I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its scope (Thomas).
The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. That also having failed, we instead have just been waiting a month for Cary to say anything at all. And he recently did, though there was little substance in it, other than a threat to close the bug request. Which in fact, he just did close as WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing. Still, despite our recent differences, we should welcome Cary's actual participation in our discussion. Thank you Cary, we understand that you were just too busy to give this proper consideration.
Anyway, we were talking about an open list for discussing dispute resolution. Its scope will be broad, and its purpose will be to be helpful. It will discuss particular disputes in general, conceptual, and editorial terms, and facilitate immediate on-wiki dispute resolution processes. It will also discuss dispute resolution concepts in general, wherever that goes.
-Stevertigo Architect of WP:CIVIL, creator of Arbcom, Inventor of those WP:Shortcuts
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Architect of WP:CIVIL, creator of Arbcom, Inventor of those WP:Shortcuts
That's funny.
You may not want my advice, and I probably shouldn't be giving it, but why not start small on this? New mailing lists don't come along all that often. Start something on this list, with threads marked clearly so people can avoid them if they don't want to read them. Set some ground rules. See if the idea takes off. If it does, then go back and ask again. If it doesn't take off, then it probably wasn't such a great idea after all. Volunteer resources are finite, after all.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
That's funny.
What's funny?
You may not want my advice, and I probably shouldn't be giving it..
Eh. True.
I'm looking for either support or dissent. Support I can deal with. Dissent I can deal with too. :-) And we can't trust people to title threads properly anyway - unrealistic usage of email.
-Stevertigo PS: Waves should make things easier though - maybe we can get some beta code and setup support?
I have to agree with the idea, posted a bit ago, that a new email list is a bit of a backdoor if we're all for transparency. Discussions about the dispute resolution process, might get more input, if done in-universe. I'm not sure why you want a new channel.
Will
-----Original Message----- From: stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 1:44 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
That's funny.
What's funny?
You may not want my advice, and I probably shouldn't be giving it..
Eh. True.
I'm looking for either support or dissent. Support I can deal with. Dissent I can deal with too. :-) And we can't trust people to title threads properly anyway - unrealistic usage of email.
-Stevertigo PS: Waves should make things easier though - maybe we can get some beta code and setup support?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
I like transparency too. It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list is actually against the grain of that.
I understand this point, and I have made it myself in the past - both with regard to mailing lists, and with regard to the use of IRC. My main issues with both forums dealt with access - mailing lists may require subscription, and typical IRC usage will expose one's IP address. In reality though, our mailing lists - at least the public ones - allow non-subscriber posting, and easy to read web archiving, and freenode now has a web interface at webchat.freenode.net .
Its also true that while email has its problems (waves or something like it may be able to help), note also that discussion threads on wiki are also not ideal (waves again) - still email's continued usage means it is still quite canonical when it comes to dealing with high-level discussions.
This list for example has been the place for discussing most major issues on enwiki since '01-'02. And likewise, the point is not to circumvent or replace on-wiki handling of specific issues, rather to augment and enhance the overall handling of disputes. We also need a bit of a terminology change, as I stated previously - we don't have 'edit wars' anymore - we just have editorial disputes.
Anyway, while I appreciate an absurdist argument as much as anyone (hence the title of this thread) its at the very least extremely ironic to call an open mailing list 'opaque' or 'lacking transparency' considering that so much of official dispute resolution at this point happens on private discussion lists. Resolution-l would not replace arbcom-l or medcom-l (using what their proper names would be) - rather it would simply augment and strengthen overall dispute resolution handling.
If a channel is not open, it's potency and resonance are already muffled.
I've only recently signed up to a couple of the mailing lists as I intend to get (and am getting) more involved with Wikipedia. These lists have a pretty low profile, I'd say.
I know you've been around on the wiki for a while, though, right? Again, I understand the point of keeping things on-wiki, but the fact of the matter is that on-wiki discussions are often less than ideal - and less than visible - something required when dealing with issues that are far-reaching.
Whilst these mailing lists are, I believe, open for everyone to join, it still strikes me as a bit of a back door: I would have thought it far more transparent to deal with all dispute resolution on the wiki itself where people can see what's going on (and people can place relevant links easily) rather than in an email list which is going to have a rather different audience.
Same points as above. Linking is a trivial issue, and shouldn't really affect our discussion here. Technical solutions might also help, but these have not even been implemented here on wikien-l.
To put it another way, if I were an editor in dispute with someone else and I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list and I become aware the other person was discussing it there, I think I'd rightly feel that there was something "going on" in a sort of conspiratorial way and that a conscious effort had been made to circumvent tackling my points.
Keep in mind you are making the same misconceptions that Thomas did. The resolution-l forum is not for getting into details about how to handle
The wiki (en, at least) doesn't seem short of ways and means to deal with disputes. I'm somewhat sceptical about the motivation in creating a new channel for disputes that requires all parties to sign up for an email service to be fully cognisant of where that dispute is heading.
You are contradicting yourself - on the one hand you acknowledge that an open list does not require subscription, and on the other you claim that signing up is required.
-Stevertigo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Keep in mind you are making the same misconceptions that Thomas did. The resolution-l forum is not for getting into details about how to handle
Should be "how to handle.. specific on-wiki disputes/conflicts."
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its scope (Thomas).
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.) I seem to remember a thread with a very different feel. You had some support from Fred Bauder, who likes the idea of discussing dispute resolution. You had very definite opposition from me. You can call me sub-articulate all you like, but I don't think it will stick.
Anyway, we were talking about an open list for discussing dispute resolution. Its scope will be broad, and its purpose will be to be helpful. It will discuss particular disputes in general, conceptual, and editorial terms, and facilitate immediate on-wiki dispute resolution processes. It will also discuss dispute resolution concepts in general, wherever that goes.
And my point is that your broad brush means the second sentence would self-contradict, in a welter of meddling and advocacy. If that's the intended remit (everything up to and including the kitchen sink) then there was no misunderstanding at all about the scope.
