On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete {{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we shouldn't be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves to legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Template:Jackass exists as a navigational template for the show.
Carcharoth
Usually when I "facepalm" it's because I have a "moment", not someone else...
I believe [[WP:DICK]] is a bigger issue than {{facepalm}} at the moment....
Bob
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Granted, removing uncivil templates won't magically increase patient and constructive discussion, but I do suspect we'd still nevertheless delete {{jackass}} or {{moron}}. If people are going to mock others, we
shouldn't
be giving them shortcuts to do so. The existence of the template serves
to
legitimise such dismissive discourse.
Template:Jackass exists as a navigational template for the show.
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
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l- bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Schnautz Sent: 03 October 2011 19:25 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
Usually when I "facepalm" it's because I have a "moment", not someone else...
I believe [[WP:DICK]] is a bigger issue than {{facepalm}} at the moment....
Bob
Dick has a didactic point - facepalm has none.
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Scott
On 3 October 2011 13:06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invoking it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
One of the fun things we wrote into the policy right from the start was that invoking it was reflexively wrong, so really people shouldn't (barring extreme circumstances). It's primarily foundational (or "constitutional") policy from which other merely high-level policies spring (e.g. No Personal Attacks; Don't Revert, Discuss; Consensus Can Change, etc.).
If you find examples of people invoking it against others, you should take that to AN/I or a similar venue as it's generally a violation of NPA. ArbCom citing it in a case doesn't count, obviously.
J.
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it done....and I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/I....considering how many people back it as one of the "three most important principles of Wikipedia"-- which I disagree with entirely....
Bob
On 10/3/2011 3:11 PM, James Forrester wrote:
On 3 October 2011 13:06, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invoking it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
One of the fun things we wrote into the policy right from the start was that invoking it was reflexively wrong, so really people shouldn't (barring extreme circumstances). It's primarily foundational (or "constitutional") policy from which other merely high-level policies spring (e.g. No Personal Attacks; Don't Revert, Discuss; Consensus Can Change, etc.).
If you find examples of people invoking it against others, you should take that to AN/I or a similar venue as it's generally a violation of NPA. ArbCom citing it in a case doesn't count, obviously.
J.
On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it done....and I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/I....considering how many people back it as one of the "three most important principles of Wikipedia"-- which I disagree with entirely....
When we founded ArbCom it was entirely with user disputes in mind. I'd be disappointed and surprised if poor user behaviour wasn't dealt with by the current Committee, but if you don't do anything about it and call people on their poor behaviour when you see it, it'll never improve.
J.
James Forrester wrote:
On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it done....and I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/I....considering how many people back it as one of the "three most important principles of Wikipedia"-- which I disagree with entirely....
When we founded ArbCom it was entirely with user disputes in mind. I'd be disappointed and surprised if poor user behaviour wasn't dealt with by the current Committee, but if you don't do anything about it and call people on their poor behaviour when you see it, it'll never improve.
J.
That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom. "Calling people on their poor behaviour" may be a function of ArbCom, but only when all other avenues have been exhausted, including RfC, and only when there is no plausible route to rehabilitation, including (but not limited to) friendly advice, a break from adminning to recover from the stress (which, to be honest, might well include death threatson one's own Talk page), or even a temporary desysop in the interests of the admin. Tell me, when did ArbCom last take that position, and actually realise that volunteering to improve Wikipedia, whether by adding content, or dealing with vandalism, or otherwise applying WP policies, is to be appreciated rather than castigated? Clue:Never, in my experience, and certainly not recently. ArbCom is a ramshackle, unaccountable shed, which should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, if not cast permanently into the "not fit for purpose" dustbin. It's a disgrace as it is now.
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Phil Nash wrote:
That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom.
Let's not forget "Arbcom doesn't make policy", which usually ends up meaning "Arbcom constantly makes de-facto policy while pretending not to, and you can't challenge it because since Arbcom doesn't make policy, any Arbcom-made policy you challenge doesn't exist".
