[cc: to uncyclopedia-l - this was originally on wikien-l in a tedious discussion of tedious deletion process]
Alphax wrote:
Oh screw it. Let's make a new committee which will handle *all* deletion and undeletion requests, except speedies and copyvios. Let's call it, um, Uncyclopedia...
Heh. Since you bring it up, I'll give the list the comparable experience of Uncyclopedia.
As far as we can work out (I stated these rules, other users seem to like them a lot and Chronarion, the local God-King, endorses them), the rules of Uncyclopedia are:
1. Be funny and not just stupid. 2. Don't be a dick.
- in that order. (i.e. you can be a bit of a dick in the interests of Teh Funny, but if you want to make a hobby of it you'd better be the funniest bastard on the wiki and prove it frequently.) The odd point is that "Don't be a dick" is rule 2 rather than rule 1, but the nature of humour frequently involves cruelty. c.f. [[Uncyclopedia:Useless Gobshite of the Month]] and [[Uncyclopedia:VFP/Kakuns Place]].
You can see considerable discussion of these on the Village Dump - http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/DUMP . I wrote an expanded ruleset (which you can see there) which Uncyclopedia:User:Famine has written a slightly different version of. Which is good too, because beyond those two rules everything else is commentary.
Uncyclopedia is a much smaller wiki than Wikipedia, and my greatest fear is that it will become as process-bound. That would be a *really bad thing*. We also have only 48 admins and they're added sorta slowly by Chronarion-fiat.
The way deletion works on Uncyclopedia these days tends to be:
- if it's completely worthless, an admin can kill it on sight, a regular user can add it to QVFD (Quick VFD) where it will likely be killed. - if it's *probably* completely worthless, anyone can put {{NRV}} (No Redeeming Value) on it, where it has one week to be improved or it'll get huffed (deleted) by a bot run by Carlb. - only put it on VFD (which is as long-winded and tedious as Wikipedia's) if it's really quite borderline, though improving the article if possible would be a better idea.
NRV is the greatest idea ever seen on Uncyclopedia and it's doing its job to make the wiki content better in a process-light manner. Our article count isn't actually going through the roof and if you hit 'random page', you're less likely to hit obviously worthless crap.
I'm not sure any of this is applicable to Wikipedia, but we're trying to learn from its mistakes ;-)
- d.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, David Gerard wrote:
Heh. Since you bring it up, I'll give the list the comparable experience of Uncyclopedia.
The following is probably off-topic, but since the subject line is appropriate to my subject, I'm hi-jacking this branch of the thread.
Last weekend I took part in the RecentChangesCamp that was held here in Portland, where I had the oportunity to talk to Ward Cunningham & heard from him his experience with his own pioneering Wiki at www.c2.com. (He may have discussed it at Wikimania last summer, but the first time I heard about the following was last weekend.)
One thing he had done -- much as Jimbo did a few years ago with Wikipedia -- was to identify a number of contributors (either 14 in number, or a total of folks whose average time dedicated to Wikiwiki totalled an FTE of 14, I'm a little hazy here) who showed sufficient knowledge of how the Wiki & the community worked, & made them his assistants to help him deal with spam, vandalism, & other malicious behavior towards the Wiki. This allowed him to step back & devote more time to other things, & because he wasn't as closely involved in the day-to-day activities of the wiki on c2.com he was spreading the word of the success of the Wiki way, how the community was successfully managing itself & dealing with its problems. And he honestly believed this.
He had this utopian belief corrected after a couple of years when the Wiki was rocked by a severe flamewar over a "trivial matter" that had gone as far as the opposing sides each creating bots to revert the edits of the other side. (For the record, the controversy was over whether to keep or delete a node that was a parody of the movie "Fight Club", called "BoogerClub".) As he spent time not only to get to the bottom of the matter, but also to bring himself up to date with the Wiki & the community, he discovered that the struggle to keep the Wiki usable & in order had burned out his assistants in their long, hard & unappreciated efforts.
Ward said he was able to help his assistants by adding a simple bit of code which prevented bots from functioning on his Wiki -- which stopped the spamming immediately & brought a cease-fire to the major flamewar, but the damage had been done. People left, & WikiWiki "plateaued" in growth, losing something of its original excitement & attraction.
I've held off on sharing this story with this mailling list because I feel that in telling it, it should have a moral or a lesson -- but I'm not smart enough to point to it. Except to belabor the obvious point that Wiki communities aren't as self-regulating as people think they are.
Geoff
(P.S. I talked about Wikipedia at the conference to quite a few interested people, & I hope I didn't help perpetuate too many myths. You can check the record at www.recentchangescamp.org & learn for yourself.)
