(I confess: I don't understand what should go to wikien-l and what should go to wikipedia-l.)
--------------------------
When a wasp is in the house, most people try to shoo it out a window with a newspaper. They open a window wide, and then take a newspaper or magazine and launch repeated attacks on the wasp to try to convince it to fly out the window. This is a frustrating and usually impossible procedure. It is contrary to the nature of the wasp. It's exhausting and usually ends in the death of the wasp. I would imagine that some people get stung in the process.
Buckminster Fuller found a better way, a way that works with virtual certainty, with comparatively little effort. Here's what to do: close the curtains and/or shades and/or blinds on all the windows except the open window. Turn off the light in the room. Make the room as dark as possible, except for the window where you wish the wasp to go. The wasp will fly out quickly and voluntarily.
There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
--Jimbo
p.s. Through a quick web search, I have been unable to confirm that this actually should be attributed to Buckminster Fuller. But that's how I heard it.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
(I confess: I don't understand what should go to wikien-l and what should go to wikipedia-l.)
Well, that's simple. Do you think wasps only enter the main window leading to the english wikipedia, or do you think the wasp may also enter that small remote window on - say - the french wikipedia ?
Answer : monday evening, I painfully climbed the ladder to close the window for the night, for a wasp has entered through the window. 10 mn ago, I closed it again, and will favor keeping it close now. Youssefsan suggested we also close the curtains and not advertise the french wiki location for the wasps not to come in big numbers.
If the wasp can enter only the main window in the home, you post to the english list. If it appears the wasp can enter through any open window, you post to the main list...
ya ?
I'll take time to come back on the answers/comments provided a couple of days ago this we...
But we must not kill the wasp
When a wasp is in the house, most people try to shoo it out a window with a newspaper. They open a window wide, and then take a newspaper or magazine and launch repeated attacks on the wasp to try to convince it to fly out the window. This is a frustrating and usually impossible procedure. It is contrary to the nature of the wasp. It's exhausting and usually ends in the death of the wasp. I would imagine that some people get stung in the process.
Buckminster Fuller found a better way, a way that works with virtual certainty, with comparatively little effort. Here's what to do: close the curtains and/or shades and/or blinds on all the windows except the open window. Turn off the light in the room. Make the room as dark as possible, except for the window where you wish the wasp to go. The wasp will fly out quickly and voluntarily.
There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
--Jimbo
p.s. Through a quick web search, I have been unable to confirm that this actually should be attributed to Buckminster Fuller. But that's how I heard it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
(I confess: I don't understand what should go to wikien-l and what should go to wikipedia-l.)
General Wikipedia discussion goes in Wikipedia-l, English-specific Wikipedia discussion goes in WikiEN-l.
Never mind that there already exists intlwiki-l for general Wikipedia discussions; basically, the non-English speaking crowd wants to muscle in on the main Wikipedia discussion, and push aside the English-specific Wikipedia discussion into a new list. I don't have any objections, really. I think it would have been better to RENAME Wikipedia-l WikiEN-l and leave the international discussion on intlwiki-l.
When a wasp is in the house, most people try to shoo it out a window with a newspaper. They open a window wide, and then take a newspaper or magazine and launch repeated attacks on the wasp to try to convince it to fly out the window. This is a frustrating and usually impossible procedure. It is contrary to the nature of the wasp. It's exhausting and usually ends in the death of the wasp. I would imagine that some people get stung in the process.
Buckminster Fuller found a better way, a way that works with virtual certainty, with comparatively little effort. Here's what to do: close the curtains and/or shades and/or blinds on all the windows except the open window. Turn off the light in the room. Make the room as dark as possible, except for the window where you wish the wasp to go. The wasp will fly out quickly and voluntarily.
There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
The upshot of this post is that the wise way (wise ways are made to seem so with parables and the like ;-) ) is not to kick members out, and that there is a better way. (If your final question was not rhetorical, then what was the point of the post?) This means that what we just got done reaffirming, that we should sometimes kick problem members out, is not the wise way.
But goddammit Jimbo, yes it most certainly is. Sometimes you gotta use a nice big flyswatter and crush the wasp before it causes any further ruckus. We know this already, from experience.
Larry Sanger wrote:
In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we shooing a wasp? Is there a better way?
The upshot of this post is that the wise way (wise ways are made to seem so with parables and the like ;-) ) is not to kick members out, and that there is a better way. (If your final question was not rhetorical, then what was the point of the post?)
My point is that better ways can be found, and have already been found, and more will be found in the future.
This means that what we just got done reaffirming, that we should sometimes kick problem members out, is not the wise way.
But goddammit Jimbo, yes it most certainly is. Sometimes you gotta use a nice big flyswatter and crush the wasp before it causes any further ruckus. We know this already, from experience.