Charles
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I bad-mouthed anyone? My "attitude" toward Cary has actually been quite positive - before I ever tried to communicate with him, I had already imparted to him such human qualities as a bright and an outgoing personality, and a fair and balanced approach to new concepts. Hence when I made my plain and open request - via wikein, mediazilla, and a private email - I had no doubt that we would soon get a response from him. I was simply expressing my disappointment in how things turned out, and in fact I attribute his lack of responsiveness not to him, personally, but to whatever behind-the-scenes artifices may be constricting his degrees of motion and general sense of freedom.
I seem to remember a thread with a very different feel. You had some support from Fred Bauder, who likes the idea of discussing dispute resolution.
Fred's an intelligent being, and when I'm not deliberately pouring fuel on the fire - he might even agree with me. He understands this is an open project, and that in all but a few special cases, its issues that are best discussed openly. Pretty simple, actually.
You had very definite opposition from me. You can call me sub-articulate all you like, but I don't think it will stick.
I would never call you sub-articulate, Charles. In fact you are one of the most articulate people I've ever dealt with. However, with that said, as I recall in this case you just didn't have much of a point to make other than you didn't like it. I would not say this means that you were sub-artculate, personally, but rather that your posting on the matter lacked the substantive and articulated argument we've generally come to expect from you.
And my point is that your broad brush means the second sentence would self-contradict, in a welter of meddling and advocacy. If that's the intended remit (everything up to and including the kitchen sink) then there was no misunderstanding at all about the scope.
I don't see the contradiction. A large part of 'being helpful' is in fact just being open and available. If a private, closed, proprietary system thinks that openness is unhelpful, then the fates usually demand that such system get retooled.
I understand that you were Arbcom for a while, and you might suspect that resolution-l would just be a forum by which I could lambaste Arbcom, inline with the points I have been making recently about its lack of openness and responsiveness - concepts made clear in the WP:RFAR/OAR case.
The real point here is that we don't need to get into that territory too much more, if we establish an open forum - not a closed one, mind you - at resolution-l.
-Stevertigo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Previous post correction diff: - its issues that are best discussed openly. + its issues are best discussed openly.
-Stevertigo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I bad-mouthed anyone? My "attitude" toward Cary has actually been quite positive - before I ever tried to communicate with him, I had already imparted to him such human qualities as a bright and an outgoing personality, and a fair and balanced approach to new concepts. Hence when I made my plain and open request - via wikein, mediazilla, and a private email - I had no doubt that we would soon get a response from him. I was simply expressing my disappointment in how things turned out, and in fact I attribute his lack of responsiveness not to him, personally, but to whatever behind-the-scenes artifices may be constricting his degrees of motion and general sense of freedom.
Perhaps you should take a moment, and replace every instance in the emails you are sending to the list of "Cary Bass" to "Stevertigo" to determine out exactly how positive and fair your comments have been.
What the worst thing is, that I've been now forced by your comments to take the time to respond to you on email lists rather than working on substantially more important and valuable uses of the time that the Foundation expects of me.
This will be the last email I have on this topic. I'm going to be setting my wikien-l list to "nomail" for the time being so I can get useful work done. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I bad-mouthed anyone?
*Splutter.*
You had very definite opposition from me. You can call me sub-articulate all you like, but I don't think it will stick.
I would never call you sub-articulate, Charles. In fact you are one of the most articulate people I've ever dealt with. However, with that said, as I recall in this case you just didn't have much of a point to make other than you didn't like it.
You do not recall correctly, then. Why not review the thread?
I would not say this means that you were sub-artculate, personally, but rather that your posting on the matter lacked the substantive and articulated argument we've generally come to expect from you.
See my earlier comment(s).
I understand that you were Arbcom for a while, and you might suspect that resolution-l would just be a forum by which I could lambaste Arbcom, inline with the points I have been making recently about its lack of openness and responsiveness - concepts made clear in the WP:RFAR/OAR case.
Considering that Arbitrators regularly get hounded on their talk pages, and are subject to pile-ons in just about any forum, this is not my particular concern. The heat in the kitchen probably deters a fair number of likely candidates from coming forward to serve on the ArbCom; but this list wouldn't change that very much. I think you might suspect that three years of reading the Arbcom mail might convey some notions of the limitations of mailing lists, as well as the limitations of the ArbCom.
The point, sir, is that your approach is very clearly one of escalation, and forcing the issue, while clad in personal attack. This is diametrically opposite to all sane versions of dispute resolution. It actually does do something to discredit your idea.
(It is is shame that I used the joke about hiring [[Malcolm McLaren]] as a babysitter on another occasion. Perhaps I should just pretend it is freshly minted.)
Charles
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Considering that Arbitrators regularly get hounded on their talk pages, and are subject to pile-ons in just about any forum, this is not my particular concern. The heat in the kitchen probably deters a fair number of likely candidates from coming forward to serve on the ArbCom; but this list wouldn't change that very much. I think you might suspect that three years of reading the Arbcom mail might convey some notions of the limitations of mailing lists, as well as the limitations of the ArbCom.
Well, Jimbo dealt with the same thing a few years ago, and in reality the only issue was that he was trying to do too much. That's why I stated in as blunt terms as possible that he needed to let go of his baby, develop a core of trusted editors and empower them to deal with things.
It's worked out swimmingly. The only issue then is that these other beings seem to lack Jimbo's straightforward and personal approach. As I've said a hundred times, Arbcom they are too overworked - and just as overburdened in their own ways as Jimbo once was. Begin phase three.
The point, sir, is that your approach is very clearly one of escalation, and forcing the issue, while clad in personal attack. This is diametrically opposite to all sane versions of dispute resolution. It actually does do something to discredit your idea.
Ah, so you have a point after all, sir. I don't understand how this is all supposedly about some kind of personal attack. Clarification, sir, if you please. And I am not really "forcing" the issue - just getting the road cleared is all. What is "diametrically opposed to all sane versions of dispute resolution?" The proposed resolution-l list? This discussion? If you could define the above, perhaps what "it" is would be clear, such that I would then know what "something" it "actually does.. to discredit [my] idea."
(It is is shame that I used the joke about hiring [[Malcolm McLaren]] as a babysitter on another occasion. Perhaps I should just pretend it is freshly minted.)
Shame indeed, and anyway I don't get the joke. By the way, why is [[McLaren]] an article about some sodding racing car outfit, and not a proper surname disambiguation?