On 2/7/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
I've held off on sharing this story with this mailling list because I feel that in telling it, it should have a moral or a lesson -- but I'm not smart enough to point to it. Except to belabor the obvious point that Wiki communities aren't as self-regulating as people think they are.
Moral: any community run entirely on good will can be permanently damaged by a short but serious bout of ill will?
Steve
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/7/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
I've held off on sharing this story with this mailling list because I feel that in telling it, it should have a moral or a lesson -- but I'm not smart enough to point to it. Except to belabor the obvious point that Wiki communities aren't as self-regulating as people think they are.
Moral: any community run entirely on good will can be permanently damaged by a short but serious bout of ill will?
Now that I've had some time to ponder this, how about "small Wikis have many of the same problems as big Wikis" or "Wikipedia is not unique, despite what many people think."
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, David Gerard wrote:
Heh. Since you bring it up, I'll give the list the comparable experience of Uncyclopedia.
The following is probably off-topic, but since the subject line is appropriate to my subject, I'm hi-jacking this branch of the thread.
Last weekend I took part in the RecentChangesCamp that was held here in Portland, where I had the oportunity to talk to Ward Cunningham & heard from him his experience with his own pioneering Wiki at www.c2.com. (He may have discussed it at Wikimania last summer, but the first time I heard about the following was last weekend.)
One thing he had done -- much as Jimbo did a few years ago with Wikipedia -- was to identify a number of contributors (either 14 in number, or a total of folks whose average time dedicated to Wikiwiki totalled an FTE of 14, I'm a little hazy here) who showed sufficient knowledge of how the Wiki & the community worked, & made them his assistants to help him deal with spam, vandalism, & other malicious behavior towards the Wiki. This allowed him to step back & devote more time to other things, & because he wasn't as closely involved in the day-to-day activities of the wiki on c2.com he was spreading the word of the success of the Wiki way, how the community was successfully managing itself & dealing with its problems. And he honestly believed this.
He had this utopian belief corrected after a couple of years when the Wiki was rocked by a severe flamewar over a "trivial matter" that had gone as far as the opposing sides each creating bots to revert the edits of the other side. (For the record, the controversy was over whether to keep or delete a node that was a parody of the movie "Fight Club", called "BoogerClub".) As he spent time not only to get to the bottom of the matter, but also to bring himself up to date with the Wiki & the community, he discovered that the struggle to keep the Wiki usable & in order had burned out his assistants in their long, hard & unappreciated efforts.
Ward said he was able to help his assistants by adding a simple bit of code which prevented bots from functioning on his Wiki -- which stopped the spamming immediately & brought a cease-fire to the major flamewar, but the damage had been done. People left, & WikiWiki "plateaued" in growth, losing something of its original excitement & attraction.
I've held off on sharing this story with this mailling list because I feel that in telling it, it should have a moral or a lesson -- but I'm not smart enough to point to it. Except to belabor the obvious point that Wiki communities aren't as self-regulating as people think they are.
Geoff
(P.S. I talked about Wikipedia at the conference to quite a few interested people, & I hope I didn't help perpetuate too many myths. You can check the record at www.recentchangescamp.org & learn for yourself.)
"Self-regulating" would be a true anarchist model whereby everyone can do anything, I think. Certainly something based on consensus. Consensus doesn't scale. I think the moral about burned-out old editors is a good one, though. We need to carefully avoid placing people on a pedestal because of their past accomplishments. If you're wrong, you're wrong. I think the solution is to expand the number of "super-trustable" users who will have real authority around Wikipedia. Right now only the arbcom has any authority, because authority is derived only from Jimbo and/or the Board.
My proposal: Give the 'crats authority. Right now both 'crats and admins are theoretically equal to normal editors, only with a few more tools. I think this is the right attitude to take towards admins, because adminship should be no big deal. But bureaucratship is far from "no big deal", and I think this should be reflected in that bureaucrats should have some higher standing in the community. They should be able to step in and desysop in cases like wheel wars. They should be able to say, "Ok, that's it, let's cut the crap" -- much like the arbcom or Jimbo would/should. (This raises the problem of 'crat wheel warring, but presumably because of the huge big dealness of this, we'll only have a limited number of 'crats at any one time, anyhow.)
