(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as HTML and mucked up the formatting)
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.
(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as HTML and mucked up the formatting)
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.
Seems Ok. Using the arbitration committee for this purpose is not good as there are way too many chores involved with that.
Fred Bauder
If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom will get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by kneecapping people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like arbitrary justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA is that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to deliver an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking someone for calling a troll "a troll".
What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm never greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you actually had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to pass RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't have consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues for years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've needed to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative, short tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in the midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it easier to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you tone it down a bit".
If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats. It is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to long-term frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on en.Wikipedia means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn to fight and equally you get frustrated.
As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change structures than to change people. And structures shape people.
But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
Scott (Doc)
I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.
Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we all support are what works.
Fred
If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom will get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by kneecapping people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like arbitrary justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA is that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to deliver an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking someone for calling a troll "a troll".
What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm never greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you actually had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to pass RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't have consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues for years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've needed to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative, short tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in the midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it easier to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you tone it down a bit".
If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats. It is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to long-term frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on en.Wikipedia means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn to fight and equally you get frustrated.
As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change structures than to change people. And structures shape people.
But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
Scott (Doc)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think one thing leads to another here. Incivility leads to loss of editors of all genders. ArbCom has too narrow of a function and too little time to deal with every case of incivility. We have a lack of effective governance to be able to bring about a solution to all of these issues.
The conversation kindof jumped around a bit, but we have hit on some very serious issues. Operationally, everything works, as far as management, we are effectively leaderless and without any clear way to govern - the consensus process being so easily thrown off course it's become useless for any large-scale contentious issue. It's not that we are unable to make decisions, it's that we are unable to make controversial ones. We have a judiciary of sorts for our community, but the design as a court of last resort, coupled with the lack of any other authority with sufficient clout to deal with more established contributors, effectively cripple us, because every other process except ejection ("community ban") by community consensus is toothless, and consensus to eject a vested contributor doesn't happen short of them going suddenly and completely berserk and staying that way for an extended period of time.
Admins can deal effectively enough with harmful behavior from "outsiders", but the effectiveness disappears in all but open-and-shut policy violations where it concerns another admin or an established contributor.
So, that leaves us with several problems:
We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom first.
As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure, we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload. Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted - or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would enter a binding mediation. Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the standards of policy and practical enforceability) by the mediators, or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask ArbCom for an injunction in a case that has not yet been presented to them) for obtaining injunctions in order to stop a disputed activity while negotiations take place - injunctions of this nature would expire after reaching an agreement through mediation, or after reaching a decision through arbitration.
-Stephanie
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.
Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we all support are what works.
Fred
If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom will get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by kneecapping people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like arbitrary justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA is that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to deliver an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking someone for calling a troll "a troll".
What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm never greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you actually had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to pass RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't have consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues for years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've needed to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative, short tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in the midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it easier to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you tone it down a bit".
If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats. It is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to long-term frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on en.Wikipedia means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn to fight and equally you get frustrated.
As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change structures than to change people. And structures shape people.
But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
Scott (Doc)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom first.
As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure, we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload. Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted
- or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in
dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would enter a binding mediation. Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the standards of policy and practical enforceability) by the mediators, or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask ArbCom for an injunction in a case that has not yet been presented to them) for obtaining injunctions in order to stop a disputed activity while negotiations take place - injunctions of this nature would expire after reaching an agreement through mediation, or after reaching a decision through arbitration.
-Stephanie
You're proposing a rather complex structure when we are having trouble finding responsible talented people to populate the limited one we have.
I think we need to go the other direction, empowering administrators, a movement that is ongoing. However along with more widespread power there needs to be more widespread skill and finesse.
I keep coming back to community practices; they need to advance on a broad basis. Everybody needs to do better and have an understanding of how their behavior affects the entire project. That, I guess, is called socialization.
How are Wikipedia editors socialized?
Fred
Got sidetracked and didn't put the other parts of what I wanted to say in... Ok. Once we have mediation restructured to take the load off ArbCom, that leaves effective governance, and effective policing as key parts of a fix.
Effective governance is a key because without it, as Scott said, tenditiousness and bullheaded persistence become the only ways to get things done. That means we need a stronger executive that can decide to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation. I'm not saying that they should have unbridled "Jimboesque" authority, but they should be able to step up in any situation where consensus process doesn't seem to be working. That IMO means an "advice and consent" model, where advice comes from previous discussion, and consent comes by virtue of the office, as well as from the ability of the community to formally reject it's actions by referendum.
