Since voting for the new project wikinews is well under way... I would like to mention 2 things.
When Erik set the vote, he set the voting bar at 50%. That means that if the number of approval is just over the number of disapproval, the project will be accepted (and obviously, it will be, since much more than 50% of people are supportive).
I would like to first remind that *I* asked Erik to set a vote, to avoid any further accusation of unilateral decision from the board. So, I *support* this vote. However, it was my mistake that I did not check in time the voting bar for the project to go live.
Launching a new projet is something extremely important. A voting bar set at 50% is something I find plain wrong. Though it is too late for this time, I would be very glad if next time a project is proposed, a more consensual procedure is adopted. And at least possibility to agree on some points, and refuse others.
I know that in any decision the global community will adopt, there will be some happy and some unhappy people, and this is also why, though we must sometimes rely on voting procedure because of community size, I see voting as a bad choice. In such a vote, with a 50% barrier, that mean a project may be lauched with as much as 49 people very unhappy among 100. I do not see that as a positive move *at all*. And this in particular as some of those opposing the creation believe this project, as is, could hurt the project overall.
So, it does not matter for this one project (I'll try to give time so that policies are developped which can fit with more expressed opinions) but just as some users were not happy with the way wikispecies was launched, let me just state officially once for all, that I am not happy with such an important decision taken at simple majority.
Anthere
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Anthere-
Since voting for the new project wikinews is well under way... I would like to mention 2 things.
When Erik set the vote, he set the voting bar at 50%. That means that if the number of approval is just over the number of disapproval, the project will be accepted (and obviously, it will be, since much more than 50% of people are supportive).
What matters is not just whether people support or oppose, but also to which degree. As you say, in a simple majority vote, 51% of people could say "Uh yeah, let's give this a try", and 49% "IF WE DO THIS, WE'RE ALL DOOMED! THE SKY WILL FALL DOWN ON US! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" Obviously, this is not a very good basis to start a project on. So I think we should experiment with voting systems which account for the degree of preference.
In general, however, as an innovative organization, I believe we should be willing to try out new things if a majority is enthusiastic about them, and if no significant flaws in the proposal have been pointed out. Those who do not try new things do not learn new things. I fully accept the possibility that Wikinews may be a failure. Even if it will be, it will provide us with many valuable lessons - for the peer review process in Wikipedia, for new projects which operate in a time-critical fashion, for neutrality on current issues, and so forth. And if it succeeds, it will be tremendous.
I also hold the notion that we can find consensus on any project substantially different from the existing ones to be very noble, but very unrealistic. On a project like the Wikimedia Commons, where its usefulness is not in dispute by anyone - yes. But something like Wikiversity or Wikifiction - no.
The consensus principle is great for reasonably small groups of contributors working on an article. It can even scale to some extent when certain objections can be ruled out on the grounds of not being "actionable", as they can be on [[en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]].
As one example of consensus going awry, take my [[en:Wikipedia:Quickpolls]] proposal. In this case, I refined the proposal as best as I could to make everyone happy. The result was a lowest common denominator idea which didn't have some of the safeguards in place that I originally wanted. A consensus process with a large group of people, even if it ever arrives at a conclusion, will *not* magically result in the best possible solution. In some cases, it will result in the worst.
While it is important to listen, it is also important to maintain the integrity and the consistency of an idea. Therefore, even if future project decisions should not use a simple majority rule, I strongly advise against using a consensus rule.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Anthere-
Since voting for the new project wikinews is well under way... I would like to mention 2 things.
When Erik set the vote, he set the voting bar at 50%. That means that if the number of approval is just over the number of disapproval, the project will be accepted (and obviously, it will be, since much more than 50% of people are supportive).
What matters is not just whether people support or oppose, but also to which degree. As you say, in a simple majority vote, 51% of people could say "Uh yeah, let's give this a try", and 49% "IF WE DO THIS, WE'RE ALL DOOMED! THE SKY WILL FALL DOWN ON US! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" Obviously, this is not a very good basis to start a project on. So I think we should experiment with voting systems which account for the degree of preference.
Agreed.
Currently it is not possible to express a degree of acceptance, and it is not either possible to agree with part of the proposal and oppose to another part.
Overall, either we shut down our objections and pronounce a contracted yes, or we pronounce an unsatisfying opposition.
This is frustrating.
In general, however, as an innovative organization, I believe we should be willing to try out new things if a majority is enthusiastic about them, and if no significant flaws in the proposal have been pointed out. Those who do not try new things do not learn new things. I fully accept the possibility that Wikinews may be a failure. Even if it will be, it will provide us with many valuable lessons - for the peer review process in Wikipedia, for new projects which operate in a time-critical fashion, for neutrality on current issues, and so forth. And if it succeeds, it will be tremendous.
I think there are some risks we are not allowed to take, because their consequences will backfire on all projects. We are not just making experiments.
I also hold the notion that we can find consensus on any project substantially different from the existing ones to be very noble, but very unrealistic. On a project like the Wikimedia Commons, where its usefulness is not in dispute by anyone - yes. But something like Wikiversity or Wikifiction - no
Full consensus being an impossibility is NOT an argument for just proposing one way to do a project.
The consensus principle is great for reasonably small groups of contributors working on an article. It can even scale to some extent when certain objections can be ruled out on the grounds of not being "actionable", as they can be on [[en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]].
As one example of consensus going awry, take my [[en:Wikipedia:Quickpolls]] proposal. In this case, I refined the proposal as best as I could to make everyone happy. The result was a lowest common denominator idea which didn't have some of the safeguards in place that I originally wanted. A consensus process with a large group of people, even if it ever arrives at a conclusion, will *not* magically result in the best possible solution. In some cases, it will result in the worst.
