I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.
I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion. If you want to support it with reasons, that's great, but I'd like us to hold off on attack each others' opinions for right now, so that we can actually get an idea of what we all simply think.
If you don't want to send your reply to the list, send it to me, and I'll do my best to compile a summary.
As I see it, there are two issues under debate: whether there is a problem; and if so, what the solution should be.
=======
ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly egregious. Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away, in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive in an open, free atmosphere.
OTHER: [Insert your take on this debate here.]
=======
ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers to ban and to delete pages permanently. "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and to ban IP numbers. There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is appropriate and when not.
The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out by our sysops.
The Moderators Option: Rather than having giving power to all sysops who ask for it, we should give the power to moderators on a rotating basis. They act explicitly as judges, adjudicating disputes and building up a history of cases that allows us to find-tune and rationally apply the rules that eliminate from our presence trolls and others who simply refuse to play by the rules. They are responsible for judging by the rules fairly, and as a result the office of moderator is rewarded with moral authority.
Other Option: [Describe your solution here.]
I would be all for your rotating moderators proposal except for one thing; the user RK. He has an incredible number of "edits" to his name, but with his style of trying to (not) work with people, giving him moderatorship would be like handing a flame-thrower to a psychopath in a crowded subway station.
I agree with Ed, Isis, and others that "Throbbing Monster Cock" isn't an appropriate name for the Wiki, even though it is a good joke when you see the picture of the chicken.
I think Ed, and many others would be great with "moderator" powers. But I worry that with powers come the power-hungry, drawn like moths to a flame. I'd rather put up with some inconvenience now, than suffer when the power-hungry finally manage to weasel their way into positions of power sometime down the road.
Lir is a nuisance, and I'm not sure what the solution to her is. She seems to honestly try to contribute, but she just doesn't know how an encyclopedia should go, and what things are appropriate to put in, and what things are better left out. Her articles on Sumer and "Wealth of the Nations" are good examples. The problem is she is so prolific; she overwhelms the small number of editors who are available to "fix" her modifications.
How do we know she isn't a saboteur sent from the Encyclopedia Britannica to mess up the Wikipedia? She has lowered the tone and credibility of an incredible number of our articles.
But I find it hard to recommend any specific action against her; there are those who violently disagree with my edits on some religious topics on the Wikipedia, and if Lir is acted against, how much longer until they demand that I be limited, merely because of my holding a different POV from the majority? I sincerely want the Wikipedia to be the best it can be; and my intimate knowledge of some of the topics I edit *is* at odds with what many people believe; what will protect me from mob rule, when the mob considers my NPOV to be straight-up false propaganda?
The one thing I can say is I agree that clarification and codification of our cultural policies are always appropriate. Our Debian "policy" document now runs many pages in length, but it lets all of us work smoothly and harmoniously together, despite being 1000 strong.
Jonathan
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 02:33:29PM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.
I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion. If you want to support it with reasons, that's great, but I'd like us to hold off on attack each others' opinions for right now, so that we can actually get an idea of what we all simply think.
If you don't want to send your reply to the list, send it to me, and I'll do my best to compile a summary.
As I see it, there are two issues under debate: whether there is a problem; and if so, what the solution should be.
=======
ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly egregious. Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away, in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive in an open, free atmosphere.
OTHER: [Insert your take on this debate here.]
=======
ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of powers to ban and to delete pages permanently. "SoftSecurity" alone is adequate as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and to ban IP numbers. There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is appropriate and when not.
The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out by our sysops.
The Moderators Option: Rather than having giving power to all sysops who ask for it, we should give the power to moderators on a rotating basis. They act explicitly as judges, adjudicating disputes and building up a history of cases that allows us to find-tune and rationally apply the rules that eliminate from our presence trolls and others who simply refuse to play by the rules. They are responsible for judging by the rules fairly, and as a result the office of moderator is rewarded with moral authority.
| ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof. | | PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies | (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the | basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer | pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional | actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly | productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with | these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem. | | CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their | numbers and effects are perfectly manageable and are not particularly | egregious. Either "well-respected, clearly productive members of the | community"--whose value is probably overrated--are not being driven away, | in fact, or if they are, so much the worse for them, if they can't thrive | in an open, free atmosphere.