Policing is tricky, because of the fact that calling a dick a dick is itself a dickish move, but sometimes it's the only way to get the message across. To that end, a warnings tool would be helpful, supplementing or replacing the uw- templates with a MediaWiki extension that requires that warnings be acknowledged by the editor to continue editing, and providing a record of warnings. This is basically a very soft block that the editor is free to remove themselves. Warnings need not be generally visible except in the case where a matter progresses to arbitration, but they should persist for a period of time so that patterns of behavior become apparent.
-Stephanie
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
I think one thing leads to another here. Incivility leads to loss of editors of all genders. ArbCom has too narrow of a function and too little time to deal with every case of incivility. We have a lack of effective governance to be able to bring about a solution to all of these issues.
The conversation kindof jumped around a bit, but we have hit on some very serious issues. Operationally, everything works, as far as management, we are effectively leaderless and without any clear way to govern - the consensus process being so easily thrown off course it's become useless for any large-scale contentious issue. It's not that we are unable to make decisions, it's that we are unable to make controversial ones. We have a judiciary of sorts for our community, but the design as a court of last resort, coupled with the lack of any other authority with sufficient clout to deal with more established contributors, effectively cripple us, because every other process except ejection ("community ban") by community consensus is toothless, and consensus to eject a vested contributor doesn't happen short of them going suddenly and completely berserk and staying that way for an extended period of time.
So, that leaves us with several problems:
We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom first.
As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure, we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload. Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted
- or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in
dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would enter a binding mediation. Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the standards of policy and practical enforceability) by the mediators, or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask ArbCom for an injunction in a case that has not yet been presented to them) for obtaining injunctions in order to stop a disputed activity while negotiations take place - injunctions of this nature would expire after reaching an agreement through mediation, or after reaching a decision through arbitration.
-Stephanie
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.
Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we all support are what works.
Fred
If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom will get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by kneecapping people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like arbitrary justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA is that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to deliver an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking someone for calling a troll "a troll".
What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm never greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you actually had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to pass RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't have consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues for years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've needed to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative, short tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in the midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it easier to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you tone it down a bit".
If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats. It is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to long-term frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on en.Wikipedia means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn to fight and equally you get frustrated.
As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change structures than to change people. And structures shape people.
But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
Scott (Doc)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
That means we need a stronger executive that can decide to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation.
These are the two approaches that work in most situations. I'm very much in favour of structured debates, rather than the chaotic ones that sometimes take place. But you need to set up the debate so that someone (or a group) is tasked with closing it and moving things forward. Too many debates just founder and fade away, with nothing being done.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
That means we need a stronger executive that can decide to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation.
These are the two approaches that work in most situations. I'm very much in favour of structured debates, rather than the chaotic ones that sometimes take place. But you need to set up the debate so that someone (or a group) is tasked with closing it and moving things forward. Too many debates just founder and fade away, with nothing being done.
Carcharoth
The closing of debates is something an elected council could do. That preserves the role of the community in formulating and debating policy.
Fred
My own simple solution would be to elect a "policy advisory committee"
*The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort, where the status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated community attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile. *The PAC by majority voting would define the issues, call for evidence of the problems, and assess the possible reform possibilities (like an arbitration, the community free to make submissions). *The PAC would vote and either endorse the status-quo or a "preferred solution" *If a preferred solution emerges, this would go for community consultation and then be tweaked by the committee. *The final "preferred solution" would then be set against the "status quo" in a straight up/down community vote.
Scott
My own simple solution would be to elect a "policy advisory committee"
*The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort, where the status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated community attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile. *The PAC by majority voting would define the issues, call for evidence of the problems, and assess the possible reform possibilities (like an arbitration, the community free to make submissions). *The PAC would vote and either endorse the status-quo or a "preferred solution" *If a preferred solution emerges, this would go for community consultation and then be tweaked by the committee. *The final "preferred solution" would then be set against the "status quo" in a straight up/down community vote.
Scott
Promising suggestion
Fred
This idea arose in the context of a discussion which generally addressed civility. The warnings would be civility warnings.
Fred
To that end, a warnings tool would be helpful, supplementing or replacing the uw- templates with a MediaWiki extension that requires that warnings be acknowledged by the editor to continue editing, and providing a record of warnings. This is basically a very soft block that the editor is free to remove themselves. Warnings need not be generally visible except in the case where a matter progresses to arbitration, but they should persist for a period of time so that patterns of behavior become apparent.
-Stephanie
Brilliant!
Fred Bauder
on 2/1/11 9:02 AM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as HTML and mucked up the formatting)
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.
