I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the movement as a whole.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the movement as a whole.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________
Are you suggesting that the WMF, or the Wikimedia community, should impose or agitate for a policy on the English Wikipedia of immunizing prolific contributors from conduct policies?
I'm not sure that would have your intended effect on retention. It has been as commonly argued, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that we are already too lax on vested contributors when it comes to conduct policy... and that this veterans' privilege contributes to a sometimes poisonous atmosphere that damages new editor recruitment and retention.
What might be more useful is the development of better tools to support editors in difficult and important subject areas, better community engagement in those areas, and a mechanism to intervene before the battleground ethos overtakes otherwise sterling contributors.
I would almost like to simply +1 here, but...
Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime editors to account for abuses they may perpetuate on the Wiki.
The hue and cry of "But I contributed XZY!" is true, but irrelevant. If one is abusive on the Wiki, one damages the community in deep and divisive ways. Everyone needs to understand that. If you start disrupting the community, no matter who you are or where you were, it needs to stop.
-george
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the movement as a whole.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________
Are you suggesting that the WMF, or the Wikimedia community, should impose or agitate for a policy on the English Wikipedia of immunizing prolific contributors from conduct policies?
I'm not sure that would have your intended effect on retention. It has been as commonly argued, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that we are already too lax on vested contributors when it comes to conduct policy... and that this veterans' privilege contributes to a sometimes poisonous atmosphere that damages new editor recruitment and retention.
What might be more useful is the development of better tools to support editors in difficult and important subject areas, better community engagement in those areas, and a mechanism to intervene before the battleground ethos overtakes otherwise sterling contributors. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mailing list posts are the wrong place to complain about ArbCom rulings. They provide one point of view in a way that favours one side of the story, while ArbCom has a full process of evidence and debate.
As others have said, en.wikipedia can take care of this stuff, and it isn't appropriate for WMF to micromanage.
On 03/12/12 12:35 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime editors to account for abuses they may perpetuate on the Wiki.
The hue and cry of "But I contributed XZY!" is true, but irrelevant. If one is abusive on the Wiki, one damages the community in deep and divisive ways. Everyone needs to understand that. If you start disrupting the community, no matter who you are or where you were, it needs to stop.
This would be fine if all the established admins who abuse newbies were held to the same standards.
But as has been said, Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's enough to make secret Stalinist processes valid.
Ray
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Nathannawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:00 AM, James Heilmanjmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I must disagree with Risker that this is simply a local issue involving a single project or with a previous editor who feels that English Wikipedia can take care of itself. We have a serious lack of editors not only on English Wikipedia but within the project as a whole and this is getting worse rather than better. The foundation has been putting great efforts into attracting editors and Will's case touches on the issue of recruitment and retention of editors to the project as a whole and thus is directly relevant to the WMF. We have had issues with how some admins treat new editors to the movement and it seems we also have issues with how some of our long standing editors are dealt with specifically by Arbcom. If we base our decisions on isolated behavioral matters exclusively without taking into account content issues or the contribution histories of the editors in question this institution will make bad decisions for the project and the movement as a whole.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________
Are you suggesting that the WMF, or the Wikimedia community, should impose or agitate for a policy on the English Wikipedia of immunizing prolific contributors from conduct policies?
I'm not sure that would have your intended effect on retention. It has been as commonly argued, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, that we are already too lax on vested contributors when it comes to conduct policy... and that this veterans' privilege contributes to a sometimes poisonous atmosphere that damages new editor recruitment and retention.
What might be more useful is the development of better tools to support editors in difficult and important subject areas, better community engagement in those areas, and a mechanism to intervene before the battleground ethos overtakes otherwise sterling contributors.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 03/12/12 12:35 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime editors to account for abuses they may perpetuate on the Wiki.
The hue and cry of "But I contributed XZY!" is true, but irrelevant. If one is abusive on the Wiki, one damages the community in deep and divisive ways. Everyone needs to understand that. If you start disrupting the community, no matter who you are or where you were, it needs to stop.
This would be fine if all the established admins who abuse newbies were held to the same standards.
But as has been said, Wikipedia is not a democracy. That's enough to make secret Stalinist processes valid.
Ray
There is an insidious problem with our privacy and outing policies that force some disciplinary related discussions off-wiki.
Avoiding things like that are why I use my real full name on wiki.
That said - that's the privacy policy nearly everyone has consistently wanted, and I'm far in the corner minority on the wisdom of the privacy policy as a whole there. The private considerations of privacy related abuses are a necessary outgrowth of the policy and community norm on privacy writ large.
There are similar privacy issues in a number of other areas such as the unblock list and OTRS.
It's all nice and good to point out that some of the effects are stalinist (which, to some degree, I agree) but without a total revamp of the privacy approach across the whole project - if not Foundation - that's as far as I know and see the only way to do it. If you have a better balance point proposal or a specific issue with this case, I for one am interested in it, but it really has to work with the totality of the privacy / management situation...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org