I actually think Wikipedia is headed towards a similar fate like the site Geoff mentioned -- consensus doesn't scale when communities grow, because consensus gives people with dug-in heels the ability to stop change in its tracks or even go berserk (take the case of wheel warring -- consensus presumes admins are capable of coming to a consensus, even if there are 800+ of them). In any large number of people, you'll easily find people who will never budge on a particular issue. Unfortunately, a wiki works on consensus -- if there's no consensus, the wiki fails. (Revert warring is a case where there is no consensus, and we all know how ugly revert wars are.)
One thing I see different from Geoff's case study, however, is that the founder of this wiki has stepped back but forgot to delegate power. The only people around with any authority are the arbcom, and how effective are they? They can't even intervene unless someone appeals to them or Jimbo thrusts a case on them. They don't ever step into a dispute while it's on-going and say "STFU, cut this out or we'll desysop/ban you lot," which is something Jimbo used to do (remember those naming disputes like [[Gdansk]] or the autofellatio scandal?). IMO, Jimbo needs to delegate this dispute-stopping power to someone, because Jimbo can't be putting out fires all the time. Hence, the 'crats.
I know this will be controversial and unlikely to pass, but it's my honest opinion. Something has to be done. I'm fed up of all this crap going on. The 'crats don't have to rule who's wrong or right. They just have to put their foot down real hard, like Jimbo would. For instance, in the recent userbox shitfight, Jimbo/they could just have said, "Kelly and Tony must stop deleting userboxes this instant and discuss or they will be desysoped." This isn't a ruling that would have ruled them to be wrong (in that the userboxes were bad). It would just have ruled that they were wrong in wheel warring over the userboxes. The arbcom can decide on the legality of the userboxes.
In a sense, this proposal would finally create three independent branches of "government" (because Wikipedia does not have a real government) -- executive, legislative and judicial. (The legislative branch is the community, of course -- anyone can create a new policy and get consensus for it.) Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
Steve
Or he could just give imprimatur to the elected bureaucrats. :p
John Lee
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/7/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
Ian
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
That may be because it isn't a constitutional monarchy. If the monarch's power is unfettered and he intervenes directly in minor matters that are otherwise the province of government, then it is a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship, I trust.
Peter (Skyring)
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
That may be because it isn't a constitutional monarchy. If the monarch's power is unfettered and he intervenes directly in minor matters that are otherwise the province of government, then it is a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship, I trust.
I'm sure that if Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a fascist one- party state, Queen Elizabeth would come down and say "no, stop, you're being stupid."
This is a big argument for constitutional monarchies being better than republics, incidentally.
On 2/7/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
That may be because it isn't a constitutional monarchy. If the monarch's power is unfettered and he intervenes directly in minor matters that are otherwise the province of government, then it is a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship, I trust.
I'm sure that if Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a fascist one- party state, Queen Elizabeth would come down and say "no, stop, you're being stupid."
Doubtful. An old trick for becomeing a one party state is to suck up to the monarch as part of your appeal to patiotism.
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded
for a lot
of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
That may be because it isn't a constitutional monarchy. If the monarch's power is unfettered and he intervenes directly in minor matters that are otherwise the province of government, then it is a dictatorship. A benevolent dictatorship, I trust.
I'm sure that if Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a fascist one- party state, Queen Elizabeth would come down and say "no, stop, you're being stupid."
This is a long established principle. Bagehot talked of three rights belonging to the monarch: "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn"
She has far more experience than any current politician in the processes of government, and her advice would be valuable. But she can do no more than warn. If she dismissed the Government and selected another more to her liking, then without the support of the House of Commons, that replacement would soon run out of money.
If we are talking about doing things legally, that is. If Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a one-party fascist state using illegal means, an exciting possibility that would raise many British eyebrows, then the Queen would probably find herself unable to intervene. It would depend on which side the military decided to support, I suppose, and the [[King's Own Queens]] regiment might find itself in an impossible position. Well, more impossible.
This is a big argument for constitutional monarchies being better than republics, incidentally.
Well, I dunno. What happens if the Queen decides to turn the UK into a fascist one-party state? It's not as if it hasn't happened before.
Peter (Skyring)
I'm sure that if Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a fascist one- party state, Queen Elizabeth would come down and say "no, stop, you're being stupid."
This is a long established principle. Bagehot talked of three rights belonging to the monarch: "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn"
She has far more experience than any current politician in the processes of government, and her advice would be valuable. But she can do no more than warn. If she dismissed the Government and selected another more to her liking, then without the support of the House of Commons, that replacement would soon run out of money.
Yes, but much like Jimbo, the Queen's authority rests in the respect others have for her. If she dismissed the Government and dissolved Parliament (she can still do that, right?), how the people of the UK respond determines the ultimate result. If they overwhelmingly choose to ignore the Crown and vote the fascists back in, I suspect the Queen would be over.
