Hello,
I think we should think a bit out of the box here. If we are thinking
about breaking the English Wikipedia apart, we might as well consider
other "revolutionary" ideas.
What we see here, in fact, is a slow but persistent collapse of
Wikipedia's management system. This is hardly surprising. First of all,
the community of editor is huge, and more complex mechanisms are needed
to make things work. All attempts to create such mechanisms (e.g.
Arbitration Committee, WikiProjects etc) have failed. Another problem is
that the popularity of Wikipedia encourages people to use it
manipulatively. The reaction to that is offering the admins more and
more "weapons" which are too often used excessively and deter new
editors from joining in.
WikiProjects have become "cabals", something Wikipedia wished to prevent
from its very beginning. It would be wrong to encourage this trend by
labeling users. We also have an obligation to assume good faith and to
encourage collaborative work. Defining certain users as "trust-worthy"
is counterproductive in this sense, and invites all kinds of
manipulations we wouldn't like to see.
As a first step, I think it would be useful to appoint an ombudsman to
Wikipedia, either one to all of them or to each one. We can start with
the English Wikipedia. This ombudsman will be identified by her/his real
name and receive complaints from editors and from people who are
subjects of articles. While this person can use help from other
Wikipedians, it is important that there would be one person who would
lead this work and be known, reachable and responsible to answer every
complaint. The idea that anonymous admins, who act mainly upon their own
personal judgment, can handle every problem, should be cast aside. It is
also important that such ombudsman publish a public report about the
complaints received in a certain period of time and how they were
handled. It is also important that s/he would have the authority to
intervene in the decisions of admins in certain cases, e.g. BLP.
While I am quite sure about the problem, I am not so sure about the
solution I'm suggesting here. Other solutions should be considered. And
yet, we have to bear in mind the principle. We have to aim to equality
among editors rather than create "classes", we have to encourage new
editors rather than give too much power to veteran ones, we have to
create an atmosphere that would encourage collaborative work. This is
not the atmosphere on the English Wikipedia at this point in time.
Dror K
בתאריך 14/03/11 14:20, ציטוט SlimVirgin:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:35,
FT2<ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The other thing we thought was that there is
benefit in recognizing editors
whom the community agrees are competent, edit well sourced neutral good
quality material, and act well, across the board. ... If there were some way to
communally recognize such users (call
them "proven editors" lacking a better term) it would have some immense
advantages. ...
The aim is to make recognition of this kind very widespread within the
community and to actively coach and encourage uptake and success -- a
recognition routinely won by many editors who have been active for over a
year or so.
This is a good idea, but your first and second paragraphs contradict
themselves somewhat. If "proven editor" were a status people had to
strive for, and really didn't want to lose, it couldn't be something
awarded routinely to anyone active for over a year. We have lots of
people active for over a year who are very poor editors. They
currently have no reason to improve themselves, because so long as
they don't engage in behavioral problems their status continues
uninterrupted.
If we could create a carrot -- "proven editor" or whatever we call it
-- that required the acquisition of editorial skills that were within
the reach of just about anyone who applied herself, it would give
people something to aim for other than adminship. But there would have
to be a real improvement in their editing, not just "you've shown that
you're not a complete idiot," otherwise it's patronizing and
worthless.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l