It was nicely ironic that the ABC national news report on Essjay had taken the tone of criticizing Wikipedia for inaccuracy, while showing itself only able to provide the most superficially terse look into "the controversy."
The question that Im left with is the matter of process: Why was Essjay forced to resign when he didn't even get a proper in-process review from the Arbcom? That of course is why the Arbcom exists, to sort of try to investigate a case and see if things actually violated the rules.
In which there would have to be an answer for the charge that Essjay used his pseudonym credentials to "strongarm" others in the context of debates. The exerpts Ive seen do not show that, rather they show that Essjay stepped in to offer some clarification and explanation on particular points - not that he "strongarmed" people with his opinions. I think that characterization is flatly out of... character.
Aside from any particulars, what this episode in general represents if anything is how mob rule has overstepped even the Arbcom's role, at a time when JW has been almost completely out of the loop.
-Stevertigo
On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:32 PM, stvrtg wrote:
The question that Im left with is the matter of process: Why was Essjay forced to resign when he didn't even get a proper in-process review from the Arbcom? That of course is why the Arbcom exists, to sort of try to investigate a case and see if things actually violated the rules.
Because sometimes Jimbo acts without the arbcom.
In which there would have to be an answer for the charge that Essjay used his pseudonym credentials to "strongarm" others in the context of debates. The exerpts Ive seen do not show that, rather they show that Essjay stepped in to offer some clarification and explanation on particular points
- not
that he "strongarmed" people with his opinions. I think that characterization is flatly out of... character.
Indeed - we should note that Essjay's on-Wikipedia use of his credentials was wholly unproblematic, at least in terms of effects. This is something we should think hard about in terms of our anti- expertise bias - the worst case scenario turned out not to be meaningfully destructive to the encyclopedia.
-Phil
stvrtg wrote:
The question that Im left with is the matter of process: Why was Essjay forced to resign when he didn't even get a proper in-process review from the Arbcom? That of course is why the Arbcom exists, to sort of try to investigate a case and see if things actually violated the rules.
Why did Nixon resign, when he could maybe have beaten the impeachment rap? Sometimes people decide it's just not worth all the trouble, especially not if it's only to satisfy other people's notions of "process". Resigning from everything is the smartest thing that Essjay has done so far.
Stan
On 3/7/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Why did Nixon resign, when he could maybe have beaten the impeachment rap? Sometimes people decide it's just not worth all the trouble, especially not if it's only to satisfy other people's notions of "process". Resigning from everything is the smartest thing that Essjay has done so far.
I might read this as yet another mischaracterisation of Essjay - first as a "strongarm" and now a "Nixon," but I'll leave that alone. The point isn't that he could have "beaten the rap" - I don't think he could have given his RFC. And I agree that resigning was, in a sense "smart."
But we are left with some need to actually clarify what did happen, according to our formal processes and to the judgement of our elected judges. In this way we can at least have a formal statement which is removed of all the hyperbole we have seen thus far. A statement in which Essjay's actions are characterised not by an angry flash mob of closet credentialists, but by a basic and fair (neutral) representation of all the views involved.
-Stevertigo
On 3/7/07, stvrtg stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
we are left with some need to actually clarify what did happen, according to our formal processes and to the judgement of our elected judges. In this way we can at least have a formal statement which is removed of all the hyperbole we have seen thus far.
How about a 9/11 style investigatory commission, non-partisan, of course.
Nobs01
stvrtg wrote:
But we are left with some need to actually clarify what did happen, according to our formal processes and to the judgement of our elected judges. In this way we can at least have a formal statement which is removed of all the hyperbole we have seen thus far.
Clarifying what happened is a task for historians, not judges. When the accused dies in mid-trial, the trial is dismissed.
If a responsible person or group wanted to develop a policy proposal to cover future situations, it would be appropriate to include a careful and detailed review of this case as part of their background material. To abuse the judicial analogy, this would be a law professor kind of activity.
Stan
On 3/7/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Clarifying what happened is a task for historians, not judges. When the accused dies in mid-trial, the trial is dismissed.
If a responsible person or group wanted to develop a policy proposal to
cover future situations, it would be appropriate to include a careful and detailed review of this case as part of their background material. To abuse the judicial analogy, this would be a law professor kind of activity.