Thank you, Stephanie. Now I understand why some of the other posts to this and other Lists are nearly unreadable to me. I usually simply skip them without having to take the time do decipher them. But yours was worth both the time and struggle. And, thanks to the crappy weather we're having here on the east coast of the USA, most of my appointments have been postponed 'til another day. I'm like a school kid with a snow day!:-)
I like your idea of an elected council. Unlike the present Arbitration Committee, they would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. They would hear appeals from persons who have been through the existing process. Their role being to serve as the final arbiter in intractable disputes, and an entity to hear and review proposals for change; and have the power to institute that change. That Community-elected body would then elect their leader who would have the responsibility of being the final arbiter of disputes within that council. That council could (and should) have a Mailing List, or other such mechanism for the Community members at large to ask questions and provide their input.
The keys are stability, accountability and openness!
Marc
on 2/1/11 9:02 AM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as HTML and mucked up the formatting)
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.
Thank you, Stephanie. Now I understand why some of the other posts to this and other Lists are nearly unreadable to me. I usually simply skip them without having to take the time do decipher them. But yours was worth both the time and struggle. And, thanks to the crappy weather we're having here on the east coast of the USA, most of my appointments have been postponed 'til another day. I'm like a school kid with a snow day!:-)
I like your idea of an elected council. Unlike the present Arbitration Committee, they would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. They would hear appeals from persons who have been through the existing process. Their role being to serve as the final arbiter in intractable disputes, and an entity to hear and review proposals for change; and have the power to institute that change. That Community-elected body would then elect their leader who would have the responsibility of being the final arbiter of disputes within that council. That council could (and should) have a Mailing List, or other such mechanism for the Community members at large to ask questions and provide their input.
The keys are stability, accountability and openness!
Marc
You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.
Fred
On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.
The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two people are in the same room, let alone 160,000.
- d.
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy. Though it's a little harder to be accepted for this, even newcomers are listened to, especially if they do not trying to do propaganda for promotionalism; it is not necessary to serve a long apprenticeship.
This is the point of open culture as a general way of working: it's open. Of course, it produces inevitable inefficiencies and instabilities, but it has the attraction to new people that they can come and soon affect things. There are more than enough formal organizations in the world for those who prefer their efficiency and stability.
There are many informal organizations also. Some, like open software, are in principle open to all, but in practice have extensive technical prerequisites. the uniqueness of Wikipedia is that it is open to even the beginners, and yet produces work of major public usefulness on a par with that produced by formal organizations and experts. And that it accomplishes this on a broad multilingual basis is unmatched by any organization.
We have something that has proven successful far beyond any expectations. It puzzles me why anyone would want to risk a fundamental change in its structure. Let it continue as far as relative anarchy can take it. It cannot do everything, or suit everybody. If one wants something different, try other projects. The main thing Wikipedia needs for improvement at this point, is some real competition. The worst thing to happen to Wikipedia these last few years, is that the alternate program at Citizendium did not succeed sufficiently to challenge it.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.
The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two people are in the same room, let alone 160,000.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
<Snip>
We have something that has proven successful far beyond any expectations. It puzzles me why anyone would want to risk a fundamental change in its structure.
Because it, as well as its needs, have grown beyond its original structure.
Let it continue as far as relative anarchy can take it.
And then what, David?
It cannot do everything, or suit
everybody. If one wants something different, try other projects.
David, are you really saying what I hear you saying - ["]If you don't like the way things are, go someplace else["]?!
Marc
<Snip>
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.
The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two people are in the same room, let alone 160,000.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1 February 2011 23:06, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
It cannot do everything, or suit everybody. If one wants something different, try other projects.
David, are you really saying what I hear you saying - ["]If you don't like the way things are, go someplace else["]?!
FWIW, I read it as "Wikipedia sorely needs competition and it may not be possible any more to get any." Blog post: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2011/01/19/single-point-of-failure/
- d.
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
In most cases attempts to change Wikipedia's policy in reasonable ways fails because somebody, somewhere will think that virtually any change could, theoretically, backfire in some nightmare scenario that they believe in their heart of hearts 100% definitely will transpire, or because they assume bad faith of the editor, or any number of other what if looked at closely are fairly weird reasons.
The idea that if bad things did happen as a result of a change; that they could be reverted as easily as the change to the policy, that ironically never, ever stops anyone reverting changes to policy.
The normal case where changes are done, and stick, involve some sort of gang of editors of some description.
The gangs aren't necessarily up to no good, but that's the normal way it happens.
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
Carcharoth
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia - remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.
What makes new editors stay or leave is a good editing experience. We understand that there's many problems with that experience, and many ways we might change Wikipedia that might improve it for them. However, we can't do that because the current way of changing policy is defective, fights all innovations, and privileges those wishing to oppose any reforms. But now we are told that we can't change the policy-making process, because we potentially violate the new editor's highly valued right to full participation in said defective process?