James Forrester wrote:
On 3 October 2011 15:37, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, so someone pulling [[WP:DICK]] on someone else is something I can take to Arbcom? Arbcom is gonna be pretty busy if I start reporting every time I see it done....and I can't see it going very far with Arbcom or with AN/I....considering how many people back it as one of the "three most important principles of Wikipedia"-- which I disagree with entirely....
When we founded ArbCom it was entirely with user disputes in mind. I'd be disappointed and surprised if poor user behaviour wasn't dealt with by the current Committee, but if you don't do anything about it and call people on their poor behaviour when you see it, it'll never improve.
J.
on 10/3/11 7:44 PM, Phil Nash at phnash@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
That's an entirely different proposition from merely being vindictive for its own sake, which seems to be the current modus operandi of ArbCom. "Calling people on their poor behaviour" may be a function of ArbCom, but only when all other avenues have been exhausted, including RfC, and only when there is no plausible route to rehabilitation, including (but not limited to) friendly advice, a break from adminning to recover from the stress (which, to be honest, might well include death threatson one's own Talk page), or even a temporary desysop in the interests of the admin. Tell me, when did ArbCom last take that position, and actually realise that volunteering to improve Wikipedia, whether by adding content, or dealing with vandalism, or otherwise applying WP policies, is to be appreciated rather than castigated? Clue:Never, in my experience, and certainly not recently. ArbCom is a ramshackle, unaccountable shed, which should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, if not cast permanently into the "not fit for purpose" dustbin. It's a disgrace as it is now.
(I'm catching up on some past posts)
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping.
Marc Riddell
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping.
ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes).
The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping.
on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes).
The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion.
Carcharoth
I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require.
Marc
The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of policies about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is very good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the context of the wiki.
The way it works at the moment is anarchy at the administrator level and above. Other than a few rules about not administrating when directly involved, admins are allowed by the policies to do just about anything; and there's essentially nothing to stop admins ganging up on users; and this happens not as infrequently as you would hope. That's where it goes all Stanford Prison Experiment.
The reason it's like this is because Sanger was a philosopher of knowledge, and he shaped the policies to collect knowledge really well, but he doesn't have the slightest clue about crime and punishment.
The areas that work the best are things like 3RR; because it's fairly clear-cut. But even then, the length of punishments for going 3RR occasionally range from nothing to permanent bans,* more or less entirely on administrator whim (modified only somewhat by the administrators fear of the crowd).
It's basically the problem is that editors have no 'civil rights'; there's no policy against severe punishments for trivial transgressions.
*- they don't usually ban people outright for 3RR, they just mark people as 'trouble makers' and then ban them for increasingly minor infractions later. It's sort of like a death penalty for parking offenses because you've parked in the wrong place before, and 'know what you were doing' and therefore 'deserved it'.
On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative
and
fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change
that?
How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about
change,
get started? I would be interested in helping.
on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes).
The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion.
Carcharoth
I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require.
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 agree with much of what you say, Ian. But I see the issues of "crime and punishment" and getting and keeping the playing field level as just one function of an oversight body. There are many other areas that need monitoring in such a complex project such as WP. The question I still have is how do you get such a body established in the first place in the Project?
Marc
on 10/28/11 3:01 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of policies about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is very good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the context of the wiki.
The way it works at the moment is anarchy at the administrator level and above. Other than a few rules about not administrating when directly involved, admins are allowed by the policies to do just about anything; and there's essentially nothing to stop admins ganging up on users; and this happens not as infrequently as you would hope. That's where it goes all Stanford Prison Experiment.
The reason it's like this is because Sanger was a philosopher of knowledge, and he shaped the policies to collect knowledge really well, but he doesn't have the slightest clue about crime and punishment.
The areas that work the best are things like 3RR; because it's fairly clear-cut. But even then, the length of punishments for going 3RR occasionally range from nothing to permanent bans,* more or less entirely on administrator whim (modified only somewhat by the administrators fear of the crowd).
It's basically the problem is that editors have no 'civil rights'; there's no policy against severe punishments for trivial transgressions.