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
And I am not really "forcing" the issue - just getting the road cleared is all.
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists, creating personal frictions and all that.
The thing is, if you are going to call up the "old days" precedents, then it will not do to invoke a partial and sepia-tinted version. There are several things we (I'm also an old-school Wikipedian) worked out then, including the idea that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". There are certainly people who continue to act as if it is. It is all very well to get worked up about glasnost' issues - we saw a lot of that in the last election. A rolling manifesto of abusing anyone connected with Arbitration is not actually any kind of solution to anything.
What you seek to do might very well be achieved by some forum unconnected to Wikipedia in any official sense.
Charles
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists, creating personal frictions and all that.
I understand that I have a created a special niche for myself here. I also understand exactly what most concerns and troubles the bureaucratic mindset. But note that none of this "spamming" would have been necessary back in Jimbo's day - when anything came up he did his best to give straight and insightful answers to almost anyone.
The thing is, if you are going to call up the "old days" precedents, then it will not do to invoke a partial and sepia-tinted version. There are several things we (I'm also an old-school Wikipedian) worked out then, including the idea that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". There are certainly people who continue to act as if it is.
Excellent points, sir. But how would opening up and centralizing one small aspect of dispute resolution - dedicated discussion of DR itself - decrease the peace in any way?
It is all very well to get worked up about glasnost' issues - we saw a lot of that in the last election.
I know nothing of the last election - I only get involved in these things when I think that things have become too obviously warped for anyone else to deal with. If you could give us a little of your own project historian overview of what you are talking about - just for the record - that would be rather interesting too.
A rolling manifesto of abusing anyone connected with Arbitration is not actually any kind of solution to anything.
The fact remains that dispute resolution functions need to be more open. If Arbcom and perhaps even Foundation (hm) actually functioned fully in accord with their own stated principles or values, then there would be no issue with concepts like transparency. Because there is an issue, and because I long ago rejected the concept of being a mere functionary, I am raising the point now - such that the matter gets dealt with. Matters eventually do get dealt with.
After that, I will go back to whatever the hell it is I do around here.
What you seekt to do might very well be achieved by some forum unconnected to Wikipedia in any official sense.
I consulted with Uncyclopedia, but they just laughed. Was that the kind of disconnected and disjointed forum you were referring to?
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh, have it your own way, then. It just looked, superficially, as if you were dead set on alienating large numbers of people, spamming lists, creating personal frictions and all that.
I understand that I have a created a special niche for myself here. I also understand exactly what most concerns and troubles the bureaucratic mindset. But note that none of this "spamming" would have been necessary back in Jimbo's day - when anything came up he did his best to give straight and insightful answers to almost anyone.
Hmm, it might save time if you sent an email to Jimbo, so you could get his straight and insightful "no" to the idea of resolution-l. Or even his very direct and trenchany "yes".
The thing is, if you are going to call up the "old days" precedents, then it will not do to invoke a partial and sepia-tinted version. There are several things we (I'm also an old-school Wikipedian) worked out then, including the idea that "Wikipedia is not a battleground". There are certainly people who continue to act as if it is.
Excellent points, sir. But how would opening up and centralizing one small aspect of dispute resolution - dedicated discussion of DR itself
- decrease the peace in any way?
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the Sith Lords of Arbitration.
It is all very well to get worked up about glasnost' issues - we saw a lot of that in the last election.
I know nothing of the last election - I only get involved in these things when I think that things have become too obviously warped for anyone else to deal with. If you could give us a little of your own project historian overview of what you are talking about - just for the record - that would be rather interesting too.
So it turns out you don't vote for or against arbs? You are in the majority, since turnout hardly reaches 20%. But it rather undercuts your premise.
The 2008 election (and you'll forgive me if I keep this at a general level) was rather Obamamatic, in that many people were voting for the general principle of change rather than specifics of how Arbitration could be improved, procedurally or at the level of what type of person should be an arb. The Gorbachev reference is therefore to try to get away from the idea that US politics is the only valid type of comparison. It is also slyly implying that you can end up with Putin, a KGB man, whatever the sloganising. I happen to think that requests for things to be more "open" can be queried: there is plenty of private mail that should remain private because it is either (a) about private life details that have no bearing on the encyclopedia, but come up because voluntary work tends to drag private matters into the workplace, or (b) horse-trading and straw polls which are part of the proper work of a committee. In fact Arbitration cases generate acres of material showing how decisions are made; and in most cases (not all) what appears on the wiki is at least a fair record of how a decision was reached.
A rolling manifesto of abusing anyone connected with Arbitration is not actually any kind of solution to anything.
The fact remains that dispute resolution functions need to be more open. If Arbcom and perhaps even Foundation (hm) actually functioned fully in accord with their own stated principles or values, then there would be no issue with concepts like transparency.
That's it: sentence 1 says this is about glasnsost'. And sentence 2 appears just to be false, IMX.
Charles
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Hmm, it might save time if you sent an email to Jimbo, so you could get his straight and insightful "no" to the idea of resolution-l. Or even his very direct and trenchany "yes".
Hm. I don't email retired people. Interferes with their fishing.
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the Sith Lords of Arbitration.
Ha. If those "Sith lords" did things more openly, they would be the beings of light and wisdom people thought they were when we voted for them.
So it turns out you don't vote for or against arbs? You are in the majority, since turnout hardly reaches 20%. But it rather undercuts your premise.
Hm. I did vote in that election IIRC. Could be wrong about that though - might have been busy with real life. But just like with the current board election, I don't have to get too involved in any of the soapboxing to just vote for people I know and respect. The issue then with Arbcom is that election to that institution means they stop being the same beings we voted for - instead becoming this largely insular, non-responsive and overworked hanging court. Doesn't have to be that way, IMHO.
many people were voting for the general principle of change rather than specifics of how Arbitration could be improved, procedurally or at the level of what type of person should be an arb.
I like getting into specifics, personally, and I agree with your apparent view that just changing things up sometimes doesn't quite have as much validity as implementing specific desired changes. In fact I foresaw some of these specific issues a couple years ago, and outlined them at WP:DRREF .
The Gorbachev reference is therefore to try to get away from the idea that US politics is the only valid type of comparison. It is also slyly implying that you can end up with Putin, a KGB man, whatever the sloganising.