This is a big argument for constitutional monarchies being better than republics, incidentally.
Well, I dunno. What happens if the Queen decides to turn the UK into a fascist one-party state? It's not as if it hasn't happened before.
I didn't say it was a good argument. I just said that it was a big argument, i.e. an argument that holds much weight and is considered significant in the debate. I don't have strong opinions about good government, and if I did they'd be completely off-topic to this list.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
I'm sure that if Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a fascist one- party state, Queen Elizabeth would come down and say
"no, stop,
you're being stupid."
This is a long established principle. Bagehot talked of
three rights
belonging to the monarch: "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn"
She has far more experience than any current politician in the processes of government, and her advice would be valuable.
But she can
do no more than warn. If she dismissed the Government and selected another more to her liking, then without the support of the
House of
Commons, that replacement would soon run out of money.
Yes, but much like Jimbo, the Queen's authority rests in the respect others have for her. If she dismissed the Government and dissolved Parliament (she can still do that, right?), how the people of the UK respond determines the ultimate result. If they overwhelmingly choose to ignore the Crown and vote the fascists back in, I suspect the Queen would be over.
We had pretty much this situation in Australia in 1975. The Governor-General acted (using his own powers rather than the trifling powers of the Queen, I might add) and speedily put the decision in the hands of the people. If the people had re-elected the dismissed Government, then the Governor-General would have personally been history and as an office would inevitably have seen its powers diminished.
In a republican democracy like Australia, it is right and proper that the people should have the final say. Sovereignty resides in the people rather than any one person or group.
But Wikipedia isn't a republic and it isn't a democracy. Sovereignty resides in the hands of Jimbo. However, with a purely voluntary membership, that sovereignty is worth about as much as the community is willing to acknowledge, because the citizens of this community may leave if they feel uncomfortable.
I think it is a measure of the success of Jimbo's administration/sovereignty/GodKingness that new citizens are flocking over the borders, rather than leaving in droves.
Peter (Skyring)
On 7 Feb 2006, at 21:33, Philip Welch wrote:
Yes, but much like Jimbo, the Queen's authority rests in the respect others have for her. If she dismissed the Government and dissolved Parliament (she can still do that, right?), how the people of the UK respond determines the ultimate result. If they overwhelmingly choose to ignore the Crown and vote the fascists back in, I suspect the Queen would be over.
As an anti-monarchist, I would be out there forking the UK anyway if she tried.
Justinc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter Mackay stated for the record:
If we are talking about doing things legally, that is. If Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a one-party fascist state using illegal means, an exciting possibility that would raise many British eyebrows, then the Queen would probably find herself unable to intervene. It would depend on which side the military decided to support, I suppose, and the [[King's Own Queens]] regiment might find itself in an impossible position. Well, more impossible.
I'm having way too much fun contemplating the [[King's Own Queens]] (perhaps as portrayed by [[Monty Python]]), so please tell me what regiment you really meant.
- -- Sean Barrett | She had lost the art of conversation, sean@epoptic.org | but not, unfortunately, the power | of speech. --George Bernard Shaw
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sean Barrett
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter Mackay stated for the record:
If we are talking about doing things legally, that is. If
Tony Blair
decided to turn the UK into a one-party fascist state using illegal means, an exciting possibility that would raise many
British eyebrows,
then the Queen would probably find herself unable to intervene. It would depend on which side the military decided to support,
I suppose,
and the [[King's Own Queens]] regiment might find itself in an impossible position. Well, more impossible.
I'm having way too much fun contemplating the [[King's Own Queens]] (perhaps as portrayed by [[Monty Python]]), so please tell me what regiment you really meant.
Ah, I was just using it by way of humourous illustration. It comes from something Redmond Simonsen or possibly Dave Isby said in Moves Magazine, way back when, and the phrase has stuck in what passes for my mind.
Pete, grognardly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter Mackay stated for the record:
I'm having way too much fun contemplating the [[King's Own Queens]] (perhaps as portrayed by [[Monty Python]]), so please tell me what regiment you really meant.
Ah, I was just using it by way of humourous illustration. It comes from something Redmond Simonsen or possibly Dave Isby said in Moves Magazine, way back when, and the phrase has stuck in what passes for my mind.
Pete, grognardly
Oh, okay. Your "more impossible" comment, together with the [[brackets]], led me to believe it was something real. We Merkins are prepared to believe anything, no matter how silly, about the redcoats.