The failure of one solution worked along consensus making should not orient us in making further decisions without at least trying to seek consensus.
While it is important to listen, it is also important to maintain the integrity and the consistency of an idea. Therefore, even if future project decisions should not use a simple majority rule, I strongly advise against using a consensus rule.
Regards,
Erik
I am glad to hear that any further projects or rules you will propose will not be voted on simple majority rule. I was not asking for more.
Anthere-
I think there are some risks we are not allowed to take, because their consequences will backfire on all projects.
True. But the least of all possible negative consequences is a temporary loss of reputation. On the other hand, it is also one of the most frequently cited reasons against something like Wikinews.
The failure of one solution worked along consensus making should not orient us in making further decisions without at least trying to seek consensus.
I have tried to do this on Wikinews - the current proposal is very different from what I originally suggested. Consensus seeking is good. Forcing it, requiring it, as the only way forward, is not.
I am glad to hear that any further projects or rules you will propose will not be voted on simple majority rule. I was not asking for more.
The rules for starting new projects have to be ultimately defined by the board. This is one of the decisions which are clearly within the board's authority and mission. Whatever rules the board agrees on - in consensus or through a vote -, I will naturally respect. I hope that the Wikinews proposal will serve as a lesson for defining these rules.
Regards,
Erik
Significant flaws have been pointed out. Legal exposure; and to raise one which I suppose others have: On controversial issues Wikipedia itself is often unable to realize in NPOV in practice. In the news context it is dead certain we will not; experienced news organizations employing trained journalists don't and there is no rational basis for supposing we will.
Fred
From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: 31 Oct 2004 11:59:00 +0100 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikinews
In general, however, as an innovative organization, I believe we should be willing to try out new things if a majority is enthusiastic about them, and if no significant flaws in the proposal have been pointed out.
Fred-
Significant flaws have been pointed out. Legal exposure
You fail to recognize all efforts that have been made to address this very problem. The issue has been discussed in much detail, both on this mailing list and on the wiki. A legal vetting process is part of the basic requirements of the Wikinews proposal. Legal counsel will be sought on controversial issues.
What is and isn't a flaw is often a matter of opinion. I simply disagree with you on the level of risk and the potential remedies.
On controversial issues Wikipedia itself is often unable to realize in NPOV in practice. In the news context it is dead certain we will not; experienced news organizations employing trained journalists don't and there is no rational basis for supposing we will.
NPOV is an ideal, it is not a binary. Meeting certain formal requirements, such as all opinions being attributed, is relatively easy. The issue of balance is much trickier. It is not desirable for us to add off-topic "fluff" to a story simply to make it appear more balanced. More so than the internal factual balance of an article we will have to keep an eye on the overall balance of the site, and the visibility of the stories.
"Experience" in the context of traditional news organizations increasingly means "experience at concealing propaganda" as investigative journalism becomes a rarity and many news organizations deliberately instruct their employees to violate neutrality. The Iraq war was a good example for this violation of neutrality as "embedded journalists" spread their verbal ejaculate all over the papers and TV screens, repeating Pentagon propaganda like the priests in the Middle Ages repeated the Church position on the pulpit.
Wikinews is truly indepedent, the process is egalitarian, neutrality is non-negotiable, and the contributors come from many more different backgrounds than those to standard news media. Thus, there is very much a "rational basis" for supposing we can do a better job than mainstream media on this point.
Regards,
Erik
The first time you appear in Federal Court and begin gaining experience, you will encounter some phenomena which are new to you. You will be amazed at the hourly rate people charge for engaging these interesting phenomena and at the years it takes to decide even the simplest matter, if a Court chooses to hear it.
You will discover that what you reasonably thought was the law, may when considered by a Federal Judge, become subject to serious doubt and sometimes adverse decisions, which, while they could be appealed successfully, require posting of bond guaranteeing payment of the judgement.
It isn't "controversial issues" that will sink you. It's the odd mention of someone, perhaps mistaken identity, a image on the wrong story, etc.
Fred
From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: 31 Oct 2004 13:58:00 +0100 To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikinews
You fail to recognize all efforts that have been made to address this very problem. The issue has been discussed in much detail, both on this mailing list and on the wiki. A legal vetting process is part of the basic requirements of the Wikinews proposal. Legal counsel will be sought on controversial issues.
What is and isn't a flaw is often a matter of opinion. I simply disagree with you on the level of risk and the potential remedies.
Fred-
It isn't "controversial issues" that will sink you. It's the odd mention of someone, perhaps mistaken identity, a image on the wrong story, etc.
As I've already explained to you, Wikipedia is vulnerable to the same thing. Legal defense is something we need for all of our projects due to the very nature of wikis.
Regards,
Erik
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
... Launching a new projet is something extremely important. A voting bar set at 50% is something I find plain wrong.
I agree completely.
</aol>
Though it is too late for this time, I would be very glad if next time a project is proposed, a more consensual procedure is adopted. And at least possibility to agree on some points, and refuse others.
Yes, we need to develop procedures for this type of thing. We also need to build-in ways to help develop consensus and measure the level of support/dissent. Approval voting would help with that.
I know that in any decision the global community will adopt, there will be some happy and some unhappy people, and this is also why, though we must sometimes rely on voting procedure because of community size, I see voting as a bad choice. In such a vote, with a 50% barrier, that mean a project may be lauched with as much as 49 people very unhappy among 100. I do not see that as a positive move *at all*.
Exactly.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org