OK. We now know you are a true and capable fan of the politics.
I happen to think that requests for things to be more "open" can be queried: there is plenty of private mail that should remain private because it is either (a) about private life details that have no bearing on the encyclopedia, but come up because voluntary work tends to drag private matters into the workplace,
I agree only in part. In fact, I would propose the rule that any discussions in private be made redundant and redacted (removing private details) in a public archive. This ideally could be done quite orthogonally - public copies are identical to the private ones, albeit with certain appropriate and collaboratively editable redactions.
horse-trading and straw polls which are part of the proper work of a committee. In fact Arbitration cases generate acres of material showing how decisions are made; and in most cases (not all) what appears on the wiki is at least a fair record of how a decision was reached.
Ah. "Horse trading" as in I will agree to ban Peter for one year, if you agree to ban Paul or two? In the context of Arbitration, the practice is actually quite a DBAD violation.
Opening things up will have some nice counterbalancing effects toward that: Any Arbs inclined to be quite "Sith"-like in private will instead think twice. Which brings up an interesting corrollary - we know that overworked people sometimes have problems thinking even once about anything, let alone twice.
Stevertigo wrote :
The fact remains that dispute resolution functions need to be more open. If Arbcom and perhaps even Foundation (hm) actually functioned fully in accord with their own stated principles or values, then there would be no issue with concepts like transparency.
That's it: sentence 1 says this is about glasnsost'. And sentence 2 appears just to be false, IMX.
Its neither Glasnost, nor Perestroika, nor the Bolivarian or Orange revolutions, nor the Boston Tea Party. It's just me cracking open the clam, under the suspicion of a notion that there still be some pearls inside.
-Stevertigo
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the Sith Lords of Arbitration.
Ha. If those "Sith lords" did things more openly, they would be the beings of light and wisdom people thought they were when we voted for them.
PS: Let's agree to refrain from even using Star Wars analogies again - its hard to find a more scientifically or morally useless paradigm. Not to mention it makes already dorkish people feel like they're twenty-five again.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:06 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Given your announced intentions for it, I think it is reasonable to assume that it is ground of your own choosing for a battle with the Sith Lords of Arbitration.
Ha. If those "Sith lords" did things more openly, they would be the beings of light and wisdom people thought they were when we voted for them.
PS: Let's agree to refrain from even using Star Wars analogies again - its hard to find a more scientifically or morally useless paradigm. Not to mention it makes already dorkish people feel like they're twenty-five again.
Right, strictly Doris Lessing, C.J. Cherryh and the less pulpy parts of Jack Vance in future. People will generally not know what we're talking about, but the high ground will be ours.
Charles
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Right, strictly Doris Lessing, C.J. Cherryh and the less pulpy parts of Jack Vance in future.
Who?
People will generally not know what we're talking about, but the high ground will be ours.
Hrmph. Well, we can experiment a little. If I drop a concept like "Karellen," everyone should get the concept immediately. Anyway, at least we've ruled out LOTR and Lucasflim.
-Stevertigo
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:34 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
If I drop a *concept like "Karellen," everyone should get the *concept immediately.
Sorry - my natural recursive rewriting pattern sometimes produces redundancies.
-Stevertigo
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry - my natural recursive rewriting pattern sometimes produces redundancies.
Er, I should say "recursive rewriting without re-reading pattern" actually. :-)
-Stevertigo
As far as I can tell, this is the state of consensus on the idea of a resolution-l:
* one strong proponent (Stevertigo) * a couple of mild supporters (Fred Bauder, W. Johnson) * nobody else cares much * several people have suggested it would need consensus on the wiki to be a happener - no info on state of opinion on the wiki * no list created yet (mostly because of the tiny support) * SV alleges procedural suppression of the idea
Anything I've missed?
- d.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, this is the state of consensus on the idea of a resolution-l:
- one strong proponent (Stevertigo)
- a couple of mild supporters (Fred Bauder, W. Johnson)
- nobody else cares much
- several people have suggested it would need consensus on the wiki to
be a happener - no info on state of opinion on the wiki
- no list created yet (mostly because of the tiny support)
- SV alleges procedural suppression of the idea
Anything I've missed?
Very nice, but a couple amendments are required: * I am not a "strong proponent" - I am the proposer. Naturally I consider the idea to be valid, or I would not have proposed it. And if there is anything "strong" about my proposal, its in the fact that my arguments are fairly sound, and my responses to the various criticisms have been somewhat straightforward and satisfactory. * IIRC George and SJ and maybe a couple others - notably Thomas - have also expressed *some degree of support - as always with their own ideas and points. And if he wasn't altogether retired, Jimbo would probably also support it too. * "Nobody else cares much" is perhaps accurate, perhaps not. Only the supporters and opponents count - not the abstentions - and IMHO I've been fairly successful at defeating the opposition's arguments anyway - too often by simply pointing out the lack of any substantial argument to speak of. If Lincoln destroys Douglas in debate, we generally get a concession speech, but we don't generally expect or get total conversion or support. Consider Planck's axiom about how changes in scientific thinking happen not so much through changing minds, but more through through scientist's eventual deceasing. * The "no list yet" issue is largely in Cary's court, for the simple reason that he is the person apparently in charge. Of course if a person in charge of something is not actually doing what his underlings tell him to do, then standard bureaucratic procedure usually requires that they be promoted to higher office so they can do less damage. * I allege no procedural suppression, for the simple reason that I have no access to the private lists or emails. I do however allege that if I did have access to those private channels, I could defeat most of whatever privately made criticisms just as easily as I have the open ones.
-Stevertigo
2009/7/31 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
- "Nobody else cares much" is perhaps accurate, perhaps not. Only the
supporters and opponents count - not the abstentions - and IMHO I've been fairly successful at defeating the opposition's arguments anyway
- too often by simply pointing out the lack of any substantial
argument to speak of. If Lincoln destroys Douglas in debate, we generally get a concession speech, but we don't generally expect or get total conversion or support. Consider Planck's axiom about how changes in scientific thinking happen not so much through changing minds, but more through through scientist's eventual deceasing.
