This is a question that has occurred to me in the context of arbitration, and how to avoid it.
There's a common personality type for trouble on Wikipedia: brittle in interactions with others, can't tolerate ambiguity, so gets into rules-lawyering. Sees "common sense" and "judgement" mostly as excuses to exercise bias, not as recognition that all rules are fluid in the pursuit of our goal.
I am not thinking of any individual, but of a general type I've noticed. I think something about Wikipedia will tend to attract them. I would *guess* it's something that attracts people from further up the autistic spectrum than the general populace, but that's just speculation.
The point is that they're good and hard-working contributors, but can get difficult to work with. And putting them on a processing line that leads to arbitration strikes me as not being a good thing. Is there a better way? I welcome your thoughts and speculation.
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This is a question that has occurred to me in the context of arbitration, and how to avoid it.
There's a common personality type for trouble on Wikipedia: brittle in interactions with others, can't tolerate ambiguity, so gets into rules-lawyering. Sees "common sense" and "judgement" mostly as excuses to exercise bias, not as recognition that all rules are fluid in the pursuit of our goal.
I am not thinking of any individual, but of a general type I've noticed. I think something about Wikipedia will tend to attract them. I would *guess* it's something that attracts people from further up the autistic spectrum than the general populace, but that's just speculation.
The point is that they're good and hard-working contributors, but can get difficult to work with. And putting them on a processing line that leads to arbitration strikes me as not being a good thing. Is there a better way? I welcome your thoughts and speculation.
Working in software development, I can tell you that the people on wikipedia very much resemble those who write code for a living. Leading programmers is often referred to as "herding cats".
See http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html for an interesting essay on group dynamics.
I would say that reminding people often of the goals of wikipedia is rather important.
Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/14/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This is a question that has occurred to me in the context of arbitration, and how to avoid it.
There's a common personality type for trouble on Wikipedia: brittle in interactions with others, can't tolerate ambiguity, so gets into rules-lawyering. Sees "common sense" and "judgement" mostly as excuses to exercise bias, not as recognition that all rules are fluid in the pursuit of our goal.
I am not thinking of any individual, but of a general type I've noticed. I think something about Wikipedia will tend to attract them. I would *guess* it's something that attracts people from further up the autistic spectrum than the general populace, but that's just speculation.
The point is that they're good and hard-working contributors, but can get difficult to work with. And putting them on a processing line that leads to arbitration strikes me as not being a good thing. Is there a better way? I welcome your thoughts and speculation.
- d.
I've dealt with mentally ill and developmentally disabled people for many years. It can be very difficult, and over time, it can seem to become even more so. These suggestions seem obvious, but they are what works for me.
Tolerate far more than you're used to tolerating.
Repeat yourself far more often that you're used to repeating yourself. Rephrase as necessary.
Be more patient than you've ever dreamed of being.
Make your motivations more clear than you're used to making them.
Give instructions more clearly than you're used to giving them.
If there is a pending escalation warranted, gently warn early, warn often, and always follow through with exactly what you said.
If there is reward pending, mention it often, and always follow through with exactly what you promise.
In my observations, among those who care for people with mental problems there seems to be three types: those with the patience of a saint, the apathetic, and those who are abusive or nearly so.
Among those who want to wikilawyer everything to death, I don't know how useful this can be, but the prominence of "ignore all the rules", and "don't vote on everything" in the Wikipedia culture can be helpful if they themselves aren't overrun by the recent "write it all down and vote on it" trend that I think is beginning to take hold.
I think this is why Ed's deletion of the deletion page was so welcomed. I think we NEED some more minor edit fights over policies and procedures, because the rise of wikilawyering is killing "be bold". I only hope that any edit fights that take place can be good natured pillow fights.
On 8/15/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Make your motivations more clear than you're used to making them.
I think this one is the most important one in your list to keep in mind on wikipedia. It can be especially hard in non-face-to-face communications to convey subtle things like tone, but making your motivations clear can be very mediating in disputes as it helps the other side understand where you're coming from and exactly what in the dispute is important to you. Many negotiations can flounder when people haggle over results rather than first establishing what's important to each side and why.
Laurascudder
I have also worked as a caretaker of the disabled, and I think the comments and advise by Michael Turley / User:Unfocused were especially useful and apt. Hopefully they get read by those who need them most... What would you think about posting them up somewhere on the wiki?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 8/16/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I have also worked as a caretaker of the disabled, and I think the comments and advise by Michael Turley / User:Unfocused were especially useful and apt. Hopefully they get read by those who need them most... What would you think about posting them up somewhere on the wiki?
