[Foundation-l] Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta

[Samuel Klein]

This thread is getting surreal... as might be expected with a
triply-Meta subject line.


>> 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.

Linuxbeak : Labeling as useless or removing things without discussion, 
because you don't use them or see their purpose, isn't terribly helpful. 
Categorizing and organizing information can be, hence the praise :-)

Here is part of why people have complained:

* You were made an admin in December despite your low edit count because 
people expected you would become a more active Meta user and wouldn't use 
admin tools to blow things up...

* In the three months since then, you made a handful of article edits. 
Then last week, over the span of a few days, you made 1500 categorizations 
and 800 deletions, many of them irreversible image deletions, with almost 
no discussion.  (The images had been listed on RfD for a long time without 
action, but this was in part because the image deletion policy on meta 
needed refining.)

* A number of the pages you speedily deleted were not speediable, and in 
fact would be 'speedy keeps' if listed on RfD -- because you weren't 
familiar with some of the standards and long-standing uses of Meta.  The 
bolder your pet projects, the more careful you should be to know the 
community norms before starting.


> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> I asked on m:RFA "What is the local community? There isn't one."

That's a strong and unfriendly statement to make. It is only natural for 
the community to take offense at this.


On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Anthere wrote:
>
> 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.

People from highly active wikis seem to expect that all wikis will be 
active in the same way...


> 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

A good list.  I notice that in the last few days a number of people have 
nominated themselves for meta adminship who don't meet half or more of 
these points...



David Gerard :
>> 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.

If one must simplify, I would describe the current conflict as one between

  1. People who have been inactive Meta community members, have used
     it sporadically for specific ends, and now want to make the whole
     project something different

  2. People who have been active community members, are used to the normal
     gradual speed of change on Meta, don't quite know what to do with
     administrators diving in to rip up the site, and have a sense of the
     many different overlapping things that take place there.

If one has broad changes to site policy and norms that you would like to 
propose, have at it!  Make suggestions, discuss them widely, implement 
them one by one.  But editors who haven't used Meta much to date should be 
wary of upending things under the vague claim of 'making Meta usable'.


David Gerard :
>> {{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.

You would probably lump me in as 'museum staff' -- but I don't personally 
care about curating museum pieces.  I do recognize their potential use to 
others. Wiki is not paper; meta doubly so.  My personal preferences about 
what should stay and what should go are irrelevant compared to supporting 
others' uses of the site.


SJ