- -- Sean Barrett | She had lost the art of conversation, sean@epoptic.org | but not, unfortunately, the power | of speech. --George Bernard Shaw
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If we are talking about doing things legally, that is. If Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a one-party fascist state using illegal means, an exciting possibility that would raise many British eyebrows, then the Queen would probably find herself unable to intervene. It would depend on which side the military decided to support, I suppose,
Officers of the British armed forces swear an oath to the Queen only, I believe, which might have some import in such an unlikely circumstance.
-Matt
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 18:45 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If we are talking about doing things legally, that is. If
Tony Blair
decided to turn the UK into a one-party fascist state using illegal means, an exciting possibility that would raise many
British eyebrows,
then the Queen would probably find herself unable to intervene. It would depend on which side the military decided to support,
I suppose,
Officers of the British armed forces swear an oath to the Queen only, I believe, which might have some import in such an unlikely circumstance.
Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
Pete, enjoying the prospect of the solemn twilight ceremony, the massed bands, the arena full of hushed spectators, the flags, the bunting...
"Peter Mackay" peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote in message news:20060208080943.LCFP24868.omta05sl.mx.bigpond.com@skyringstudy... [snip]
Pete, enjoying the prospect of the solemn twilight ceremony, the massed bands, the arena full of hushed spectators, the flags, the bunting...
Mentioning "bunting" in the same thread as [[Monty Python]] might not be the wisest move ("what a silly bunt"[1] :-)...
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Phil Boswell
"Peter Mackay" peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote in message news:20060208080943.LCFP24868.omta05sl.mx.bigpond.com@skyringstudy... [snip]
Pete, enjoying the prospect of the solemn twilight ceremony, the massed bands, the arena full of hushed spectators, the
flags, the bunting...
Mentioning "bunting" in the same thread as [[Monty Python]] might not be the wisest move ("what a silly bunt"[1] :-)...
I see you had a classical education, Phil!
Actually, I was thinking about bunting in a baseball sort of way, and making my usual sort of silly wordplay.
Regarding Wikipedia as any sort of equivalent to real-life organisations is always going to end up looking rather strained. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is Wikipedia. By definition.
Peter, walking with four balls
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter Mackay stated for the record:
Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
Pete, enjoying the prospect of the solemn twilight ceremony, the massed bands, the arena full of hushed spectators, the flags, the bunting...
Only if the Arbiters get to wear swords and funny hats ... and capes! I want a cape!
- -- Sean Barrett | Those who cannot remember the sean@epoptic.org | past are condemned to learn | it from Oliver Stone movies.
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of Wikipedia. And to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all, indivisible, with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
(This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on anything.)
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of Wikipedia. And to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all, indivisible, with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
(This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on anything.)
TINC.
On 2/8/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of
Wikipedia. And
to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all,
indivisible,
with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
(This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on anything.)
TINC.
What? -- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Jay Converse wrote:
On 2/8/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of
Wikipedia. And
to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all,
indivisible,
with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
(This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on anything.)
TINC.
What?
Exactly.
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jay Converse wrote:
On 2/8/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of
Wikipedia. And
to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all,
indivisible,
with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
(This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on anything.)
TINC.
What?
Exactly.
ObHeh: Heh.
"Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote in message news:42f90dc00602072345x519dc76dx41d5a1b47ff63b98@mail.gmail.com...
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If we are talking about doing things legally, that is. If Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a one-party fascist state using illegal means, an exciting possibility that would raise many British eyebrows, then the Queen would probably find herself unable to intervene. It would depend on which side the military decided to support, I suppose,
Officers of the British armed forces swear an oath to the Queen only, I believe, which might have some import in such an unlikely circumstance.
Not to mention the exciting prospect of giving the government the shaft instead of the other way around...
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Guettarda wrote:
On 2/7/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
Okay, I thought this was as obvious as the sun shines in the daylight, but it appears to me a few people are taking this metaphor *way* too seriously.
Jimbo is NOT a Godking. Nor a God. Nor a King.
Wikipedia is NOT a monarchy. Nor a democracy. Nor any kind of government.
If this is a suprise to you, then you are clearly lacking a clue.
Then just what *is* Wikipedia? I am not a lawyer, but I dare say that it is a contract: two sides have entered into an agreement, each providing services for the others' benefit.[*] On one side, Jimbo has taken responsibility for providing servers, bandwidth & software to the other side, with the expectation that the other side produces an encyclopedia that meets his expectations. If that doesn't happen, then he reserves the right to (literally) pull the plug on the project, & all of us can start looking for something else to do with our time.
