Fwd: For improvement of JA situation (Re: [Foundation-l] And blocked again)

Sorry, Andre, you'll see it twice. I forgot to include the address of the list ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:25:47 +0900 Subject: For improvement of JA situation (Re: [Foundation-l] And blocked again) To: Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:46:56 +0100, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thank you for your comment, you let me notice my another wrong wording: I would have liked to say in the first sentence of your quotation, "Ja Wikipedia lacks 'an interest in' administrative issues..." I admit it is very active project, but I doubt its activities have consciousness enough appropriate to keep such a huge project and community. I fear if it is an unsustainable growth. The balance of increase of content and maintenance there might be kept nowadays. So I don't think I have to change the word dormant: a sleeping person could move very actively in a dream but we don't think him awake. As for size, according to a daily and monthly survey of a Wikipedian (User:Mintlef, http://wikipedia.g.hatena.ne.jp/mintleaf/), JA WP has 100 major registered contributors and probably a same number of or larger number of anonymous contributors; It is another sign of lack of intentionally avoiding involvement and engagement in my opinion. And this enormous anonymity make JA issues harder, probably. So here the first question is what we can do motivate those anonyms to register themselves to the project. /##To make a better and comfortable project, perhaps - without personal attacks but feeling of love and approval... but how? I attempted some of expressions of approval and some people found them nice, but right now they are alike of petals in the ocean.) I appreciate your understanding. But not only understanding, if possible, would I like you to give us a help and assistance? I expect it wouldn't be helpful not only JA but also other projects potentially. Before diving into the topic, I would like you to remark a fact I am not there a sysadmin. I thought JA WP needed more helper and requested sysopship twice. My requests were rejected with 65-72% approvals [JA WP holds 75% criteria for promotion]. In my view some of JA users are afraid I am a sort of authoritarians, with an iron rod, and/or suspect I don't shere with them the view what Wikipedia should be. Perhaps at the latter point they might be correct, because I can't assume what kind of view they have (some of you remember the ascii art I showed). As for the former point, I would like not to comment here; it is more suitable to talk in other places, not here on foundation-l. But please remind my opinion belongs only to me as an individual and perhaps it is not a typical view of JA Wikipedians. In my view the core issue of JA WP issues are evasive attitude of users both registered and anonymous. It causes lack of interest on administration and maintenance, avoidance of involvement and engagement, suppression of good interaction on responsibility. And Japanese project is in fact younger than other projects and less experienced, or precisely, experiences what no other project has known. Its increasing rate can be compared only to a few other projects and a half of edits have been done anonymously. With language barriers the experiences on the other projects and wisdom are hardly available there on JA WP. I dare say, JA WP will be someday unsustainable, unless we began right now to make appropriate actions. I assume, one of reasons some of JA people tend to use external forums instead of Village Pump or talk page: fond of anonymity and avoidance of responsibility under a stably using registered name. One day I opposed a sysop say she would post her question not to VP but to a certain forum there I was harassed, but she replied the latter would give her quicker responses. And I admit the fact might be so, but such de facto approval could cause a potential fork and make VP and the community deserted. In my opinion we have not rely on anonymous talk to make our decision, though those people who are for anonymity might have a different opinion. If such additional forum should be discussed to improve the situation, we could later be back to this point.) In my view now regretfully JA WP lacks appropriate governance in proportion to its size. It is one of most active project among us. But perhaps one of most assistance needed ones, I presume. I take this lack of interest and engagement very serious. It is not only a potential hazard on JA WP, but could be on other where people are evasive in general. I heard on some small Wikipedias good editors avoid being nominated as sysop candidate, since they thought they couldn't - here we notice not only lack of involvement but lack of self-esteem. In my opinion the JA WP issues are potentially shared by such other projects and we should seek their resolutions. So , as Andre pointed out, the task of administrators are there visibly harder than on other projects I have ever involved since 2004 in my view. And there among the administrators again the lack of involvement arises. Recently an user requested for adminship but he said clearly he has no intent to use his privileges positively. I objected his promotion because in my view though he is a good editor but not an active contributors and showed clearly not to be an active administrators. But an admin, who is active contributors but seldom use his privileges in my view, supported him with words "it is not a problem, because we have already admins who don't use their privileges). In my view on JA WP such a strange idea has spread for a while - it has become not merely functions to serve as a janitor but a title for eminent users. Personally I don't like this idea. In my view administrator are alike as janitors or gardeners fighting with vandals and trolls and keeping the project as clean as possible. It is not a sort of honors, though it is natural for us to feel honored to be supported and trusted by a number of trusted people. So here too, I think, JA needs to be improved to have more admins; if users have a wrong image, it could be a hazard for them to be appointed. And last, the issues of malice and gossips come. I asked once some good editors to let me recommend them to admins but was denied. They feared to be featured, particularly on the forum I mentioned on the above. After my own harassment, I can't say they were too evasive. It is very a horrible experience, indeed. And here would you let me express my applications for those who support me: they made me succeed in gather my strength in spirit again. But I have been fortunate. I have friends out of JA WP and could pour my worries in front of them. But most of Ja users are active only on Ja and would have no support out of their "community". People could rumored it was a pity but wouldn't cast the consolation to the person embarrassed directly. Or, it was my own case, they came to the embarrassed person and said "I am very sorry. I hope you are back. But I can't support you in public. I don't like to be offended as like as you. But you are a strong person, I know. You can bear it. and I like you." It is not a hostility indeed but I don't think I would like to be a part of such a group. So now it seems to me very reasonable many past active users left that project within three months. So we have here to have another improvement, I guess, but at the same time, I feel it is not my own task: the JA community wouldn't be able to notice what is wrong in this situation, and deny to change the situation, in the worst case. If I recall correctly, Erik Moeller suggested the Foundation or the Board would intervene, I think it might be a possible reaction from us. At least now the interested thread use the name of Wikipedia (it is already a trademark), though the Foundation legally has no right to close it, but can demand it not to use the name of Wikipedia or not to behave there is any sort of relation between that external community and our project. And for the community the Foundation has a right to intervene: for example, not to refer to any other external communication ways as if it is under the control of the Foundation nor the project, not accepted as an official part of the project, nor recommended as an active part of the projects: As for the forum I mentioned, in case they can't improve themselves, it would be helpful at least for the community the Board demands to the community not to refer nor recommend it in the project documents, like the guidebook for newbies (now they did). But on this point I think I am too involved and will appreciate opinions of the third parties who aren't regulars there and give a look on the forum concerned. Both other JA users' feedbacks and ones of other projects' participants will be appliciated. -- Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com -- Aphaea(a)*.wikipedia.org email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com