Well I can sort of make up the appropriate credentials. ;) A real issue though is this characterisation of "abuse" by Essjay has been repeated ad nauseam in the media - including WP's own "Essjay controversy" article. By opening up an Arbcom case, people can assist in gathering any evidence of wrongdoing, beyond the citations given.
-Stevertigo
stvrtg wrote:
Well I can sort of make up the appropriate credentials. ;) A real issue though is this characterisation of "abuse" by Essjay has been repeated ad nauseam in the media - including WP's own "Essjay controversy" article. By opening up an Arbcom case, people can assist in gathering any evidence of wrongdoing, beyond the citations given.
People can create a page and do all that now, Arbcom adds no value. From what I know of Arbcom, the case would be turned down inside of 15 minutes, setting a new record for AC speed :-) , so you'd have to create your own page anyway. After all, the "arb" stands for "arbitration", and exactly what dispute between current editors would they be settling? Now if you were to create an Essjay-related page and get into an edit war over it, they might take that case, not that I'm suggesting anything. :-)
Stan
On 3/7/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
People can create a page and do all that now, Arbcom adds no value. From what I know of Arbcom, the case would be turned down inside of 15 minutes, setting a new record for AC speed :-) , so you'd have to create your own page anyway. After all, the "arb" stands for "arbitration", and exactly what dispute between current editors would they be settling? Now if you were to create an Essjay-related page and get into an edit war over it, they might take that case, not that I'm suggesting anything. :-)
Your insightful comments notwithstanding, ("after all, the "arb" stands for "arbitration") I have filed one anyway.
-Stevertigo
Resigning from everything is the smartest thing that Essjay has done so far.
He didn't really have a choice. Being asked to resign and being fired only differ by semantics. It just means the official record is a little less damning, and you still get your pension. If Essjay hadn't resigned, Jimbo would have used his executive prerogative and fired him.
Aside from any particulars, what this episode in general represents if anything is how mob rule has overstepped even the Arbcom's role, at a time when JW has been almost completely out of the loop.
-Stevertigo
Isn't Jimmy just supposed to be the proverbial head of state at this point, no longer the commander in chief?
On 3/8/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from any particulars, what this episode in general represents if anything is how mob rule has overstepped even the Arbcom's role, at a
time
when JW has been almost completely out of the loop.
-Stevertigo
Isn't Jimmy just supposed to be the proverbial head of state at this point, no longer the commander in chief?
The last time I checked, the arbcom's powers are derived from Jimbo, not the other way round, so Jimbo had every right to act, since he is superior to the arbcom in hierarchical terms.
Also, I'm not sure what the difference between a "head of state" and "commander in chief" is - IIRC, they are the same in most countries, where the head of state is also the head of the country's military. I'm sure there's a meaningful point here, but it seems that the wrong word's been used.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 3/8/07, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't Jimmy just supposed to be the proverbial head of state at this point, no longer the commander in chief?
The last time I checked, the arbcom's powers are derived from Jimbo, not the other way round, so Jimbo had every right to act, since he is superior to the arbcom in hierarchical terms.
It's kind of vague, really. Historically, the Arbitration Committee took over the roles Jimmy previously exercised. Informally, he currently heads it (from afar, mostly), and has authority to veto its decisions, appoint/remove members, etc. Even more informally, he does so in accordance with community approval (elections, the policy ratification vote, etc.). At one point Jimmy was also formally in charge, but now in hierarchical terms the Foundation's Board of Directors would be, with Jimmy retaining informal/customary authority over some English-Wikipedia-specific processes. Now that authority over the community is mostly effective because the community tacticly approves of it, so teasing out which has priority is tricky. =]
-Mark
It's kind of vague, really.
Not really. There is clear consensus that if Jimbo says jump, we all jump. People might express their disagreement, but they'll either jump or leave, they won't stay and go against Jimbo's decision. Jimbo has authority because we give it to him, and we give it to him because he's been right in the past for more often than he's been wrong. It may be informal, but that doesn't make it any less factual.
On 3/8/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's kind of vague, really.
Not really. There is clear consensus that if Jimbo says jump, we all jump.
How is that going with the new credential confirmation proposal?
On 3/8/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/8/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's kind of vague, really.
Not really. There is clear consensus that if Jimbo says jump, we all jump.
How is that going with the new credential confirmation proposal?
The "credentials confirmation proposal" is exactly this, it is a proposal and thus a subject to discussion. It is not a decision, an order or a "Please introduce this. Now."
