While it's nice that Mav is happy about this, I'm still somewhat annoyed.
It's clear that there was no consensus in the broader Wikimedia community for this. If there was a discussion on meta, I haven't seen it, so it would only be those people who are subscribed to the list that would've known about this. It's also apparent that even on the list, Mav wasn't the only one with objections. But because the three or four proponents of this shouted him (and others) down more vocally, it seems the board decides to go off and do their own thing. I don't make the accusation that it was underhanded, but at the same time, I hope it won't be something that's repeated.
If there is a non-forking policy, where is it, and why haven't I heard of it until now? If there is conditions placed on the creation of Wikispecies, what were they? Disclosure, people, disclosure.
I still believe that Wikispecies should be treated the same as Mark's attempt to start a Traditional Chinese Wikipedia has been - suspended until there is community consensus for it to exist.
-- ambi
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
While it's nice that Mav is happy about this, I'm still somewhat annoyed.
Well I'm not happy - just *OK* with the outcome. The in-between stuff was rather unpleasant though.
It's clear that there was no consensus in the broader Wikimedia community for this. If there was a discussion on meta, I haven't seen it, so it would only be those people who are subscribed to the list that would've known about this. It's also apparent that even on the list, Mav wasn't the only one with objections.
Turns out that most of those objections were considered and a compromise plan created based on that. The trouble was a complete lack of communication informing everybody about this.
I do agree that more people should have been involved and more time given. Saying things like 'most people wouldn't get the idea so let's not bother them about it' is kinda paternalist, IMO. If consensus could not be reached, we could have a Wikimedia-wide vote where people could choose 1 to 5 for each question; 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (somewhat disagree), 3 (don't know, don't care), 4 (somewhat agree), and 5 (strongly agree). So the people who don't know or don't care about that question will not mess up the results one way or another by that fact.
But because the three or four proponents of this shouted him (and others) down more vocally, it seems the board decides to go off and do their own thing. I don't make the accusation that it was underhanded, but at the same time, I hope it won't be something that's repeated.
Actually I thought is was more the other way around... :)
If there is a non-forking policy, where is it, and why haven't I heard of it until now? If there is conditions placed on the creation of Wikispecies, what were they? Disclosure, people, disclosure.
Due to miscommunication it isn't easy to find. But here you go: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/5_September_2004 http://species.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikispecies_Charter
-- mav (aka Daniel Mayer)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Rebecca wrote:
It's also apparent that even on the list, Mav wasn't the only one with objections. But because the three or four proponents of this shouted him (and others) down more vocally, it seems the board decides to go off and do their own thing.
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of what happened at all. No one shouted down anyone. What happened was that there was a big discussion that we on the board judged to end in a consensus; we attempted to formulate the consensus as a proposal and approve it so that we could all move forward together on the next steps.
Where we failed was as follows: (1) I think we misjudged that there was a consensus, that there was an easy middle way to satisfy all parties and (2) we did not bring Mav and others appropriately into the final decisionmaking loop in order to make sure that everyone was happy with the compromise proposal *before* moving forward.
These failings are very much noted and will not happen again.
The main thing I want people to understand is that no one shouted anyone down to get their way, and that the board did not "go off and do their own thing".
If there is a non-forking policy, where is it, and why haven't I heard of it until now? If there is conditions placed on the creation of Wikispecies, what were they? Disclosure, people, disclosure.
Look, I don't want to be blunt, but sometimes I have to be blunt. Did you even read the announcement? Did you read the detailed meeting minutes that were published? There's not much else to disclose other than what I was wearing at the time of the meeting.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of what happened at all. No one shouted down anyone. What happened was that there was a big discussion that we on the board judged to end in a consensus; we attempted to formulate the consensus as a proposal and approve it so that we could all move forward together on the next steps.
My general decision-making objection is that in all cases, it should be: 1) Wikipedian discussion 2) Determination that there is a consensus 3) Statement that there appears to be a consensus, and propose something based on that 4) Wait for comments on that proposed consensus-based whatever-it-is 5) Implement it
There doesn't appear to have been an interest in 3-4 here: instead it was straight from "board determines there is a consensus" to "board implements", which should *never* happen---it should go from "board determines there is a consensus" to "board *proposes* an action to the community."
-Mark
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:28:22 -0400 Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote: My general decision-making objection is that in all cases, it should be:
- Wikipedian discussion
- Determination that there is a consensus
- Statement that there appears to be a consensus, and propose something
based on that 4) Wait for comments on that proposed consensus-based whatever-it-is 5) Implement it
There doesn't appear to have been an interest in 3-4 here: instead it was straight from "board determines there is a consensus" to "board implements", which should *never* happen---it should go from "board determines there is a consensus" to "board *proposes* an action to the community."
Is this democracy or bureaucracy? I'm not sure. If I read it correctly, your proposal is to:
1) discuss the merites of something 2) make a decision on basis of that discussion 3) discuss the merites of the decision 4) implement the decision
But who is going to decide that the conclusion after 3 (4 in your list) is any more applicable than the one after 1 (conclusion 2 in your list)? So if we go with you, the correct procedure seems to be:
1) Wikipedian discussion 2) Determination that there is a consensus 3) Statement that there appears to be a consensus, and propose something based on that 4) Wait for comments on that proposed consensus-based whatever-it-is 5) Determination that there is a consensus on the something 6) Repeat 3-5 until everyone is too tired of the subject to make another posting 7) Implement
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
Is this democracy or bureaucracy? I'm not sure. If I read it correctly, your proposal is to:
- discuss the merites of something
- make a decision on basis of that discussion
- discuss the merites of the decision
- implement the decision
The idea is to propose the decision before implementing it, so if it turns out to be based on false assumptions or misunderstandings, it can be noted. This is how we usually do things around here: if there's a discussion and you think it's reached a consensus (say, on moving an article), you don't just do it, you post saying: do we have a consensus to move this to [[blah]] then? Then you wait a day or two before actually moving it.
-Mark
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit: There's not much else to disclose other
than what I was wearing at the time of the meeting.
--Jimbo
And ?
There is nothing to disclose, for I wore nothing. ;-)
How are we supposed to think business after such disclosure of information ? ;-)
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a �crit:
Anthere wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a �crit: There's not much else to disclose other
than what I was wearing at the time of the meeting.
--Jimbo
And ?
There is nothing to disclose, for I wore nothing. ;-)
How are we supposed to think business after such disclosure of information ? ;-)
Great - that is the last thing I want to think about in a meeting (who else is naked besides me?). :)
-- mav
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
On 16 Sep 2004, at 20:57, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit: There's not much else to disclose other
than what I was wearing at the time of the meeting.
--Jimbo
And ?
There is nothing to disclose, for I wore nothing. ;-)
Ah. I always wondered what the Bomis erotica business was about.
-- Jens
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit: There's not much else to disclose other
than what I was wearing at the time of the meeting.
--Jimbo
And ?
There is nothing to disclose, for I wore nothing. ;-)
Don't let the journalists know, or they'll have another reason we're not as professional as Britannica. =]
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit: There's not much else to disclose other
than what I was wearing at the time of the meeting.
--Jimbo
And ?
There is nothing to disclose, for I wore nothing. ;-)
Don't let the journalists know, or they'll have another reason we're not as professional as Britannica. =]
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Brittain was an empire, now why is it a good thing when you know you do not wear any clothes ??
GerardM
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org