Erik,
The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a responsibility to educate newcomers.
I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
Ed Poor
A mail from Ed? Surely this cannot be, as you just announced your departure from the project a couple of days ago (for the second time), and wrote that Wikipedia is doomed. Or are you perhaps a bit moody? Let me guess, the big advantage of Sunday school over Wikipedia was that it was *only* on Sundays ;-)
The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a responsibility to educate newcomers.
Well, Lir (Bridget) is not quite that new. Besides, the problem in this case is not that she's not aware of our policies but that she wants to change them. Advocating to do so is perfectly OK, and I pointed out, as others have, why this would be a bad idea. If all goes well, the debate will end soon, and everyone will follow conventions. We could even add the resulting arguments to an FAQ.
The problem I see is that in a consensus-finding decision making process, a single dedicated person can prolong discourse forever. If democracy is the "tyranny of the majority", consensus-finding is the tyranny of the cranks. Nothing in our rules says that Lir cannot continue the debate about naming conventions forever -- so it would be wrong for us to punish her if she does. And I'm afraid that when people get tired of our tedious decision making process, they will want to resort to more drastic forms of enforcement and more permanent power structures, which will in turn lead to wrong decisions, alienation, power struggles.
That's why I will work more on the Wikipedia:Decision Making Process page as soon as I have the time, and encourage others to do so.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
A mail from Ed? Surely this cannot be, as you just announced your departure from the project a couple of days ago (for the second time), and wrote that Wikipedia is doomed. Or are you perhaps a bit moody? Let me guess, the big advantage of Sunday school over Wikipedia was that it was *only* on Sundays ;-)
Ah, he's only bluffing ^_^. (I hope *_*.)
The problem I see is that in a consensus-finding decision making process, a single dedicated person can prolong discourse forever.
A *single* person can't prolong the decision-making process forever, because we have enough people around that lack of a single person is no obstacle to reaching a consensus. Consensus != unanimity (in English, although apparently it does mean that in French -- see some earlier posts between me and Anthere).
And even with a voting mechanism in place, a single dedicated person could still prolong *discourse* forever. Or would you censor speech? [[Democratic centralism]] != democracy (indeed, the term is a misnomer). Whatever decision-making process we use, those who dissent must still always have the right to express that dissent, or democracy is over, whatever of its trappings may remain.
Nothing in our rules says that Lir cannot continue the debate about naming conventions forever -- so it would be wrong for us to punish her if she does.
Absolutely wrong! Voting is one thing, but if this much *ever* changed, then there would be no democracy left in Wikipedia, and I would have to leave.
And I'm afraid that when people get tired of our tedious decision making process, they will want to resort to more drastic forms of enforcement and more permanent power structures, which will in turn lead to wrong decisions, alienation, power struggles.
Agreed, but IMO, that's exactly what *you* are trying to do ^_^. (Don't misunderstood me; I know that your intentions are only the best. I only think that the effect would be bad.)
-- Toby
Hi Toby,
A *single* person can't prolong the decision-making process forever, because we have enough people around that lack of a single person is no obstacle to reaching a consensus. Consensus != unanimity (in English, although apparently it does mean that in French -- see some earlier posts between me and Anthere).
And even with a voting mechanism in place, a single dedicated person could still prolong *discourse* forever. Or would you censor speech?
No, but in a voting process, the discourse period can be time-limited. Of course, people could continue to discuss the issue on a dedicated page, but an enforcable decision could be made before that.
And I'm afraid that when people get tired of our tedious decision making process, they will want to resort to more drastic forms
of
enforcement and more permanent power structures, which will in turn lead to wrong decisions, alienation, power struggles.
Agreed, but IMO, that's exactly what *you* are trying to do ^_^.
Not at all, the idea is to decentralize power, and thereby reduce the potential for abuse. Voting seems to me very much complementary to the wiki idea.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
In a voting process, the discourse period can be time-limited. Of course, people could continue to discuss the issue on a dedicated page, but an enforcable decision could be made before that.
And the same thing is true of a consensus process. We discuss until a consensus is reached an implement that; The Cunctator (or whoever ^_^) can continue to talk forever afterwards. (For example, Cunc still talks about getting rid of banning, despite the clear consensus in favour of banning. If we voted on banning instead, the result would be the same.)
Agreed, but IMO, that's exactly what *you* are trying to do ^_^.
Not at all, the idea is to decentralize power, and thereby reduce the potential for abuse. Voting seems to me very much complementary to the wiki idea.
Voting seems quite antithetical to wiki if you ask me. (Not completely antithetical, of course; the usual web page written by a single author is even more far off from either of these.) And I've never understood how decentralisation will result. What *would* help with decentralising administrators' power is mav's idea of automatic old hand status.
-- Toby
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Erik,
The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a responsibility to educate newcomers.
I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
Ed Poor
That's an admirable aim, Ed. Is Lir kidding when she writes: "You just /think/ that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I guess you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts" ?
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Erik,
The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a
responsibility to educate newcomers.
I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really
wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
Ed Poor
That's an admirable aim, Ed. Is Lir kidding when she writes: "You just /think/ that Anne Rice made that interview up...but I guess you are allowed to your silly POV thoughts" ?
Tarquin, it's called sarcasm.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Erik,
The reason the debate is not over, is that we old-timers have a responsibility to educate newcomers.
I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
There's no need to be so damned paternalistic! You make it sound as though the only thing you need to do is to insure that Lir does everything "our" way, and that newcomers should not be re-opening debates because we settled that a year ago before these newcomers came aboard. I fully expect that some of these debates will repeat themselves, and will go on for years before there is a consensus. This will be especially true for naming conventions. There is a broad appreciation that NPOV is a good thing, but there is great diversity in just what that term means.
If Lir or any newcomer comes along and questions one of our conventions, that opinion deserves respect just as much as the opinions of long-standing contributors.
Eclecticology
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org