Michael
-- geni
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 Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:16:21 -0500, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It's kind of vague, really. Historically, the Arbitration Committee took over the roles Jimmy previously exercised. Informally, he currently heads it (from afar, mostly), and has authority to veto its decisions, appoint/remove members, etc. Even more informally, he does so in accordance with community approval (elections, the policy ratification vote, etc.). At one point Jimmy was also formally in charge, but now in hierarchical terms the Foundation's Board of Directors would be, with Jimmy retaining informal/customary authority over some English-Wikipedia-specific processes. Now that authority over the community is mostly effective because the community tacticly approves of it, so teasing out which has priority is tricky.
Unless you are English, where the concept of a constitutional monarchy is something we've always lived with :o) Yesterday I was riding along the Queen's highway. Literally - The Mall.
Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would cause problems. It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad?
To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system of government, apart from all the others.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would cause problems. It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad?
To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system of government, apart from all the others.
I agree with this completely. I'd add that I think benevolent dictatorships generally work in inverse proportion to the amount the dictator has to intervene. So I'd rather we take any ex-cathedra intervention as an opportunity to find out how the community can handle things next time on its own.
William
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:40:13 -0800, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
benevolent dictatorships generally work in inverse proportion to the amount the dictator has to intervene. So I'd rather we take any ex-cathedra intervention as an opportunity to find out how the community can handle things next time on its own.
Yup, absolutely.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/8/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I agree with this completely. I'd add that I think benevolent dictatorships generally work in inverse proportion to the amount the dictator has to intervene. So I'd rather we take any ex-cathedra intervention as an opportunity to find out how the community can handle things next time on its own.
You must mean there needs to be some other form of public expression other than "hang him!"
I agree, and if Jimbo wasn't in the sticks he might have been more clear on what was going on, and his calls for a "calm, loving" approach might not have been ignored.
-Stevertigo
On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would cause problems.
Historically, *really* pushing it gets your head cut off, which means sensible monarchs get very good at reading the public mood in both the short and long terms.
It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad? To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system of government, apart from all the others.
Indeed. We're doing things that have NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE; if we didn't do some *really stupid* things in the process, it'd be a clear case of not being nearly adventurous enough.
- d.
On 3/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would cause problems.
Historically, *really* pushing it gets your head cut off, which means sensible monarchs get very good at reading the public mood in both the short and long terms.
It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad? To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system of government, apart from all the others.
Indeed. We're doing things that have NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE; if we didn't do some *really stupid* things in the process, it'd be a clear case of not being nearly adventurous enough.
- d.
Yah but see you're all back to talking about persons and personalities whereas what's needed is an independent Commission Review, kinda like the 911 Commission, not to point fingers and find fallguys, but to examine institutional failings and weaknesses, and make dispassionate recommendations on how to avoid or manage future crisis.
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:22:45 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Yah but see you're all back to talking about persons and personalities whereas what's needed is an independent Commission Review, kinda like the 911 Commission, not to point fingers and find fallguys, but to examine institutional failings and weaknesses, and make dispassionate recommendations on how to avoid or manage future crisis.
Oh yes, the 911 commission worked really well, didn't it? Shut the conspiracy theorists up completely. It's particularly noticeable how many of them accepted the commission's findings, rather than denouncing it as yet another part of the conspiracy. None at all, last time I counted.
Guy (JzG)
On 3/10/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:22:45 -0700, "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Yah but see you're all back to talking about persons and personalities whereas what's needed is an independent Commission Review, kinda like the 911 Commission, not to point fingers and find fallguys, but to examine institutional failings and weaknesses, and make dispassionate recommendations on how to avoid or manage future crisis.
Oh yes, the 911 commission worked really well, didn't it? Shut the conspiracy theorists up completely. It's particularly noticeable how many of them accepted the commission's findings, rather than denouncing it as yet another part of the conspiracy. None at all, last time I counted.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Yes. That is particularly revealing of the difference between US & European major media; we just shake our heads over here when we hear how the 911 Commission are a bunch of Bush stooges and part of the coverup. Can only wonder what other crazy ideas get transmitted through mainstream European media.
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad? To paraphrase a fellow Englishman, Jimbocracy is the very worst system of government, apart from all the others.
Indeed. We're doing things that have NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE; if we didn't do some *really stupid* things in the process, it'd be a clear case of not being nearly adventurous enough.