The other side is the rest of us -- the volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia. We contribute our efforts in the expectation that -- well, I assume that we do this in hope of receiving some kind of satisfaction for our efforts. Quite simply, if one, some, most or all of us don't receive satisfaction from our contributions -- we'll leave. You may not believe this, but there are a surprising number of projects like Wikipedia out there & if Wikipedia's not to our liking, we'll go to one of these other projects & contribute to them. (And I believe in the case of a few people, they might actually be happier at one of these other projects.)
Now having stated this painfully obvious situation, I'm going state a less obvious one: there are a number of good, responsible contributors in Wikipedia who fear this project is drifting into rule by fiat. In other words, they are uncomfortable with other contributors arbitrarily making changes without explanation, while they must needs justify their actions. (I don't know if there's any substance to these complaints, or this is just a number of troublemakers trying to lie their way out of trouble, but I am surprised to see a few long-term Wikipedians agree with this opinion. And it's hard to dismiss this as clueless whining when I see phrases like "process fetishisation" thrown around here by people who should know a little better.)
Maybe the different sides ought to talk about this problem a bit more. Anyone here notice that we have talk pages all over the place, an email list, an IRC channel & face-to-face meetings? The only weakness with this richness of communication is that not all of us are conversant with all of these media, so don't think that asking a question on a single talk page, or IRC or one email list alone will be seen by everyone who does care. After all, all of the "evuhl proc3ss fetishizing" really boils down to getting input from your fellow editors before you make major changes; & most of the time, the input is either silence (which one can safely assume means consent), explicit consent, or some useful suggestions. And if the input is critical or useless . . . well, ignoring the dumbasses & making the change anyway is going to lead to problems anyway. Either accept that people are going to be mad, or build a consensus before you are bold.
And before anyone starts placing me in one group or another in these recent disputes, let me say that for the most part I don't have a beef with anyone: I try to just contribute material, edit articles, & hope that my writing & spelling isn't too crappy. I want Wikipedia to succeed like everyone else, & when I see it mentioned in a newstory or tv program I feel a mixure of pride -- & embarassment over the faults I know it still has. As long as it's not clearly offensive, I don't care what people do with their user pages -- but I admit I could get worked up over this. I have Admin rights, but I rarely use them because I rarely need to. Like Stan Shebs commented in another thread, I learn about most of these threats that endanger Wikipedia from reading this mailling list.
I just feel that declaring Jimbo the expert we should obey without question, or demonizing those who disagree with him, isn't a constructive solution. Wikis & the NPOV principle make it easy to talk with those we disagree with: so why don't we try to emphasize *that* instead of deciding to get tough on the other side?
BTW, the Wikipedia article on "wheel warring" (or whatever it is called) sucks. I've read it several times, & all I've learned from it is that it has something to do with two or more people obtaining root on the same machine -- which surprises me, as this term has been thrown around an awful lot lately. Maybe someone who's experienced or seen a "wheel war" can provide a better explaination.
Geoff
[*] Technically, this is not exactly what a contract is -- but in the most part, what I have written applies. Since a lawyer is, by definition, an expert in technicalities & exactitude, this explanation makes it clear that I am not one.
On 2/8/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
BTW, the Wikipedia article on "wheel warring" (or whatever it is called) sucks. I've read it several times, & all I've learned from it is that it has something to do with two or more people obtaining root on the same machine -- which surprises me, as this term has been thrown around an awful lot lately. Maybe someone who's experienced or seen a "wheel war" can provide a better explaination.
Geoff
I think the term was first used by ed poor way back and it has stuck for the lack of anything better. -- geni
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Guettarda wrote:
On 2/7/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
<snip>
One problem, Geoff: Jimbo *is* our GodKing. At least, that's what most of us refer to him as. I agree with everything else, you said, though. :p
John Lee
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee
One problem, Geoff: Jimbo *is* our GodKing. At least, that's what most of us refer to him as. I agree with everything else, you said, though. :p
Wikipedia is just a website. How much of this talk of GodKings and contracts would hold up under the gaze of the law is debatable.
However, we all have our own way of regarding Wikipedia, and it sems that most of us are more or less congruent in our views. Jimbo is the benevolent dictator of a growing online community where we happily labour away and discuss points of behaviour that must sound delightfully arcane to outside observers.
Peter (Skyring)
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, John Lee wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Guettarda wrote:
On 2/7/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo). Our constitutional monarchy model has problems .
[I'm guessing John was referring to this comment; for some reason he snipped out all of my post:]
Jimbo is NOT a Godking. Nor a God. Nor a King.