CONTRA: While there are of course people who abuse Wikipedia, their numbers and effects are manageable. Well-respected, clearly productive members of the community have become tired of spending their time on janitorial work, and in some cases have declared that they are leaving altogether. Some of these users have since returned, now concentrating on producing articles rather than fighting trolls and vandals. There is as yet no indication that there are insufficient people willing to perform the clean-up work.
| ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
1. | The Anarchist/Radical Freedom Option: We should strip everyone of | powers to ban and to delete pages permanently[1]. "SoftSecurity" alone | is adequate as a safeguard against Wikipedia's abusers.
2. | The Status Quo Option: We should continue on as we have been in recent | months, viz., everyone has, for the asking, the power to delete pages and | to ban IP numbers. There doesn't need to be set policy on when this is | appropriate and when not.
3. | The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and | settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out | by our sysops.
Option 3 is best if the rule is that we should rely on soft security as much as possible. Otherwise, option 1 is better.
-M-
[1] Deleting pages is a separate issue. If history-preserving delete isn't working yet, I think we should do without the ability to delete pages until such a time as it is -- it's just too divisive. We can live with just blanking them.
If/when we have history-preserving delete, then I see no good reason not to make it available to all users.
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 17:50, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
[1] Deleting pages is a separate issue. If history-preserving delete isn't working yet, I think we should do without the ability to delete pages until such a time as it is -- it's just too divisive. We can live with just blanking them.
If/when we have history-preserving delete, then I see no good reason not to make it available to all users.
We have history-preserving delete. It's available only to sysops.
I don't think that's terrible terrible, but mainly because I expect that sysop capacity will be something automatically granted to all semifrequent users.
Matthew Woodcraft wrote in part:
[1] Deleting pages is a separate issue. If history-preserving delete isn't working yet, I think we should do without the ability to delete pages until such a time as it is -- it's just too divisive. We can live with just blanking them.
It's not working as well as it could, in my opinion. In particular, you can't view a deleted page without restoring it (after which you have to delete it again, if you only wanted a look). We also need a way to restore a deleted page that's been recreated, by melding the histories together (has anybody needed this yet?). But it works.
If/when we have history-preserving delete, then I see no good reason not to make it available to all users.
Deleting a page can be much more disruptive than blanking it. I'd restrict it to logged in users, just like moving pages is, to discourage casual use by newbies (including new vandals). But we'll *definitely* want a non-reviving viewing option if this happens, since there will be more deletions that will need review, and we don't need to clutter the deletion log with a bunch of redeletions of resurrected pages.
This still makes it available to all users, of course, but it makes it harder to get to. (They call this "Security by obscurity" over on MeatBall ^_^.)
-- Toby
Larry,
good idea. I presume you wrote this before reading my response to your last mail, so here are my additions.
ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
PRO: There is indeed a serious problem now on Wikipedia. Many newbies (and some people who have been here for a while) brazenly violate the basic defining rules of our community, and presently, neither peer pressure, nor following violators around constantly, nor the occasional actual sanction seems to be solving this problem. Well-respected, clearly productive members of the community are driven away by having to deal with these people or such behaviors, and this is a really serious problem.
OTHER: I see two possible problems: a problem of simple, easy to discern vandalism and nonsense on the one hand and not so simple to evaluate violations of group policy on the other hand. I submit that vandalism is a significant and possibly growing problem that is not properly addressed, because, while it's simple to solve, too few people are involved in its solution (too few sysops), but increasing their number also increases the risks of abuse and error. The current administration is therefore not scalable.