"Nobody's actively trying to kill the idea!" works okay in wiki editing (where bad edits are reversible), but probably isn't enough to bother with an unconvincing structural change. Until anyone else cares enough to actually push it hard, it won't be a happener.
- The "no list yet" issue is largely in Cary's court, for the simple
reason that he is the person apparently in charge. Of course if a
The reason it hasn't happened yet is that nobody else is pushing it but you. There is no groundswell of support. Cary not doing something just because you really really want it is, I would suggest, absolutely appropriate.
So, what was wrong with getting consensus for it on the wiki? Given it's expressly meant to affect the wiki.
- d.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:27 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Nobody's actively trying to kill the idea!" works okay in wiki editing (where bad edits are reversible), but probably isn't enough to bother with an unconvincing structural change. Until anyone else cares enough to actually push it hard, it won't be a happener.
"[Various esoteric pseudo-axioms]" - huh? "Anyone?" "Push it hard?" David, its not the force, its the motion.
The reason it hasn't happened yet is that nobody else is pushing it but you. There is no groundswell of support. Cary not doing something just because you really really want it is, I would suggest, absolutely appropriate.
Please don't lose your graceful tone, David. I was simply amending the list you put together with some details. I made no statements about why things were or were not happening.
So, what was wrong with getting consensus for it on the wiki? Given it's expressly meant to affect the wiki.
I can try doing that a little, I guess. But what was wrong with sorting some of it out here?
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
horse-trading and straw polls which are part of the proper work of a committee. In fact Arbitration cases generate acres of material showing how decisions are made; and in most cases (not all) what appears on the wiki is at least a fair record of how a decision was reached.
Ah. "Horse trading" as in I will agree to ban Peter for one year, if you agree to ban Paul or two? In the context of Arbitration, the practice is actually quite a DBAD violation.
No, you misunderstand. When a case is clearly not going to get closed with the current set of findings, someone has to initiate a phase of discussion that ends with a better set of proposed findings, incorporating modifications that have broader support. Try AGF.
Charles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
stevertigo wrote:
I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its scope (Thomas).
The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. That also having failed, we instead have just been waiting a month for Cary to say anything at all. And he recently did, though there was little substance in it, other than a threat to close the bug request. Which in fact, he just did close as WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing. Still, despite our recent differences, we should welcome Cary's actual participation in our discussion. Thank you Cary, we understand that you were just too busy to give this proper consideration.
I did give it proper consideration. I apologize for treating you special and not having responded to you directly. Most people give bugzilla's requests as well as emails to the respondent some time to respond before they post allegations about the person responsible to foundation-l. Apparently you felt this had a higher priority than I did, although you could not find anyone to agree with you, which is why you posted to foundaiton-l, and you could not find anyone to agree with you there either, and further got yourself banned from that list for perpetually bringing it up.
I would suggest you stop creating a controversy where there is none by posting unsubstantiated insinuations about me on a public mailing list which is archived and googled by using poisonous language such as "And he recently did, though there was little substance in it," which inherently fail to endear me to your cause any further.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
I did give it proper consideration.
Um, no. You didn't. 'Proper consideration' requires sending signals out to people and getting some signals back - responsiveness.
I apologize for treating you special and not having responded to you directly.
Ah, the special treatment.
Most people give bugzilla's requests as well as emails to the respondent some time to respond before they post allegations about the person responsible to foundation-l.
Ah, yes the timeliness issue. Next time don't make people wait a month for a simple straightforward email response: a simple 'people whom I've talked in private say its a bad idea' would have been a quite ample response, if given in timely fashion.
Apparently you felt this had a higher priority than I did
Yes, that is the nature of other people's ideas - they naturally will consider such more important, urgent, or resonant than some official might do.
although you could not find anyone to agree with you
Actually not true. Fred and George I can think of off-hand. And Thomas, after we worked through most of his critiques, probably is in 90-95 in agreement with my exact concept. And this is not to say the concept can't be amended, streamlined, or altered a bit via intelligent criticism of a similar kind.
which is why you posted to foundaiton-l, and you could not find anyone to agree with you there either
The issue with posting to foundation-l was just to get your attention. You are the sole person in charge of creating new lists, aren't you? Perhaps this is a mistake. Perhaps your duties in the real world do not permit you to give due consideration to on-wiki matters anymore.
and further got yourself banned from that list for perpetually bringing it up.
Yes, I know about the "banning." Still in effect, actually.
I would suggest you stop creating a controversy where there is none
The only thing controversial here is that you are supposedly the go-to guy for creating new lists, and yet you didn't bother to respond to the 100 message wikien-l thread, a mediazilla request, and a private email, for almost a month. You are obviously capable and qualified in a great many areas, but are likewise just to overworked and busy to give sufficient attention to that particular matter.
by posting unsubstantiated insinuations about me
I made no insinuations. I made it clear that you just weren't doing your job.
on a public mailing list which is archived and googled by using poisonous language
We all once had reasonably thick skins here on wikien-l. What happened?
such as "And he recently did, though there was little substance in it,"
True. You decried my singling you out, decried my criticizing of your inaction, claimed there was zero support for it, noted that certain invisible people on functionaries-l disliked the idea, and stated only that you would close the thread after just one more day.
inherently fail to endear me to your cause any further.
I understand that by criticizing your inaction and unresponsiveness, I have singled you out, and thus have made you less than eager to start being helpful. The point here of course, is that you should have been eager and helpful from the get-go, and not entirely silent and unresponsive.
I have made my criticism broader than just you though, to include all privatized communication, as I know how these work over time to erode general openness, transparency and other core principles and values.
With that out of the way, I greatly appreciate the apology, Cary. I know you mean it. Likewise please accept my apology for singling you out, when I know others are just as responsible. We can get on now with discussing the substance of the proposal, and I would greatly appreciate your participation.
-Stevertigo
2009/7/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
I did give it proper consideration.
Um, no. You didn't. 'Proper consideration' requires sending signals out to people and getting some signals back - responsiveness.
It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate consensus. That has been how it has worked for as long as I've been around.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate consensus. That has been how it has worked for as long as I've been around.
Hm. Is it then the job then of the officials to decree "there is no consensus?"
Strange, and anyways untrue: Consensus is achieved, not demonstrated.