One problem, Geoff: Jimbo *is* our GodKing. At least, that's what most of us refer to him as. I agree with everything else, you said, though. :p
ISTR that Jimbo in some email, years ago, disavowed this role in the scheme of Wikipedia. Looking thru past emails, the best I could do was to find the following post from Ed Poor (6 Feb 2004):
Jimbo is amazingly different from a GodKing (as described on Meatball Wiki). He subscribes to the principle that "government is best which governs least", but when push comes to shove he has occasionally put his foot down -- I know, awful metaphor ;-)
which puts me in the odd spot of agreeing with Ed, although I suspect he might not agree with the rest of what I wrote.
Although I doubt a "GodKing" would write something like the following as Jimbo had 21 jan 2003, because neither Kings nor Gods like to admit that they are sometimes conflicted over their decisions:
And finally, there is a class of decisions that weighs heavily on me, namely decisions about banning. My pleasant demeanor may not reveal how much I agonize over these, in *both* directions. Some mornings I wake up in a mood to ban everyone. Other mornings I wake up in a mood that says that everyone can be saved. So I have to think and worry a lot about these. Despite the difficulty, though, I like doing it well enough for now. But someday I might be exhausted by it, and might prefer a more broad-based procedure.
In any case, I still think of him as the guy who can pull the plug on this whole endeavor if he believes it isn't worth further effort, so it's a good enough reason to follow his lead. Until it isn't -- but then everything I've contributed is mirrored somewhere under GFDL or CC-BY, so I've lost nothing if the experiment implodes.
Geoff
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
Steve
Didn't work with Kelly Martin. In practice it is those who have been directly elected by the community who hold the strongest position. Jimbo apointees have the problem that they instantly pick up oposition in the form of people wanting to blame "the cabal" for things. Elected people have the advantage that when under pressure they can show that community supported them. Apointees can't.
-- geni
On 2/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't work with Kelly Martin. In practice it is those who have been directly elected by the community who hold the strongest position. Jimbo apointees have the problem that they instantly pick up oposition in the form of people wanting to blame "the cabal" for things. Elected people have the advantage that when under pressure they can show that community supported them. Apointees can't.
Ok, good points, replace "appointed by" with "approved by". In other words, exactly the same procedure as for appointing ArbCom members. And not by coincidence.
Steve
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/7/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't work with Kelly Martin. In practice it is those who have been directly elected by the community who hold the strongest position. Jimbo apointees have the problem that they instantly pick up oposition in the form of people wanting to blame "the cabal" for things. Elected people have the advantage that when under pressure they can show that community supported them. Apointees can't.
Ok, good points, replace "appointed by" with "approved by". In other words, exactly the same procedure as for appointing ArbCom members. And not by coincidence.
Steve
Ok you have fun creating 60 odd subpages.
-- geni
G'day Steve,
Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
I suspect it still wouldn't happen. Witness [[User:God of War]]'s actions on the CSD page; he's decided that Jimbo's word can't trump consensus, and "consensus" is on his side, and therefore Jimbo can't change the CSD to include particularly stupid templates.
What do we do about users --- most of them newbies, most of them bound up in some way with the userbox debacle --- who think Wikipedia is a democracy, and any opposition is rogue admins gone Fascist? Standing over them and saying "Jimbo says such-and-such! Respect his authority, damnit!" probably wouldn't do much good.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Steve,
Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
I suspect it still wouldn't happen. Witness [[User:God of War]]'s actions on the CSD page; he's decided that Jimbo's word can't trump consensus, and "consensus" is on his side, and therefore Jimbo can't change the CSD to include particularly stupid templates.
What do we do about users --- most of them newbies, most of them bound up in some way with the userbox debacle --- who think Wikipedia is a democracy, and any opposition is rogue admins gone Fascist? Standing over them and saying "Jimbo says such-and-such! Respect his authority, damnit!" probably wouldn't do much good.
If they won't listen to the GodKing, we block them until the message gets into their head? (With the GodKing's approval, of course.)
John Lee
On 2/8/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the English Wikipedia.
Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
I suspect it still wouldn't happen. Witness [[User:God of War]]'s actions on the CSD page; he's decided that Jimbo's word can't trump consensus, and "consensus" is on his side, and therefore Jimbo can't change the CSD to include particularly stupid templates.
To be fair the change is completely incosistant with the general scope of CSD policy
What do we do about users --- most of them newbies, most of them bound up in some way with the userbox debacle --- who think Wikipedia is a democracy, and any opposition is rogue admins gone Fascist? Standing over them and saying "Jimbo says such-and-such! Respect his authority, damnit!" probably wouldn't do much good.