*- they don't usually ban people outright for 3RR, they just mark people as 'trouble makers' and then ban them for increasingly minor infractions later. It's sort of like a death penalty for parking offenses because you've parked in the wrong place before, and 'know what you were doing' and therefore 'deserved it'
On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative
and
fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change
that?
How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about
change,
get started? I would be interested in helping.
on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes).
The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion.
Carcharoth
I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require.
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
You're asking the wrong question. The purpose of arbcom-like body is to check that the policies are being correctly interpreted, but the policies like:
wp:blocking policy
is so full of words like 'may' and vague words like 'disruption' as to be functionally useless.
"You got into a discussion with another user and reverted each other. That disrupted Wikipedia. You are hereby banned for life."
^ that isn't against the policy
In most cases another admin would reduce the length. Maybe... but they don't have to.
On 28 October 2011 20:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with much of what you say, Ian. But I see the issues of "crime and punishment" and getting and keeping the playing field level as just one function of an oversight body. There are many other areas that need monitoring in such a complex project such as WP. The question I still have is how do you get such a body established in the first place in the Project?
Marc
on 10/28/11 3:01 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
The flaw isn't the oversight body, it's the almost complete lack of
policies
about 'crime and punishment'. It's not leadership; having a leader is
very
good, but only if they do the right things. No, what is lacking is a workable theory about what the right thing to do about conflict is in the context of the wiki.
The way it works at the moment is anarchy at the administrator level and above. Other than a few rules about not administrating when directly involved, admins are allowed by the policies to do just about anything;
and
there's essentially nothing to stop admins ganging up on users; and this happens not as infrequently as you would hope. That's where it goes all Stanford Prison Experiment.
The reason it's like this is because Sanger was a philosopher of
knowledge,
and he shaped the policies to collect knowledge really well, but he
doesn't
have the slightest clue about crime and punishment.
The areas that work the best are things like 3RR; because it's fairly clear-cut. But even then, the length of punishments for going 3RR occasionally range from nothing to permanent bans,* more or less entirely
on
administrator whim (modified only somewhat by the administrators fear of
the
crowd).
It's basically the problem is that editors have no 'civil rights';
there's
no policy against severe punishments for trivial transgressions.
*- they don't usually ban people outright for 3RR, they just mark people
as
'trouble makers' and then ban them for increasingly minor infractions
later.
It's sort of like a death penalty for parking offenses because you've
parked
in the wrong place before, and 'know what you were doing' and therefore 'deserved it'
On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy,
collaborative
and
fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change
that?
How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about
change,
get started? I would be interested in helping.
on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the "community" tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes).
The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion.
Carcharoth
I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that "What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership". It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require
a
formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations
to
the structure of the Project require.
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
On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
Every day, I see perfectly civil people facepalming. I have yet to see a civil person turn to someone in public and say "Don't be a dick."
I think perhaps some peoples' civility radar is somewhat out of tune.
Risker/Anne
On 10/03/11 8:22 PM, Risker wrote:
On 3 October 2011 16:06, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Scott MacDonald wrote:
I've never understood people's problem with WP:DICK.
Because invokin g it is equivalent to calling the other person a dick.
Every day, I see perfectly civil people facepalming. I have yet to see a civil person turn to someone in public and say "Don't be a dick."
I think perhaps some peoples' civility radar is somewhat out of tune.
I was unaware of the term "facepalm" until I read this thread. If someone had tagged me with this symbol, I wouldn't have had a clue about what he was trying to say. It seems that geekish. If somebody is being a jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom.
Ec
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l- bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton Sent: 04 October 2011 10:45 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Facepalm?
If somebody is being a jerk isn't it better to bluntly tell him directly instead of drawing upon an unfamiliar term from geekdom.
+1 _______________________________________________
Unfortunately, I think this is what happens when kewl teenagers who like memes started (apparently) by star-trek, meet adults who value actual communication in the language of Shakespeare.
(But, ho, you calling a trekie-meme geeky???)
Scott