Jack (Sam Spade)
Absolutely. But who is it addressed to, and how? ("If someone's behaving in an immature fashion, then.."?) Personally, I think this advice could help us all..
Cormac
On 8/15/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I have also worked as a caretaker of the disabled, and I think the comments and advise by Michael Turley / User:Unfocused were especially useful and apt. Hopefully they get read by those who need them most... What would you think about posting them up somewhere on the wiki?
Jack (Sam Spade)
You're welcome to copy them freely, post them where you like, and edit them mercilessly with or without attribution.
Or, more formally, I release them to the public domain.
Im sure there are ways, but keep in mind that some of these issues are of course systemic rather than of the individual. Using a conceptualized notion of a "brittle user" at all carries some baggage of beurocratic prejudice. Any institution which begins down the slippery slope of referring to people in generalities rather than dealing with individuals, has become a beaurocracy.
"Higher levels of autism" reminds me of Bram Cohen's recent ripping on Linus Torvalds' concepts rel. code merge? Anyone can be less than civil in their discourse when dealing with people whom they percieve to be idiots.
SV
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This is a question that has occurred to me in the context of arbitration, and how to avoid it.
There's a common personality type for trouble on Wikipedia: brittle in interactions with others, can't tolerate ambiguity, so gets into rules-lawyering. Sees "common sense" and "judgement" mostly as excuses to exercise bias, not as recognition that all rules are fluid in the pursuit of our goal.
I am not thinking of any individual, but of a general type I've noticed. I think something about Wikipedia will tend to attract them. I would *guess* it's something that attracts people from further up the autistic spectrum than the general populace, but that's just speculation.
The point is that they're good and hard-working contributors, but can get difficult to work with. And putting them on a processing line that leads to arbitration strikes me as not being a good thing. Is there a better way? I welcome your thoughts and speculation.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Hi,
I don't know, and this will sound wild, but I think its just people who are depressed for some reason and trying to find a "home", as it were. Wikipedia makes a logical choice because you can do pretty much anything in a place with a lot of content. (I really don't think it has to do with a particular mental disability per se)
For the solution, I remember something proposed regarding -Ril-'s RfC (well, actually I think it was the one he filed against the admin) where the person proposed to have a group of 3 good editors help out -Ril- to become a better one (or something like that). I think this could be a great idea for those who want it - sort of like a wikitutor program.
More importantly, I think admins/users friendly to the person (and if there isn't one someone should step up because everyone needs someone to turn to) in trouble should try to step in and help the person more when it looks like he/she is going to get into a major conflict. This one thing I think could save a lot conflicts from escalating to a RfA, but then that's just me :).
Because I think ultimately you want to build people who can stay calm in heated situations and can think rationally (i.e. past the rules-only phase).
Sorry if that was too deep, LOL!
Ryan
On 8/19/05, Ryan Norton wxprojects@comcast.net wrote:
Hi,
I don't know, and this will sound wild, but I think its just people who are depressed for some reason and trying to find a "home", as it were. Wikipedia makes a logical choice because you can do pretty much anything in a place with a lot of content. (I really don't think it has to do with a particular mental disability per se)
For the solution, I remember something proposed regarding -Ril-'s RfC (well, actually I think it was the one he filed against the admin) where the person proposed to have a group of 3 good editors help out -Ril- to become a better one (or something like that). I think this could be a great idea for those who want it - sort of like a wikitutor program.
More importantly, I think admins/users friendly to the person (and if there isn't one someone should step up because everyone needs someone to turn to) in trouble should try to step in and help the person more when it looks like he/she is going to get into a major conflict. This one thing I think could save a lot conflicts from escalating to a RfA, but then that's just me :).
Because I think ultimately you want to build people who can stay calm in heated situations and can think rationally (i.e. past the rules-only phase).
Sorry if that was too deep, LOL!
Ryan
Thank you very much for this Ryan, I agree with you 100%
Well, maybe 99%, as I don't believe it's always necessary to identify the reasons people act the way they do (eg. depression), but rather recognise that anyone can be brittle, rude, obnoxious etc. and that the main thing is to help them see a more productive and social mode of discourse which is what we're creating here, as much as an encyclopedia.
Cormac