Yah but see you're all back to talking about persons and personalities whereas what's needed is an independent Commission Review, kinda like the 911 Commission, not to point fingers and find fallguys, but to examine institutional failings and weaknesses, and make dispassionate recommendations on how to avoid or manage future crisis.
Sure, but 911 Commission type structures are sometimes convenient tactics used by governments to justify doing nothing.
What best accomplishes what you say is a separation of judicial and legislative branches. In theory that keeps the politicians occupied with a more objective consideration of the laws themselves, and the courts busy with how those laws are applied in individual cases.
In these circumstances, where David is right in saying that they have never been done before, it is too easy to be knocked off track by a single unexpected issue like that of Essjay's credentials. We have to be careful not to attach too much unwarranted weight to these one-off incidents.
Ec
On 3/10/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In these circumstances, where David is right in saying that they have never been done before, it is too easy to be knocked off track by a single unexpected issue like that of Essjay's credentials. We have to be careful not to attach too much unwarranted weight to these one-off incidents.
Ec
The Essjay affair can be summed up as: the guy was a victim of his own stupidity. Now how did that attract international mainstream media attention?
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/10/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In these circumstances, where David is right in saying that they have never been done before, it is too easy to be knocked off track by a single unexpected issue like that of Essjay's credentials. We have to be careful not to attach too much unwarranted weight to these one-off incidents.
The Essjay affair can be summed up as: the guy was a victim of his own stupidity.
Absolutely!
Now how did that attract international mainstream media attention?
Sensation hungry sharks on a feeding frenzy. When they have nothing new to say they go around in circles repeating themselves. I'm surprised they didn't send off a cadre of paparazzi to Louisville waiting for Essjay to give them a juicy shot. Lucky for him that he didn't have Anna Nicole's chest. :-)
Ec
On 11/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sensation hungry sharks on a feeding frenzy. When they have nothing new to say they go around in circles repeating themselves. I'm surprised they didn't send off a cadre of paparazzi to Louisville waiting for Essjay to give them a juicy shot.
Apparently they did.
- d.
On 08/03/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:16:21 -0500, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It's kind of vague, really. Historically, the Arbitration Committee took over the roles Jimmy previously exercised. Informally, he currently heads it (from afar, mostly), and has authority to veto its decisions, appoint/remove members, etc. Even more informally, he does so in accordance with community approval (elections, the policy ratification vote, etc.). At one point Jimmy was also formally in charge, but now in hierarchical terms the Foundation's Board of Directors would be, with Jimmy retaining informal/customary authority over some English-Wikipedia-specific processes. Now that authority over the community is mostly effective because the community tacticly approves of it, so teasing out which has priority is tricky.
Unless you are English, where the concept of a constitutional monarchy is something we've always lived with :o) Yesterday I was riding along the Queen's highway. Literally - The Mall.
Ways to get amusing reactions out of American tourists blocking the road and not moving out of the way: start snarling about Obstructing the Queen's Highway in the most strident tone you can muster.
Authority here derives from the monarch, but is vested in others, and any attempt to exercise power against the will of the people would cause problems. It took us a couple of hundred years to get the balance right, and it's still changing. But over that entire period, the country remained governable and tolerably well-regulated. Is that so bad?
I have in the past mused over the idea that the evolution of power in Wikipedia bears a shocking resemblance to the evolution of power in a British-style constitutional monarchy; a clear trend of slowly devolving power and authority to others; those others selected in a growingly democratic manner; and a heavy reliance on running matters by The Way Things Are Done Around Here By Sensible Decent Chaps.
I'm not sure what period I'm willing to stretch the analogy as far as, though ;-)
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:42:02 +0000, "Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I have in the past mused over the idea that the evolution of power in Wikipedia bears a shocking resemblance to the evolution of power in a British-style constitutional monarchy; a clear trend of slowly devolving power and authority to others; those others selected in a growingly democratic manner; and a heavy reliance on running matters by The Way Things Are Done Around Here By Sensible Decent Chaps.
There's a lot to be said for it - it made the BRITONS' England what it is today. Oh, wait...
This you must read: http://theweekly.co.uk/
Guy (JzG)
stvrtg wrote:
The question that Im left with is the matter of process: Why was Essjay forced to resign when he didn't even get a proper in-process review from the Arbcom? That of course is why the Arbcom exists, to sort of try to investigate a case and see if things actually violated the rules.
When someone accepts a decision why would he want to appeal?
Ec