have a definite fire-fighting quality. On the other hand, the projects seem more geared towards making a commonality of purpose. But they are by nature localized, so that what they produce is a Purpose specific to the topic at hand. I'm not trying to knock the projects, and I don't mean to imply that they are each and everyone bent on a definite POV. But each one is, by nature, going to tend to be colored by the commonality of interest.
I don't know about the future of Britannica-style encyclopedia projects-- though I can see such an encyclopedia using an in-house wiki as a vehicle for their work. I can see a scenario in which the determining factor is that Wikipedia is free on-line, and Britannica is not. Therefore, as long as money is a more important factor, we are going to tend to drive them out of the market. The only countervailing factor is quality, but markets are notoriously tolerant of poor quality. Wikipedia is already "the encyclopedia everyone consults even though they know it often isn't very good."
On 26/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about the future of Britannica-style encyclopedia projects-- though I can see such an encyclopedia using an in-house wiki as a vehicle for their work.
Brockhaus is using MediaWiki for one of its online encyclopedias.
I can see a scenario in which the determining factor is that Wikipedia is free on-line, and Britannica is not. Therefore, as long as money is a more important factor, we are going to tend to drive them out of the market. The only countervailing factor is quality, but markets are notoriously tolerant of poor quality. Wikipedia is already "the encyclopedia everyone consults even though they know it often isn't very good."
Certainly. Wikipedia is better than a Google search, and it's certainly better than a Britannica you don't have to hand on your desk.
- d.
On 6/26/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I can see a scenario in which the determining factor is that Wikipedia is free on-line, and Britannica is not. Therefore, as long as money is a more important factor, we are going to tend to drive them out of the market. The only countervailing factor is quality, but markets are notoriously tolerant of poor quality. Wikipedia is already "the encyclopedia everyone consults even though they know it often isn't very good."
Certainly. Wikipedia is better than a Google search, and it's certainly better than a Britannica you don't have to hand on your desk.
Well, it's interesting, because I find myself doing a lot of "-wikipedia" Google searches these days. I suppose that's partly because a lot of those searches are done for Wikipedia. However, except in a few restricted fields I go to other sources whenever I need any kind of systematic knowledge about something. Wikipedia is definitely good for the "I've never heard of this before" search, but I've tended to find it lacking for more in-depth treatment. The articles tend to be too incoherent-- not gibberish, but they tend not to hold together as a unified exposition.
on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can continue. The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many of them work really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone. Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who come to the capitol only on special occasion.
David,
Another area to think about are the frustratingly complex processes of conflict appeal and resolution; both within the various Projects and in the encyclopedia as a whole. As it is now a newbie, in particular, doesn't stand a chance.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman wrote:
I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can continue. The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many of them work really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone. Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who come to the capitol only on special occasion.
David,
Another area to think about are the frustratingly complex processes of conflict appeal and resolution; both within the various Projects and in the encyclopedia as a whole. As it is now a newbie, in particular, doesn't stand a chance.
While you are absolutely right that it is an area in need of reform, I think too that it is more important to focus on what happens when things go right than on what to do when things go wrong. This does not diminish the importance of these processes, but they do have a tendency to draw people's attention away from fundamental objectives. This is akin to a community that wants to build better jails instead of better schools.
In the recent discussion on the use of proxies it was argued that strong measures should be taken because it was conceived that wrong-doers _could_ avail themselves of potential security holes. A tremendous amount of energy could be devoted to that sort of thing, and leave us very little further ahead. Problem people can only be dealt with by reference to what we accept as right.
Maybe we need a Wikiproject:Discipline along the lines of other Wikiprojects, but I'm not prepared to say that that's the only way to go with this. Whatever is done in this direction must still fit in with a broader picture where it must also be accountable.
Ec
On 6/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.
What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to drive home for some time now.
A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can you trust?" becomes the pervading question.
Online communities have, however, successfully self-organized around people that are trusted and put forwards (or put themselves forwards) as leaders.
I've said this several times before: If actively contribute to threads on Wikien-L, you're probably an English Wikipedia leader, whether you consider yourself one or not.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/18/07 4:10 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
I was describing, not prescribing. For better or worse, your RFA is the place where you essentially voluntarily put yourself under the microscope. In a way, it's like a job interview, with all that entails.
It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job.
Ray,
In the interest of clarity, are you making a direct comparison between the status levels of a company and that of the WP Community?
You could say so. I would hate to experience the office politics of such a company. They might not even have time to get any real work done. ;-)
Ec