-Stevertigo
2009/7/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate consensus. That has been how it has worked for as long as I've been around.
Hm. Is it then the job then of the officials to decree "there is no consensus?"
Strange, and anyways untrue: Consensus is achieved, not demonstrated.
You have to demonstrate that it has been achieved, usually be giving a link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All you had was a mailing list thread where not many people agreed and very few people participated at all.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You have to demonstrate that it has been achieved, usually be giving a link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All you had was a mailing list thread where not many people agreed and very few people participated at all.
Ah. Just looking through the list of current mailing lists: Checkuser-l, functionaries-l, arbitration-l (sic), mediation-l (sic), accounts-en-l, OTRS-en-l (also de, fr, etc.) - quite a few private lists, actually, for such an open project.
I also note lists like daily-image-l and daily-article-l etc. - spam basically. Greenspun? 25K was enough to get someone's name as a project and mailing list title? Doesn't look really resonant with the illustrators, either.
I get the picture, and if there were a relevant substantive point to be made here it would be something like 'There cannot be a resolution-l mailing list, regardless of how well-purposed and useful it will be, simply because we already have so many useless mailing lists, as well as private ones that people don't have access to.
And am I to understand that all of these have been vetted in accord with the same process you promote? Hm. Links, please.
-Stevertigo
2009/7/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You have to demonstrate that it has been achieved, usually be giving a link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All you had was a mailing list thread where not many people agreed and very few people participated at all.
Ah. Just looking through the list of current mailing lists: Checkuser-l, functionaries-l, arbitration-l (sic), mediation-l (sic), accounts-en-l, OTRS-en-l (also de, fr, etc.) - quite a few private lists, actually, for such an open project.
I also note lists like daily-image-l and daily-article-l etc. - spam basically. Greenspun? 25K was enough to get someone's name as a project and mailing list title? Doesn't look really resonant with the illustrators, either.
I get the picture, and if there were a relevant substantive point to be made here it would be something like 'There cannot be a resolution-l mailing list, regardless of how well-purposed and useful it will be, simply because we already have so many useless mailing lists, as well as private ones that people don't have access to.
Would you like a match to set light to that straw man?
And am I to understand that all of these have been vetted in accord with the same process you promote? Hm. Links, please.
Several of those were decreed by Jimbo, that is an exception to the usual rule. Some were created unilaterally by the WMF, also an exception. Proposals that come from the community, like yours, require consensus.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Just looking through the list of current mailing lists: Checkuser-l, functionaries-l, arbitration-l (sic), mediation-l (sic), accounts-en-l, OTRS-en-l (also de, fr, etc.) - quite a few private lists, actually, for such an open project.
It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or something.
That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot. Personally, I think it sounds likely to fragment discussion and encourage forum shopping, aside from giving people the feeling they've been run around -- even if you personally have a firm idea of the list's remit, other people will not.
Your increasingly incessant personal attacks and use of the royal "we" -- what else could you be referring to? -- are a but off-putting, as well.
-Luna
2009/7/28 Luna lunasantin@gmail.com:
That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.
Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been banned on-wiki to continue arguing.
<<Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been banned on-wiki to continue arguing.>>
If that's the main difference, doesn't it seem likely that this is a proposal not likely to gain consensus? If the community has decided that a contributor shouldn't contribute, why would we want to hear more from them?
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Jul 28, 2009 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l
2009/7/28 Luna lunasantin@gmail.com:
That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion
cannot.
Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been banned on-wiki to continue arguing.
_______________________________________________ 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, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Lunalunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or something.
So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem to happen on the wiki, and this has brought about a general lack of responsiveness, and has also negated open discussion itself to a certain degree.
Keep in mind that people get their motivation from different places - and in my case my recent Arbitration case left me with a certain reminder of something that I had not dealt with before - that Arbcom's deliberations are private, it does not like treating people like people, and it thinks of itself as a kind of monolith of decision. So, the idea I had a few years ago about a 'formal process for resolving disputes' has been a resounding success, but it has also become quite bureaucratic, overworked, and insular.
That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot. Personally, I think it sounds likely to fragment discussion and encourage forum shopping, aside from giving people the feeling they've been run around -- even if you personally have a firm idea of the list's remit, other people will not.
An open mailing list for dispute resolution will bring about greater openness and wikilove.
It's true though that I long ago argued that wikien-l was not the place for discussing on-wiki disputes, and its gratifying to see how people have over time incorporated that idea. But its my notion that we can and should discuss dispute resolutions in a more open and centralized way, and I think a dedicated mailing list would work in that respect.
Your increasingly incessant personal attacks and use of the royal "we" -- what else could you be referring to? -- are a but off-putting, as well.
I appreciate the fact that someone perceived as making personal attacks will be chastised by you and others, but the fact of the matter is that I have never made any personal attacks against Cary or anyone else in this matter. A couple sarcastic or pointy responses to similarly sarcastic or rude commentary do not qualify. Your "incessant" term is a gross mischaracterization.
-Stevertigo
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Lunalunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or something.
So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem to happen on the wiki, and this has brought about a general lack of responsiveness, and has also negated open discussion itself to a certain degree.
My points are easier to refute when you change them, yes. I didn't say "arbcom", I said "vast bulk". Arbcom is involved in only a tiny fraction of disputes, and then only after prior resolution mechanisms have failed. Unless you're suggesting this mailing list would replace arbcom, I can't say that I'm sure what you're getting at, there.
That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot. Personally, I think it sounds likely to fragment discussion and encourage forum shopping, aside from giving people the feeling they've been run
around
-- even if you personally have a firm idea of the list's remit, other
people
will not.
An open mailing list for dispute resolution will bring about greater openness and wikilove.
How? What will it add that the wiki and current mailing lists cannot? You've argued that we should centralize discussion, and then you propose fragmenting it with a new list. I'm not sure if I can follow that.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to start discussion here, and fork in the event that discussion overwhelms other list traffic?
Your increasingly incessant personal attacks and use of the royal "we" -- what else could you be referring to? -- are a but off-putting, as well.