What are we saying? "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia where everyone gets an equal right to vainly bang their head against a policy brick wall".
Amazingly a project that began with risk taking an innovation has now managed to allow the fear of change and reactionaries to call the shots. (Oops, that's not civil either!)
Scott
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: 02 February 2011 00:31 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
- remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.
Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.)
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
- remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.
Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.)
...And a policy discussion which was driven by a small, vocal, and policy-active minority, who drove a solution upstream against a consensus gap.
The long term damage that incident did has been consistently shoveled under the rug.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
- remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.
Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.)
...And a policy discussion which was driven by a small, vocal, and policy-active minority, who drove a solution upstream against a consensus gap.
The long term damage that incident did has been consistently shoveled under the rug.
Which incident are you both talking about? If Ken's user page makes it obvious, just say that, but I can't immediately remember what you are both talking about here.
Carcharoth
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Carcharoth wrote:
Which incident are you both talking about? If Ken's user page makes it obvious, just say that, but I can't immediately remember what you are both talking about here.
Spoiler warnings. And no, it's not on my userpage.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And, what is the danger you're talking about?
Marc
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And, what is the danger you're talking about?
Marc
In the case of your proposals, imposition of arbitrary authority; loss of volunteer and donor support; and lose of editorial independence.
Fred
on 2/1/11 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And, what is the danger you're talking about?
Marc
In the case of your proposals, imposition of arbitrary authority; loss of volunteer and donor support; and lose of editorial independence.
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence?
Marc
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence?
Marc
You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of sense does that make?
Fred
on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence?
Marc
You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of sense does that make?
Your use of the word "skulduggery" in this context is very telling, Fred.
Marc
We seem to be confusing several separate issues here.
1) Directive versus self organising organisations. Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my instinctive assumption that "strong leadership" is more often a disadvantage than an advantage.
2) Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus.
Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking minority.
3) Direct versus indirect Democracy Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If 49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it, and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other options wins.
But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments. Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but the fundamentalists.
The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable way to get round the drawbacks of consensus.
My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_... Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less successful. So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them.
WereSpielChequers
On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence?
Marc
You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of sense does that make?
Your use of the word "skulduggery" in this context is very telling, Fred.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument would be over. Consensus still wins.
On 2/2/11, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
We seem to be confusing several separate issues here.
- Directive versus self organising organisations.
Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my instinctive assumption that "strong leadership" is more often a disadvantage than an advantage.
- Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus.
Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking minority.
- Direct versus indirect Democracy
Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If 49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it, and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other options wins.
But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments. Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but the fundamentalists.
The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable way to get round the drawbacks of consensus.
My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_... Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less successful. So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them.
WereSpielChequers
On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence?
Marc
You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of sense does that make?
Your use of the word "skulduggery" in this context is very telling, Fred.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument would be over. Consensus still wins.
Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It should not result in sterile deadlocks though.
I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea.
Fred
so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values (openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a fairly weak system especially if the council members had their own veto in council decisions and the community kept a power of referendum to undo any council mistakes. The only danger i see is some people will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor of status quo. Whether or not we want to give them authority to close debate is well debatable but even with that we wouldnt be creating another jimbo but rather an extension of the existing community governance. As for secret ballots we already elect a much more powerful and perhaps more dangerous body by secret election and those are the community reps to the board so i think it is a viable and proven system.
On 2/2/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument would be over. Consensus still wins.
Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It should not result in sterile deadlocks though.
I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaugherty@gmail.com wrote:
The only danger i see is some people will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor of status quo.
The fact that consensus can change on Wikipedia is both its great strength and its great weakness. It is possible, if the stars are aligned right (i.e. the right people show up to the discussion), to 'change' a long-established consensus. Sometimes it emerges, through later discussion and participation, that this so-called change in consensus was illusory or false. Sometimes, it emerges that the consensus had in fact changed, and the change to the status quo was correct.
Finding this out, though, takes lots of time and discussion. This is the weakness of the consensus-based system, in that you sometimes need endless discussion merely to maintain the status quo. And also that for some situations, consensus can swing from side to side, between two or more different camps. Assessing the consensus requires looking at both the short-term arguments and the long-term trends. Otherwise you end up with a system where things chop-and-change constantly, and no stability is achieved.
The classic example is naming debates, where a great deal of time and energy goes into discussing what title an article should be at, and if consensus was truly ruled on every few months, you might get a situation where an article was at one name for a few months, and then at another name for another few months. Clearly that sort of result just drains time and resources away from where it should be focused, and allows people to obsess over specific issues rather than looking at the big picture.
