[Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

[Anthere]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 28/03/06, Alex Schenck <linuxbeak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Despite praise from various sources, several other Meta people have
>>complained that this project is doing more harm than good. While I of course
>>completely disagree with that notion, I feel that I ought to let out some
>>steam.
>>Meta right now is horrible. Really, it is. People need to stop kidding
>>themselves and understand that the way that it is in right now is akin to a
>>trash heap. Sure, there are some good things on Meta, but the vast majority
>>is unorganized rubbish that could probably be put away in an archive and
>>forgotten about until cyber-archaeologists come along and sift through it
>>and thing that they're artifacts. I mean, come on. Sure, this place has a
>>lot of history of Wikimedia, but if things need to be kept, why can't they
>>be kept in a more orderly fashion?
> 
> 
> 
> I've just put some notes on
> 
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta#How_not_to_piss_people_off
> 
> I asked on m:RFA "What is the local community? There isn't one."
> Anthere answered with a *long* paragraph which didn't answer that
> question, answered several I didn't ask and accused me of all sorts of
> things ... I've asked again and await an answer.

Uh ?

Let me see... if I was asking you "what is the community on the english 
wikipedia", what would you answer ???

Probably... those working on en.wikipedia, not only to do the articles 
but also to discuss its rules, procedures etc... and to act in such a 
way that the rules, procedures... are followed.

Note that this essentially requires identification of people. So, we 
might add that the members of the community are recognised people (as 
opposed to anonymous ips).

Along those lines... "what is the community on meta"...

Well, the community is a loose collection of editors who may be 
recognised (so, under a pseudonyme or a real name), who contribute to 
meta content, who participate to setting up its rules and procedures, 
and who participate to acting to ensure that rules and procedures are 
followed.

An easy way to track these people is for example to look at the 
following pages
* requests for permission
* requests for translation
* pages for deletion
* many chapters pages
* committee pages
* most of those updating the pages related to wikimedia foundation
* requests for adminiship
etc....

Now... I agree there is not ONE community (just as to be fair, there is 
not ONE community on the english wikipedia, but rather groups of editors 
involved in some issues but not all issues). There are groups, who meet 
on common grounds.

Now, yes, I have a problem with those who claim that there is NO 
community on meta. I think the ones claiming this have not properly 
opened the eyes. It is not because the babel page (the equivalent of the 
pump) is not very active that people are not communicating. They are 
communicating in many places.
Through mailing lists (for example here)
Through other wikis (for example, the spcom is communicating on 
spcom.wiki, but writing things on meta as well)
Through blogs
Through private emails
And a *lot* through irc.

What defines a community is NOT the fact the wiki pump is live or dead. 
What defines a community is the fact people communicate and agree on 
basic facts and goals.

If there is a community, there are community members. If there are 
community members, there is a community.

Now, I'd like to copy here what is a community member role :

Qualities of a member:
*he has the trust of the other members and the host
*he is a long-term contributor (high chance that they will still be part 
of the community in a year)
*he will contribute most weeks of the year; notices what is going on in 
the community and reacts to it
*in important issues they place the community interests above their own
*cares for the social quality of the community (life, climate, stability)
*cares for the content quality

Primary interests:
* to increase the value of the community for contributors, readers and 
for himself
*to care for the long-term life of the community (to make the common 
investment save)

Means:
*to contribute regularly
*to be available socially
*to add top values to the community


Now... think about it. If there was no community on meta, I think that 
you could go to the place and make any changes you wish to make and no 
one but for a loney would complain. The *very fact* you get some 
complaints or some positive comments actually ! implies that THERE IS A 
COMMUNITY.


> But the long paragraph answering questions I didn't ask and accusing
> me of things indicates deep, if inchoate, suspicion over motives and a
> fear of change.

I tend to love saying things nobody asked me for :-)
But yes, when a group of new users arrive one place and starts deleting 
things, it is not so surprising a fear of changes is expressed by those 
living in the place.


> The essential conflict appears to be between:
> 
>    1. Those who want Meta to be a good repository of historical documents
>    2. Those who want Meta to be usable as an active work wiki.
> 
> The impetus for this project is that the first function is actively
> hampering the second. The piles of historical stuff masquerade as
> currently useful documents and get in the way of doing work. You don't
> archive paper documents in your in-tray!

I would be happy for you to give us examples of jobs which were actually 
empaired by the current state of meta. It seems to be taken for granted. 
But which useful documents have you been looking for and did not find ?


> The main thing that is pissing off the advocates of the first function
> (what exists of a "meta community" appear to be in the first group,
> the museum staff) is the sweeping deletions. So we need to avoid that.

Yup.


> I suggest that rather than delete anything as part of this project for
> now, we cordon it off by putting it in an appropriate category.
> Category:Apparently irrelevant, Category:Possible deletia,
> Category:Historical (or Category:Archive - we appear to be using
> both), Category:Move to Mediawiki.org (most of the help pages should
> be on that wiki), etc.

May I respectfully suggest that tagging something as [[apparently 
irrelevant]] is likely to cause edit wars ?

It is easy to tag something as "historical", because this is a "fact".
Irrelevant is a personal opinion.


>>For the meantime, I will continue this project, but I would like to propose
>>a solution: an archive wiki of Meta. Move *everything* on Meta over to this
>>archive. Start fresh. The archive will contain all things that Meta used to
>>have, so nothing will just disappear, and someone else can go through the
>>archive if they really feel like it and find whatever they're looking for. I
>>promise I won't touch that archive.

No.
Part of the historical interest is the "edit history".
If you move the content, you delete this history.

This is bad.


> This idea has strong merit.
> 
> For now, I suggest appropriate categorisation and tagging (e.g.
> {{historical}} ) will do for the moment. Deletion really isn't urgent
> - it can wait as long as we like for the museum staff to go over the
> artifacts carefully dusting and categorising them further.
> 
> Does this sound workable to all?
> 
> 
> - d.


I do not know. I think that if you keep using irreverant terms to 
qualify some of us, you will run into problems.
I also suggest that if you do the tagging with the idea in mind to 
delete all that stuff the next time the "museum staff" is on holidays, 
you will also run into problems.


Actually, you know what I *really* think deep inside ?

I think that for some reasons, en.wiki is not keeping you busy enough. 
So, you are looking for other things to do. If you want to play moving 
the dust around, fine. This might be useful. But I hope that you do not 
remove very precious artifacts, as you call them.

ant