I appreciate the fact that someone perceived as making personal attacks will be chastised by you and others, but the fact of the matter is that I have never made any personal attacks against Cary or anyone else in this matter. A couple sarcastic or pointy responses to similarly sarcastic or rude commentary do not qualify. Your "incessant" term is a gross mischaracterization.
Interesting that you deny making any personal attacks, and yet you immediately leap to defend specific comments, as if you knew exactly which ones I might be referring to. Hm!
Anyway, you seem to have knocked that off lately. Thanks.
-Luna
2009/7/28 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. [snip]
Who is this "we"? While a small number of people (I would estimate a minority, although I haven't counted) have expressed some vague support for your idea, I think you are the only person with any real interest in it. I don't think anyone else has been waiting.
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me -- devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on and you'll have to restart the original interest again.
I think the list-vs-wiki distinction is a red herring -- I'd like to see list-to-wiki synchronization so that we never have to have that discussion again -- so to keep things simple, let's imagine what this would look like on-wiki.
Sam had a good idea in this direction : [[Wikipedia:Community Facilitation]] . It's about something more specific than dispute resolution in general, but may be a useful part of what you have in mind, steve. And the idea would be both to discuss [potentially long-term] facilitation, help people get better at it, and practice it in the context of specific issues.
Sj
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:01 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the opposition was sub-articulate, and whatever substantive criticism there was was largely based in some assumed misconceptions about its scope (Thomas).
The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. That also having failed, we instead have just been waiting a month for Cary to say anything at all. And he recently did, though there was little substance in it, other than a threat to close the bug request. Which in fact, he just did close as WONTFIX: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19414 . I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing. Still, despite our recent differences, we should welcome Cary's actual participation in our discussion. Thank you Cary, we understand that you were just too busy to give this proper consideration.
Anyway, we were talking about an open list for discussing dispute resolution. Its scope will be broad, and its purpose will be to be helpful. It will discuss particular disputes in general, conceptual, and editorial terms, and facilitate immediate on-wiki dispute resolution processes. It will also discuss dispute resolution concepts in general, wherever that goes.
-Stevertigo Architect of WP:CIVIL, creator of Arbcom, Inventor of those WP:Shortcuts
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, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me -- devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on and you'll have to restart the original interest again.
Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could pick, which is another strike against this proposal.
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat, IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me -- devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on and you'll have to restart the original interest again.
Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could pick, which is another strike against this proposal.
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat, IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
Probably to do with the stable central point - the page being discussed. All the other mediums you mention are transient. New articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are (in theory) kept up-to-date.
On newsgroups I have seen years-old messages being revived, but there is often a strong social pressure to not do that, and instead start a new post. And there is no stable object for discussions to revolve around.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
New articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are (in theory) kept up-to-date.
That should have said "news articles".
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat, IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
Probably to do with the stable central point - the page being discussed. All the other mediums you mention are transient. New articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are (in theory) kept up-to-date.
When there is a namespace set aside for central points, such as individual topics, wikis do this brilliantly. But many wiki processes simply archive without a central point (or have a week-long discussion which is then frozen, no more discussion to be had).
One aspect of a community facilitation project would be to define a namespace for issues, which might be moved and renamed over time, but would not be 'closed' or 'archived' because someone though a particular proposed implementation was not a good idea. If someone thought it was an issue to consider, then it is a valid point in the namespace, and will always be so. Someone else might come up with a great resolution to that issue in the future; it might be effectively merged with other similar issues; it mght be better understood as a combination of two resolvable issues.
Or it might just remain, with fluctuating priority, as something intractable yet important-to-someone.
For instance, I was looking for the latest thoughts on the topic of 'How to create notability guidelines for a new category' (since [[Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines]] is pretty sparse) without success.
And the a little while before that I wanted to see who else thought G8 shouldn't be used to speedy delete talk pages or subpages with valuable discussions. I had a specific example that would have contributed to the idea that talk pages should be preserved... but there was only a scattering of a dozen discussions across many different talkpage archives.
A permanent page for each of these issues, perhaps with one or more self-selected facilitators willing to help incorporate new thoughts and more towards a long-term resolution, would be interesting. To start with, you could seed the issues namespace with the perennial proposals. [[WP:PEREN]] does not do these justice; and in short order a good facilitator could replace each of the "Reason for previous rejection" statements with a reworded but equally accurate "Current compromise or resolution".
SJ
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat, IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
Probably to do with the stable central point - the page being discussed. All the other mediums you mention are transient. New articles hardly anyone returns to. Here, the encyclopedia pages are (in theory) kept up-to-date.
When there is a namespace set aside for central points, such as individual topics, wikis do this brilliantly. But many wiki processes simply archive without a central point (or have a week-long discussion which is then frozen, no more discussion to be had).
One aspect of a community facilitation project would be to define a namespace for issues, which might be moved and renamed over time, but would not be 'closed' or 'archived' because someone though a particular proposed implementation was not a good idea. If someone thought it was an issue to consider, then it is a valid point in the namespace, and will always be so. Someone else might come up with a great resolution to that issue in the future; it might be effectively merged with other similar issues; it mght be better understood as a combination of two resolvable issues.
Or it might just remain, with fluctuating priority, as something intractable yet important-to-someone.
For instance, I was looking for the latest thoughts on the topic of 'How to create notability guidelines for a new category' (since [[Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines]] is pretty sparse) without success.
And the a little while before that I wanted to see who else thought G8 shouldn't be used to speedy delete talk pages or subpages with valuable discussions. I had a specific example that would have contributed to the idea that talk pages should be preserved... but there was only a scattering of a dozen discussions across many different talkpage archives.
A permanent page for each of these issues, perhaps with one or more self-selected facilitators willing to help incorporate new thoughts and more towards a long-term resolution, would be interesting. To start with, you could seed the issues namespace with the perennial proposals. [[WP:PEREN]] does not do these justice; and in short order a good facilitator could replace each of the "Reason for previous rejection" statements with a reworded but equally accurate "Current compromise or resolution".
Is there a suitable place on-wiki to put a summary of some of the points in this thread?
Carcharoth
Is there a suitable place on-wiki to put a summary of some of the points in this thread?
Carcharoth
If you don't mind the recursion, I've posted some of the discussion so far to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Issues/Long-term_discussions
which is part of the still-conceptual Community Facilitation project [[WP:CF]]. If a few more people join in and help frame it and where it is going, perhaps it will take off.
