[Foundation-l] Re: Cleaning up Wikibooks

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a general tolerance of new content that goes onto 
>>>> Wikibooks, in
>>>> part because it is a smaller project and we are trying to attract and
>>>> keep contributors even if they add content that perhaps should be 
>>>> there.  
>>>
>>> This is a mistake, actually.  The best way to attract and keep new
>>> contributors is to have a clean and passionate mission which is kept as
>>> simple as possible.  Seeing tolerance for a "white power" racist tract
>>> (which went through a long vfd before finally being deleted after I saw
>>> it and complained, rather than deleting on sight and banning the 
>>> creator
>>> as a racist vandal...) is a great way to drive away contributors -- the
>>> same goes for other cruft like "How to get a girl".
>>
>> This is one area that we very much disagree.  I did not like this 
>> Wikibook in particular, and I'd also like to note that the time from 
>> when the VfD discussion started to when it ended was among one of 
>> shortest in the history of Wikibooks, not the longest.  I think this 
>> is a classic example of precisely how the Wikibooks community is 
>> working rather than how it is failing, as you seem to mention.  Also, 
>> I don't remember you complaining about this Wikibook at all until 
>> after it was already deleted.  BTW, have you seen the Wikipedia 
>> article on [[w:White nationalism]]?  Using this same logic, this 
>> article on Wikipedia should be deleted on the spot and all of the 
>> participants banned as well.
>>
>> The "How to get a girl" debate is more a good example of how a VfD 
>> should not be handled, as it was against a particular section of a 
>> Wikibook than the whole project, and only part of it was deleted.  
>> Most of the debate over that Wikibook was from before I became an 
>> admin and a regular participant on Wikibooks.  In many ways I'm sorry 
>> you were dragged into that argument.
>>
>>>> "I'm happy to give more time, but these books are already 
>>>> candidates for
>>>> speedy deletion. The point is that, to give on example which was
>>>> thankfully already deleted, a racist white-power book is not a 
>>>> textbook,
>>>> never will be a textbook, and should have been deleted on site and the
>>>> creator banned for vandalism on site. --Jimbo Wales
>>>> <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales> 21:03, 13 November 
>>>> 2005
>>>> (UTC)"
>>>>
>>>> The user that added this white power book has otherwise done Wikibooks
>>>> quite a bit of good, and banning him would only make an enemy rather
>>>> than a useful contributor.  
>>>
>>> I very strongly disagree.  Wikibooks does not need such books, and it
>>> was an is an embarassment to see such a thing.
>>> --Jimbo
>>
>> So, do you have a personal beef against [[b:User:Zondor]]?  He has 
>> been active on both Wikipedia and Wikibooks, making some very useful 
>> contributions.  Perhaps a warning on his user talk page would be 
>> warrented, but to out right ban him ignoring the rest of his 
>> contributions?  I admit that the way he started this particular 
>> Wikibook.
>>
>> Also, are you aware of the firestorm that this whole action has 
>> caused? I want to share a couple of comments that have come my way 
>> from users looking to me for some leadership on Wikibooks:
>>
>> The #1 complaint I have here about this whole thing is not so much 
>> what you've done, but how you've done it, particularly in regard to 
>> changing policy without really explaining this policy change.  These 
>> decisions seem arbitrary, and now the community really doesn't know 
>> where to go from here.  I am asking you, Mr. Wales, to try and help 
>> smooth down the discussion, and help to determine just who and how 
>> community decisions to keep or delete content on Wikibooks should 
>> happen.  If you want to become more involved in that process, you are 
>> welcome, but I do think you should trust the participants who have 
>> spent many years working on this Wikimedia project.  Know that the 
>> future of this project is at stake as well, based on your actions here.
>>
> Uh ?
>
> I have not followed that thread at all in the past few days and 
> decided just this morning to give it a quick look, and the second mail 
> I find is this one...
>
> I would like to make it clear that Jimbo's opinion should be his 
> opinion, unless specifically said to be board opinion. Angela, I, 
> Michael and Tim, we are all human beings with our own opinions on 
> things and unless we are specifically asked our opinion, I do not 
> think it is okay to consider that what Jimbo's say, we necessarily go 
> along with. By default, we are separate people. Similarly, this is not 
> because we do not say anything on a topic, that we necessarily agree 
> with the only one talking. We may disagree and decide not to say 
> anything or we may not be aware of the issue at all. I think it is 
> important not to make these types of confusions.

As I see it this was an example of overreacting with regards to a book 
on white power that probably should have been deleted.  Had Jimbo simply 
said we need to get rid of this book because it is completely 
objectionable, and acted accordingly the collateral damage would have 
been minimal.  Some of the other books to which Jimbo objected were 
already under discussion in the Wikibooks deletion process.  One thing 
to remember is the general attitude of panic that prevails around the 
English Wikipedia AfD has not taken over on many other projects.  This 
may give the impression of slow country cousins (des paysans simples), 
but in most cases people reach some kind of arrangement that they can 
live with.  That's well within the spirit of wiki.

When someone like Jimbo goes into a project and execises force majeure 
it needs to be done so as a measured act designed to minimize damage and 
new confusion.  I don't know if the writer of the white power book 
deserves some kind of serious discipline; I've never had any dealings 
with him.  There is more that can go into such an act that a black and 
white decision based on one book. 

The most controversial matter was to unilaterally and arbitrarily change 
the definition of what books belong on Wikibooks.  This would change 
that definition from any non-fiction book that one might find in a local 
library to something that is more strictly a "textbook".  Unfortunately, 
"textbook" is not a clear term; it makes the definition of the Wikibooks 
content less clear, because it interrupts a mutual (even if unwritten) 
understanding of what is acceptable.

Every project develops its own leadership patterns and its own leaders.  
This is often without any appointments, without any votes, without any 
titles. Those leaders just lead, often with the tacit support of the 
community.  The community trusts the leader not to take that community 
into a radical new direction without the consent of the community.  That 
trust allows the leader to take unilateral action in many circumstances, 
including disputed ones where the only solution lies in an act of 
decisiveness.

Improperly applied force majeure undermines those lines of trust.  
Contributors who have found an acceptable level of comfort with their 
work and its acceptability are cast into uncertainty.  Some may feel 
that their perfectly acceptable efforts are now put into doubt.  As this 
project scales up into an unbelievably large volunteer mega-project we 
need to be attentive to scaling up the human relations that have made 
Wikipedia what it is today.  In the English Wiktionary, the project 
where I am most active, recently passed the 100,000 entry milestone, and 
is the ninth largest project.  It has double the number of entries that 
were on Wikipedia when I first joined.  The arbitrary interruption of 
the lines of trust on such a project can have unexpected effects.

Ec