This is why allowing the status quo to stay in the absence of consensus otherwise is used. Anything else leads to increased instability. Either that, or you insist on and enforce moratoriums on repeating the same debates until a set period of time has passed. Accept that the present discussion (whatever it is) has run its course, and move on to work on other things, and then return to the old discussion after that set period of time has passed. Over time, you build up a long-term picture of how and whether consensus is changing over month and years, or not, as the participants and arguments change and evolve and mature.
Carcharoth
On 02/02/2011, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
Yup, that's exactly what people normally say to virtually any change.
What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And, what is the danger you're talking about?
He's talking about the 'Danger That Cannot Be Named, So Nothing Must Be Changed.'
To be honest, I was thinking about starting a liberal political party on wikipedia. It's about time we had political parties. My party is going to be called 'The Party for Change (tm)'.
I'm not sure what the changes would be yet, but we can work out a manifesto as we go.
It's going to be a New Force (tm) in Wikipedian politics!
Marc
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/02/2011, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
Yup, that's exactly what people normally say to virtually any change.
What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And, what is the danger you're talking about?
He's talking about the 'Danger That Cannot Be Named, So Nothing Must Be Changed.'
To be honest, I was thinking about starting a liberal political party on wikipedia. It's about time we had political parties. My party is going to be called 'The Party for Change (tm)'.
I'm not sure what the changes would be yet, but we can work out a manifesto as we go.
I am shaking in my boots. Woe is us!
It's going to be a New Force (tm) in Wikipedian politics!
You're channeling one of the Terry Pratchett books here, aren't you?
I hereby announce the second party; we're the California Conservative party. We believe in "God-or-outmoded-concept saving the Queen" (in the San Francisco sense; see [[Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence]]) and will adopt a modification of the Aspen Drug and Gun club ("Death before Dishonor, Drugs before Lunch").
Marc, you should know me better than that.
No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment, but there are other information needs in the world also, among which is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined the original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel. Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing can really do this; I do not think we have found a good free model, & I suspect that it may need central editorial control of a relatively conventional nature.
I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also. We should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior. There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the first priority.
I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong views about the way they would really like it. To work within a diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals.
In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing structures.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy.
You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger.
What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And, what is the danger you're talking about?
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, you should know me better than that.
No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment, but there are other information needs in the world also, among which is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined the original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel. Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing can really do this; I do not think we have found a good free model, & I suspect that it may need central editorial control of a relatively conventional nature.
I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also. We should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior. There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the first priority.
I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong views about the way they would really like it. To work within a diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals.
In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing structures.
I apologize David, I did misread your statement. Thank you for this writing. Like you, I believe very strongly in the ideas and goals of the Wikipedia Project. But I fear for its future. I have made these fears known, and have tried to make rational suggestions as to how to prevent what will happen if the behemoth that the Project has become does not improve its organizational structure. What I have encountered in this effort are two basic types of persons: Those, blind in their euphoria, still dancing on airplane wings; and those whose own self-interests have blinded them, and caused them to resist any change that would effect those self-interests. Fortunately, there is a third, much smaller (right now) group who can put aside their emotions and self-interests, think rationally beyond today and consider the future of the Project. They are the Movement within the Movement. They're the hope. As for me, I have said all that I can say at this point. It's time for me to step back and watch.
Marc
David (Goodman) and Marc (Riddell) said it better than I could have done. But I don't think stepping back and watching is necessarily the best response. Those who have the time should take part in discussions like this, and refine their positions as a result of what they say and read. And write it down somewhere, as it is all too easy to just let things go until the next such discussion.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Marc, you should know me better than that.
No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment, but there are other information needs in the world also, among which is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined the original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel. Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing can really do this; I do not think we have found a good free model, & I suspect that it may need central editorial control of a relatively conventional nature.
I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also. We should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior. There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the first priority.
I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong views about the way they would really like it. To work within a diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals.
In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing structures.
I apologize David, I did misread your statement. Thank you for this writing. Like you, I believe very strongly in the ideas and goals of the Wikipedia Project. But I fear for its future. I have made these fears known, and have tried to make rational suggestions as to how to prevent what will happen if the behemoth that the Project has become does not improve its organizational structure. What I have encountered in this effort are two basic types of persons: Those, blind in their euphoria, still dancing on airplane wings; and those whose own self-interests have blinded them, and caused them to resist any change that would effect those self-interests. Fortunately, there is a third, much smaller (right now) group who can put aside their emotions and self-interests, think rationally beyond today and consider the future of the Project. They are the Movement within the Movement. They're the hope. As for me, I have said all that I can say at this point. It's time for me to step back and watch.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l