SJ
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could pick, which is another strike against this proposal.
And yet you write to one or more regularly, and while your name itself may not be cited, your term "ferrets on crack" will no doubt be reused here until the end of wiki-time.
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat, IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
Keep in mind that "wiki" is just a format, with all the backend required, for editing documents online. It's fast becoming as ubiquitous as paper someday will once have been, and thus our entire project is sort of stuck with a name that in a few years will have the same sense of distinction as 'paperpedia,' or 'pulpedia'.
Anyway, back to the point, wikis are great for documents - not conversations. There are of course ideas out there now for ways to make wiki pages more liquid and perhaps even making its individual elements atomic and rankable - such as to be suitable for discussions. And there are also ideas about making traditionally non-wiki concepts like email more openly editable - waves comes to mind, along with other CMSes that integrate wiki. 'Someday all websites will be wiki?' - Sure, but when that happens we won't need to to call them wikis anymore.
-Stevertigo
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:53 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Email lists have the attention span of ferrets on crack; if we're looking for long-term discussions, MLs are the worst model we could pick, which is another strike against this proposal.
And yet you write to one or more regularly,
I usually only write about transient events which I think will interest this particular small group of hardcore/oldtimer Wikipedians; the only other forums I could think of to reach this same group is the Signpost, and that's a one-way street.
and while your name itself may not be cited, your term "ferrets on crack" will no doubt be reused here until the end of wiki-time.
I'm skeptical; 'ferrets on crack' is an old phrase, and I think I've used it here before without anyone picking up on it. I'd suggest that we check back in a year or two to see who was right, but there's the whole memory-hole problem with MLs... Oh the ironing!
Ironically, wikis are so far the online medium which have done best at long-term conversations: I routinely see talk page conversations where the gaps between one message and another may be a year or three. This is not something I've ever been able to say of email lists, IRC chat, IM, newsgroups, social sites, web aggregators, most every blog...
Keep in mind that "wiki" is just a format, with all the backend required, for editing documents online. It's fast becoming as ubiquitous as paper someday will once have been, and thus our entire project is sort of stuck with a name that in a few years will have the same sense of distinction as 'paperpedia,' or 'pulpedia'.
Generic - like the _Encyclopédie_?
Anyway, back to the point, wikis are great for documents - not conversations. There are of course ideas out there now for ways to make wiki pages more liquid and perhaps even making its individual elements atomic and rankable - such as to be suitable for discussions. And there are also ideas about making traditionally non-wiki concepts like email more openly editable - waves comes to mind, along with other CMSes that integrate wiki. 'Someday all websites will be wiki?'
- Sure, but when that happens we won't need to to call them wikis
anymore.
-Stevertigo
Yes, the best way forward is probably to improve talk pages. They've already proven that they can go the distance; so 'all' that's needed is to make them more user-friendly and longterm-watchable without compromising their longevity.
Web forums and Reddit pages are a good example of this: in theory they should work just as fine as talk pages, since they need not ever close, and forum threads can be 'stickied' to make them as permanently prominent as a WP article. Yet, in practice, they don't work so well. I attribute this to a overly cluttered UI, generally poor search, and their linear presentation.
I'm actually not too enthused about Google Wave for this purpose. Watching the demo, the entire thing seems optimized for short waves with minimal nesting. The history scroll thing is no good for, say, Talk:Jesus, and the comment boxes are all very small and so discourage any in-depth discussion.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Gwern Branwengwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the best way forward is probably to improve talk pages. They've already proven that they can go the distance; so 'all' that's needed
Well, i think we still have a long way to go before we've successfully copied that oldest of wiki formats, the Talmud and its ilk -- and that works for more than talk pages!
Web forums and Reddit pages are a good example of this: in theory they should work just as fine as talk pages, since they need not ever close, and forum threads can be 'stickied' to make them as permanently
Have you tried Diigo? Any thoughts on that sort of interface?
I'm actually not too enthused about Google Wave for this purpose. Watching the demo, the entire thing seems optimized for short waves with minimal nesting. The history scroll thing is no good for, say, Talk:Jesus, and the comment boxes are all very small and so discourage any in-depth discussion.
But this may just be a question of implementing the right interface to a generic sort of tool. The spec doesn't say anythinga bout how to visualize history scrolling or comment boxes.
S
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is something in the original proposal that makes sense to me -- devoting specific attention to long-term facilitation of discussion and resolution of difficult issues. There is something about wiki-time (to borrow a term) that discourages measured discussion over time - if you miss the flashpoint discussion that sets a precedent, people may have moved on and you'll have to restart the original interest again.
Hm. Yeah, to summarise your concept and mine in the most plain and non-controversial terms possible - I'm looking at it simply as a way of looking at DR on en.wiki in a new dimension.
Yes, the technology is forty years old.. but it still apparently suffices for about a hundred other projects and project aspects. Yes, its not ideal to separate discussions or to move on-wiki matters to the mailing list... but what is ideal, and what works for wikien-l and others could at least work for us.
I think the list-vs-wiki distinction is a red herring -- I'd like to see list-to-wiki synchronization so that we never have to have that discussion again -- so to keep things simple, let's imagine what this would look like on-wiki.
I actually just filed a bug to start use markup conversion on [[wiki link]]s in wikien posts. Should work at least on the web archives, and perhaps anyone who gets the HTML version. Still sort of like the google waves idea - though it does look a bit overkill for us here.
Sam had a good idea in this direction : [[Wikipedia:Community Facilitation]] . It's about something more specific than dispute resolution in general, but may be a useful part of what you have in mind, steve. And the idea would be both to discuss [potentially long-term] facilitation, help people get better at it, and practice it in the context of specific issues.
I like it already, and I haven't even looked at it yet.
-Stevertigo
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, its not ideal to separate discussions or to move on-wiki matters to the mailing list... but what is ideal, and what works for wikien-l and others could at least work for us.
I should repeat though that the resolution-l list will not split discussions nor move local discussions to the mailing list that should be on wiki. Those are reasonable boundaries that Thomas outlined.
And "what is ideal" should be a question. (?)
-Stevertigo