In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, andreengels@gmail.com writes:
We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get the whole wiki in flames for a week.>>
I would submit that this tells you something very significant. The community likes freedom, and they don't like the suppression of freedom. The police do not like freedom, and they do like to suppress it. When a group of police decide to gang up on a contributor, that contributor has no "friend" on their side. You cannot appeal to the police to stop the police.
That's my main point. However it has to be worked out. We need a contrasting force, that is dedicated to the freedom of the contributor.
Will
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, andreengels@gmail.com writes:
We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get the whole wiki in flames for a week.>>
I would submit that this tells you something very significant. The community likes freedom, and they don't like the suppression of freedom.
No, it means that whoever you block there will always be *someone* who is against it and makes an issue out of it that the block is unfair etcetera. It does not mean that *the community* is of that opinion.
The police do not like freedom, and they do like to suppress it. When a group of police decide to gang up on a contributor, that contributor has no "friend" on their side. You cannot appeal to the police to stop the police.
You can appeal to other sysops, to the arbcom, to the community. What you are proposing is to have *every* case be appealed to the community automatically. There are always some people who are of the opinion that if you have made personal attacks 30 times that is still 20 times too few to be blocked.
That's my main point. However it has to be worked out. We need a contrasting force, that is dedicated to the freedom of the contributor.
No, we don't. We need forces to help the encyclopedia get further. We don't need a force of people who stop people who are helping creating it, and we don't need a force of people who support people who are not helping creating it.
As I interpret what André says, I agree with him:
We need, as does every voluntary society, the involvement of many ordinary members in each aspect of the government of the society. We need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion, expressed without fear of rejection for not following the established forms.
To the extent that we have special cadres, they will be self-perpetuating and excluding. To maintain coherence, we need a limitation in the numbers of people able to take the final action--as admins or arbs do--but not in the numbers of people who participate in making the decision.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, andreengels@gmail.com writes:
We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get the whole wiki in flames for a week.>>
I would submit that this tells you something very significant. The community likes freedom, and they don't like the suppression of freedom.
No, it means that whoever you block there will always be *someone* who is against it and makes an issue out of it that the block is unfair etcetera. It does not mean that *the community* is of that opinion.
The police do not like freedom, and they do like to suppress it. When a group of police decide to gang up on a contributor, that contributor has no "friend" on their side. You cannot appeal to the police to stop the police.
You can appeal to other sysops, to the arbcom, to the community. What you are proposing is to have *every* case be appealed to the community automatically. There are always some people who are of the opinion that if you have made personal attacks 30 times that is still 20 times too few to be blocked.
That's my main point. However it has to be worked out. We need a contrasting force, that is dedicated to the freedom of the contributor.
No, we don't. We need forces to help the encyclopedia get further. We don't need a force of people who stop people who are helping creating it, and we don't need a force of people who support people who are not helping creating it.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:05 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion, expressed without fear of rejection for not following the established forms.
Surely the established forms are quite limited, the wiki and the internet in general being a text-based way of communicating.
Are you suggesting people take part in deletion debates through the medium of interpretive dance?
Next time I want to warn a vandal I'll make some pottery that voices my displeasure and upload a JPEG to Commons.
I regret having been so unclear as to not have made it obvious that the established forms referred to the Wikipedia formal channels of DR, AfD, and the like. I have sen too many justified complaints rejected and the people placing them attacked and humiliated for not following the correct details of procedure or using the correct Board to post on, or not first asking humbly someone who gives every sign of being gruff and unaccommodating.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:05 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion, expressed without fear of rejection for not following the established forms.
Surely the established forms are quite limited, the wiki and the internet in general being a text-based way of communicating.
Are you suggesting people take part in deletion debates through the medium of interpretive dance?
Next time I want to warn a vandal I'll make some pottery that voices my displeasure and upload a JPEG to Commons.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:05 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We need, as does every voluntary society, the involvement of many ordinary members in each aspect of the government of the society. We need, thus, the influence of community opinion--expressed opinion, expressed without fear of rejection for not following the established forms.
To the extent that we have special cadres, they will be self-perpetuating and excluding. To maintain coherence, we need a limitation in the numbers of people able to take the final action--as admins or arbs do--but not in the numbers of people who participate in making the decision.
I'm sorry, but if that's where you agree with me, you _have_ misunderstood me. I stand for exactly the opposite. I think it is a terrible waste of energy to get the community involved in each and every blocking decision. To form a good opinion about a block will often cost considerable time (an hour or so) of reading in on the conflict. Because of that I don _not_ want each and every person doing that on each and every block. Instead, we appoint a few people that we trust to do this reading and decision-making in our place - read: the arbcom.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org