Hi all,
My decision to found the admin IRC channel has meant that I've had to take a lot of flak from some of my friends which has been quite upsetting. I thought I would write this email to the list to explain what I see its purpose as. This also serves to highlight the importance of RC patrol.
I started the channel following Danny's suggestion that there should be a private place for discussion of confidential issues which we don't want the public (and by extension, the media) to know about. Such issues include complaints to the Foundation about libel in articles. Everyone should know this is one of Wikipedia's greatest problems, that anyone can say nasty things about someone else and quite often this isn't picked up on RC patrol.
Danny's suggestion for a private method of communication between "trusted users" given the issues we face was an excellent one in my opinion and I thought that an IRC channel is an ideal medium for this type of discussion to occur. Admins form a pretty diverse group of trustworthy users (all admins have the best interests of their project at heart) so for simplicity I created the channel for admins only.
The suggestion of a "trusted user" group is an interesting idea but unfortunately very selective. Who is responsible for choosing who is a trusted user? Whoever it was, there would be a large number of people who would be missed off even though they are perfectly trustworthy. Also, think of the consequences if someone found out if they weren't considered trustworthy as they weren't given channel access - it would be quite demoralising for one. Rationally, there may be perfectly solid reasons why they weren't given access but emotionally it is still demoralising. That's why I went by the simple, easily-defined standard of admins on the English-language Wikipedia.
Later Danny and I talked about the scope of the channel and raised the point that people who work the OTRS lists should be given access, since they get the bulk of the libel complaints and are best placed to notify people of potential issues. This is an entirely sensible argument.
Some people have raised concerns about backroom decisions, cliques and the lack of transparency this channel will create. These are fair comments to raise but I believe they are unfounded. Firstly, the channel's purpose is not a decision-making one. Unrelated chit-chatter and non-confidential discussions are pointed out as inappropriate for the channel and go on to take place in #wikipedia. Some admins have refused to join because they think the channel is closed and hidden. I think a better action for them to take would be to join, and self-regulate what the channel discusses. If it's not appropriate, ask the people discussing to talk in a different channel.
On a related note, the entire reason this channel exists is due to the problem we face from libel. This is why we must be grateful for the existing work people who work RC patrol do, and we should do everything we can to help them out. Problems which are ending up in OTRS and the admin channel are due to edits slipping through RC patrol. What we need to do is make their job easier. Admins who help out on RC patrol know the huge difference admin rollback makes, compared to having to do it manually. This is why we should either make the majority of RC patrollers admins, or give them access to rollback. Because of the rising standards for becoming an admin on the English language Wikipedia, the former is becoming more hard. Arguments of "adminship is no big deal" have now become "adminship should be no big deal". We have to recognise that this shift has taken place - and those who hold this principle should take part in RFA more, supporting more candidates.
Another - and better - solution, however, is to grant the rollback privilege to good contributors who are not admins. This would make the jobs of RC patrollers much easier - and will have the knock-on effect of lowering the amount of complaints the Foundation gets. The Foundation agrees that this is a great solution to the big problem we face. There is a poll to gauge community consensus on the issue: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll
Chris (Talrias)
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Another - and better - solution, however, is to grant the rollback privilege to good contributors who are not admins. This would make the jobs of RC patrollers much easier - and will have the knock-on effect of lowering the amount of complaints the Foundation gets. The Foundation agrees that this is a great solution to the big problem we face. There is a poll to gauge community consensus on the issue: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback_privileges/Poll
Chris (Talrias)
Aside from all other comments you made (in which I do not wish to enter, at least not now), I must absolutely ask where does the statement "the Foundation agrees it is a great solution to the big problem we face".
Afaik, the board members never discussed the issue between themselves (and I actually doubt they should); and even less issued a statement on the matter.
Libel accusations and their legal consequences directly impact the Foundation. And yes, deserve much more attention that they currently get (a dual system involving both the new channel and OTRS members from all languages is definitly interesting in that prospect).
However, a new feature to improve vandalism fight is more of a community issue. Community which must find a way to convince the developers to set up the feature. If you give good arguments, I am sure you can convince them. But I do not remember the Foundation saying anything on the matter. Nor do I think it is its job at all.
Ant
Anthere wrote:
Aside from all other comments you made (in which I do not wish to enter, at least not now), I must absolutely ask where does the statement "the Foundation agrees it is a great solution to the big problem we face".
Jimbo and I have discussed this on several occasions.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Aside from all other comments you made (in which I do not wish to enter, at least not now), I must absolutely ask where does the statement "the Foundation agrees it is a great solution to the big problem we face".
Jimbo and I have discussed this on several occasions.
Chris
Jimbo is Jimbo. Jimbo is the foundator. Jimbo is the benevolent dictator. Jimbo is the chair of the Foundation.
But Jimbo is NOT the Foundation.
Assimilating ONE person to a full group of people is RUDE.
It denies our existence. It denies our efforts. It denies the work we are putting in the Foundation itself. It denies the very existence of our personal opinions. It makes us appear as if we were puppets.
And this is NOT acceptable.
When you talk to a person, you receive the opinion of this person. ONLY.
Ant, a PERSON.