I do consider the problem of regular users who break rules significant, but not urgent, and believe that our policy needs to focus on rehabilitation. I further submit that we do, in fact, need a decision process to decide which policies we want to enforce against regular users and how much leeway we want to give them, i.e. to which extent we want to rely on "soft security".
ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
OTHER: The Open Voting Option: Users can create two types of polls, inquiry polls (non binding) and policy polls (binding, with enforcement). Only a smaller group of users (still larger than the current admin group) can create policy polls, but the same group of users (e.g. everyone with >=n contributions) can vote in both types of polls. Policy polls can contain only specific types of options: ban user X, delete page Y, etc., but still follow the same discussion/voting principle.
Polls get their own namespace, and on the page where the poll is, users can also provide arguments for or against the different options. So I would go to [[Poll:Ban Lir]] and could see the different opinions and vote on them.
PRO CONTRA Lir has made many silly Lir has made xx valuable contributions and can't contributions and is trying be trusted to improve her behavior
VOTE
Yes [ ] No [ ] Don't care [ ] More info needed [ ] .. other standard options for policy polls? ..
Inquiry polls would allow the options to be defined freely and primarily be used to gather opinions in less extreme conflicts among reasonable persons. As voting styles, both first-past-the-post (winner takes all) and preferential voting are reasonably simple and should be supported, policy polls work better with fpp voting (clearly distinct options).
Recently added polls would be listed on a separate page like Recent_changes. The poll would be closed after a given timespan, defined by the person who creates it. For policy polls, depending on the type of action, we could set different threshold for whether we want to take it, e.g. banning an anon user should be easier than banning a signed in user. Minimum number of votes may be necessary, but not too high.
Possible problems: - we need to develop effective ways to deal with vote flooding in the long term (the system can be designed to repel basic attacks) - ??
Regards,
Erik
Larry Sanger wrote:
I solicit your opinion--yes, you, humble (or exalted) list member.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to your august majesty.
I ask you, dear reader and fellow Wikipedian, to offer your mere opinion.
Thanks, that's better.
ISSUE 1. The problem or lack thereof.
I agree with Matthew Woodcraft's non-strawman CONTRA. That doesn't mean that there can't be improvements, as below.
ISSUE 2. What to do about the problem, if anything.
The Status Quo, Plus Clearer Principles Option: We need to debate and settle upon some clear principles about when sanctions are to be meted out by our sysops.
That's basically my choice.
There are some smaller matters of refining the banning process: * Technical fixes to avoid banning innocent users; * Granting all administrators the ability to ban logged in users (whether by user name or just letting us find out their IP numbers; this may depend on how the previous point plays out); * Unbanning vandals after (say) a week and automatically adding them to a page like mav's [[Wikipedia:IP watch list]] (or whatever it's called); * Anything else that I mentioned earlier but forgot right now (I don't think that there is anything, but one never knows). But I think that banning vandals works pretty well right now.
Banning users like Helga and Lir, however, needs clarified rules, which will allow people to apply them consistently, and I'm glad that you have said that you want these rules to be lenient, because then you'll be on my side in the proposed debate ^_^. We're not in a crisis situation with regards to this issue, but we can still get ready for the next time.
-- Toby
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 01:07, Toby Bartels wrote: <snip>
Banning users like Helga and Lir, however, needs clarified rules, which will allow people to apply them consistently, and I'm glad that you have said that you want these rules to be lenient, because then you'll be on my side in the proposed debate ^_^. We're not in a crisis situation with regards to this issue, but we can still get ready for the next time.
Considering that only Helga has been banned, it might be healthier not to stick Lir in with her.
Otherwise I concur with Mr. Bartels.
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Banning users like Helga and Lir, however, needs clarified rules,
Considering that only Helga has been banned, it might be healthier not to stick Lir in with her.
It wasn't meant to be a selection of banned people, but a selection of people that were proposed for banning. I listed one banned in the end and one not banned in the end, to indicate the full range.
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org