You have to use the flyswatter and crush the wasp *if that's the only tool you have*. If ways can be found to get the wasp to agree to leave, with less fighting and fussing, then that's better for us.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
My point is that better ways can be found, and have already been found, and more will be found in the future.
Sure. I agree that in many cases, in the huge, vast majority of cases where we encounter people we might consider to be "problem users," there are much better ways than banning.
This means that what we just got done reaffirming, that we should sometimes kick problem members out, is not the wise way.
But goddammit Jimbo, yes it most certainly is. Sometimes you gotta use a nice big flyswatter and crush the wasp before it causes any further ruckus. We know this already, from experience.
You have to use the flyswatter and crush the wasp *if that's the only tool you have*. If ways can be found to get the wasp to agree to leave, with less fighting and fussing, then that's better for us.
I'm not disagreeing with that in the least.
The point is that you had agreed that sometimes we gotta ban people. You very kindly (and I *really* appreciate that) articulated principles we should follow in banning. Then in this post you basically said that the wise way is another way.
Well, not always. We need to stress *that* just as well.
So, yes, it's true and it's important to say that we should encourage people with kindness and gratitude for participating. But I think it was important to stress that sometimes, banning is necessary--it's important to stresss that particularly *in response to* the people I was calling (rightly or wrongly) "anarchists."
That's all I want. The rest, I agree with. In fact, I agree that we should always be slow and public in banning signed-in users for being difficult; we should be lenient and make an attempt to understand legitimate beefs. Those have always been views, and they haven't changed.
The threat of ultimate reprisal *unfortunately* has to be there, though, or the community will fall apart.
Larry
Larry Sanger wrote:
The point is that you had agreed that sometimes we gotta ban people. You very kindly (and I *really* appreciate that) articulated principles we should follow in banning. Then in this post you basically said that the wise way is another way.
Well, not always. We need to stress *that* just as well.
I think we agree in principle, but differ in our evaluation of the prospects in the future for a world without banning. It strikes me that you are skeptical that this could ever be the case; I, on the other hand, am hopeful that banning will remain rare, and will become moreso.
That's all I want. The rest, I agree with. In fact, I agree that we should always be slow and public in banning signed-in users for being difficult; we should be lenient and make an attempt to understand legitimate beefs. Those have always been views, and they haven't changed.
The threat of ultimate reprisal *unfortunately* has to be there, though, or the community will fall apart.
I think that's right, for now.
--Jimbo
Sorry folks, I meant to send this to Jimbo personally--next time I'll double-check the "To" line.
Larry
Well, it was a good point, so I'm glad you sent it to the list.
Banning is a "necessary evil" in the short run. And quite possibly in the long run, although I'm optimistic about alternatives.
It's an evil because of the dangers of the slippery slope.
Just imagine if we banned Ed Poor. That's really something to think about.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Well, it was a good point, so I'm glad you sent it to the list.
Banning is a "necessary evil" in the short run. And quite possibly in the long run, although I'm optimistic about alternatives.
It's an evil because of the dangers of the slippery slope.
The dangers involved in the *current* context are highly overrated and much too much worried about--since *yer the man* who does the banning in these cases!
I can understand of course that you want to openly admit the dangers of a slippery slope; this is because you rightly want people to know that it's extremely important that the power not be abused.
But as a matter of fact, we--the vast majority of us--do trust you, and those of us who do not either don't know you, or wouldn't trust *anyone* with the power (most likely on purely ideological grounds).
Larry
Larry Sanger wrote:
The dangers involved in the *current* context are highly overrated and much too much worried about--since *yer the man* who does the banning in these cases!
I can understand of course that you want to openly admit the dangers of a slippery slope; this is because you rightly want people to know that it's extremely important that the power not be abused.
But as a matter of fact, we--the vast majority of us--do trust you, and those of us who do not either don't know you, or wouldn't trust *anyone* with the power (most likely on purely ideological grounds).
I think that's all correct.
But one reason I do have the level of trust that I do is that I've erred too often in the direction of cautiousness and an avoidance of banning for too long.
What I mean is: I know that my inaction has at times caused pain for good contributors. I should have moved more quickly. However, I think it is nonetheless likely for reasons of policy *and* personal inclination, that my being slow to ban and quick to forgive will continue to be a nagging minor problem. :-)
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
There are lessons to be learned here. In the design of proper traffic systems, it's important to not fight against human nature. Rather than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
Interestingly, in the Netherlands they've recently experimented with *removing* traffic lights from accident blackspot junctions -- the results are that everyone drives *very* carefully and accidents are far fewer. ... though how that relates to wikipedia I have no idea ... :)
(ponders...) the no-traffic-light approach is Ward's original Wiki concept, I suppose: no rules so people have to tread carefully. CommunityMayNotScale, though.