On 1/25/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
But Jimbo is NOT the Foundation.
Assimilating ONE person to a full group of people is RUDE.
It denies our existence. It denies our efforts. It denies the work we are putting in the Foundation itself. It denies the very existence of our personal opinions. It makes us appear as if we were puppets.
And this is NOT acceptable.
When you talk to a person, you receive the opinion of this person. ONLY.
Ant, a PERSON.
Ant, I really don't think Chris was attempting to be rude. Yes, he carelessly took one person's opinion to represent that of several people, but I am sure that this was an honest mistake, not a malicious (or even thought-out) attempt to bypass the work you do.
Indeed, I don't think anyone would underestimate the work you do. I am sure that this was really only the result of a misunderstanding.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 1/25/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
But Jimbo is NOT the Foundation.
Assimilating ONE person to a full group of people is RUDE.
It denies our existence. It denies our efforts. It denies the work we are putting in the Foundation itself. It denies the very existence of our personal opinions. It makes us appear as if we were puppets.
And this is NOT acceptable.
When you talk to a person, you receive the opinion of this person. ONLY.
Ant, a PERSON.
Ant, I really don't think Chris was attempting to be rude. Yes, he carelessly took one person's opinion to represent that of several people, but I am sure that this was an honest mistake, not a malicious (or even thought-out) attempt to bypass the work you do.
Indeed, I don't think anyone would underestimate the work you do. I am sure that this was really only the result of a misunderstanding.
-- Sam
I am *sure* it was an honest mistake. This is nevertheless not the first time, not even the first time *this* week. And this is disheartening.
On 1/25/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am *sure* it was an honest mistake. This is nevertheless not the first time, not even the first time *this* week. And this is disheartening.
I think most of these "honest mistakes" are due to the fact that there are very few statements by the Board as a whole. Thus statements by individual Board members are understood as being on behalf of the Board as a whole.
Though I recognise the difficulty presented, I do think it would reduce these confusions if a definitive statement "by the Board" could be presented more often.
-- Sam
I have to agree with Sam; I myself have been guilty of saying "the Board" or "the Foundation" when what I mean is "Jimbo." Unfortunately, it is from Jimbo that we outside the "Foundation walls" most often hear, and it is from Jimbo that most "executive orders" issue. We can't help but be confused at exactly where Jimbo's authority to bind the Foundation begins and ends. When he says "We should do this, it shall be done" (as he does from time to time), is it inappropriate to say "The Foundation says that..." For example, when page creation by anons was turned off on EN, (at least acording to Brion) it was done by order of Jimbo; are we (and the press as well) wrong in saying "The Wikimedia Foundation ordered..."
Not being privvy to the internal discussions, it becomes very hard for us to figure out where Jimbo stops and the Foundation starts, particularly because we don't know if he has discussed it with the rest of the Board (consulted with Congress?) or if he is doing it on his own authority (issuing an Executive Order?).
Perhaps we need to force him to put disclaimers on all his statements: "I'm Jimbo Wales, and I approved this message" vs. "I'm Jimbo Wales, and the Foundation approved this message." Better, however, would be to realize that as frustrating as it may be to see the two confused, it goes a lot farther to gently correct the mistake, rather than dressing down the person who made the mistake. After all, they are a person, too, and they have feelings, too. We should all try harder (our hardest, every day) to set the best example we can, whether that be to look back over what we're saying and make sure we have our terms straight, or biting our tongue when our toes have been stepped on.
Now, (as I love to say) "Everybody back to work!"
Essjay
On 1/25/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/25/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I am *sure* it was an honest mistake. This is nevertheless not the first time, not even the first time *this* week. And this is disheartening.
I think most of these "honest mistakes" are due to the fact that there are very few statements by the Board as a whole. Thus statements by individual Board members are understood as being on behalf of the Board as a whole.
Though I recognise the difficulty presented, I do think it would reduce these confusions if a definitive statement "by the Board" could be presented more often.
-- Sam _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
Anthere wrote:
Jimbo is Jimbo.
Indeed. :) It is never ever a good idea to take something that I say as foundation policy or opinion, particularly when I've merely expressed vague agreement with a general idea in an irc chat.
My support of the concept of rollback privileges is of the form: "If, in the judgment of a broad cross section of the community, similar to the nearly unanimous support we saw for semi-protection, this is a good feature, then of course I will gladly endorse it. In the meantime it sounds more or less like a good idea to me, but I defer to the judgment of those who know better."
--Jimbo
Anthere wrote:
Jimbo is Jimbo. Jimbo is the foundator. Jimbo is the benevolent dictator. Jimbo is the chair of the Foundation.
But Jimbo is NOT the Foundation.
Assimilating ONE person to a full group of people is RUDE.
It denies our existence. It denies our efforts. It denies the work we are putting in the Foundation itself. It denies the very existence of our personal opinions. It makes us appear as if we were puppets.
And this is NOT acceptable.
When you talk to a person, you receive the opinion of this person. ONLY.
Ant, a PERSON.
Anthere, you know you and I have talked often enough and I respect your personal contributions and beliefs enough that I would never intend to deny your own efforts. I meant Jimbo, and I'm sorry for the mistake in phrasing.
Chris
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org