-- Mark Gallagher
Prevent admins and Jimbo from doing silly things would be a start
-- geni
On 2/8/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I suspect it still wouldn't happen. Witness [[User:God of War]]'s actions on the CSD page; he's decided that Jimbo's word can't trump consensus, and "consensus" is on his side, and therefore Jimbo can't change the CSD to include particularly stupid templates.
What do we do about users --- most of them newbies, most of them bound up in some way with the userbox debacle --- who think Wikipedia is a democracy, and any opposition is rogue admins gone Fascist? Standing over them and saying "Jimbo says such-and-such! Respect his authority, damnit!" probably wouldn't do much good.
Well, I have just made a proposal to the infamous ArbCom case now reflecting this. Provided this passes, you can point them to this and say we are not impressed by people messing Jimbo about.
-- Sam
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I have just made a proposal to the infamous ArbCom case now reflecting this. Provided this passes, you can point them to this and say we are not impressed by people messing Jimbo about.
-- Sam
As a general rule we are not impressed with people messing anyone about (test1 on the pages of clear vandles does not count as messing about).
-- geni
On 2/8/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I have just made a proposal to the infamous ArbCom case now reflecting this. Provided this passes, you can point them to this and say we are not impressed by people messing Jimbo about.
As a general rule we are not impressed with people messing anyone about (test1 on the pages of clear vandles does not count as messing about).
I really have no idea what you're saying.
-- Sam
John Lee wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
He had this utopian belief corrected after a couple of years when the Wiki was rocked by a severe flamewar over a "trivial matter" that had gone as far as the opposing sides each creating bots to revert the edits of the other side. (For the record, the controversy was over whether to keep or delete a node that was a parody of the movie "Fight Club", called "BoogerClub".) As he spent time not only to get to the bottom of the matter, but also to bring himself up to date with the Wiki & the community, he discovered that the struggle to keep the Wiki usable & in order had burned out his assistants in their long, hard & unappreciated efforts.
A lot of the most bitter fights are over trivial matters
Ward said he was able to help his assistants by adding a simple bit of code which prevented bots from functioning on his Wiki -- which stopped the spamming immediately & brought a cease-fire to the major flamewar, but the damage had been done. People left, & WikiWiki "plateaued" in growth, losing something of its original excitement & attraction.
"Self-regulating" would be a true anarchist model whereby everyone can do anything, I think. Certainly something based on consensus. Consensus doesn't scale. I think the moral about burned-out old editors is a good one, though. We need to carefully avoid placing people on a pedestal because of their past accomplishments. If you're wrong, you're wrong. I think the solution is to expand the number of "super-trustable" users who will have real authority around Wikipedia. Right now only the arbcom has any authority, because authority is derived only from Jimbo and/or the Board.
Yes, but we really have paradoxical situations. While most of us would probably like to see a more democratic system it depends on all individuals having enough vision to look beyond their personal concerns. Appointing trusted people may in some cases be the only solution, and if you trust them when they are appointed you also need to trust them in the exercise of their duties. In those circumstances if Jimbo goes ahead and exercises his powers without consulting his appointee he undermines that person's authority. Quite often an understanding on the problem between Jimbo and the person would be within easy reach. When substantive agreement is there the appointee should be the one to put it into effect.
A project leader needs to have a broad overview. He also needs a track record of at least trying to build consensus. He needs to build up a stock of good will that will often need to be used when there is need to act decisively. He will often need to confront people, and some of them will try to complain directly to Jimbo..Unless the appointee develops a track record of consistently abusing his powers, Jimbo will need to stand behind him.
My proposal: Give the 'crats authority. Right now both 'crats and admins are theoretically equal to normal editors, only with a few more tools. I think this is the right attitude to take towards admins, because adminship should be no big deal. But bureaucratship is far from "no big deal", and I think this should be reflected in that bureaucrats should have some higher standing in the community. They should be able to step in and desysop in cases like wheel wars. They should be able to say, "Ok, that's it, let's cut the crap" -- much like the arbcom or Jimbo would/should. (This raises the problem of 'crat wheel warring, but presumably because of the huge big dealness of this, we'll only have a limited number of 'crats at any one time, anyhow.)
Even where there are multiple bureaucrats, one would probably still need to be recognized as the chief bureaucrat to avoid that situation.
Ec
John Lee wrote: <snip>
I actually think Wikipedia is headed towards a similar fate like the site Geoff mentioned
That's THE original Wiki, thanks. I'm not a die-hard WikiWikiWayWarrior, but credit where credit's due... :)