[Foundation-l] One side of the #wikipedia story explained

[Sean Whitton]

All,

I have made a reply to this (at last) which is available at the bottom
of this talk page:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia>.

Please keep discussion over there, not on this list.

Thanks,

Sean

On 20/06/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Zoran Obradovic <zoran.obradovic at siol.net>
> Date: Jun 20, 2007 8:33 PM
> Subject: One side of the #wikipedia story explained
> To: foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> I've posted this to
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:IRC_guidelines/wikipedia#The_long_answer
> , but since this I think that it's important that the foundation people
> see it, and it's already discussed here, I'm crossposting it here.
>
> == The long answer ==
> For the last few days, many people have been shouting at each other
> about #wikipedia. It turns out we've all been mostly shouting past each
> other. Our ideas and opinions on the matter are different, more than
> that, we see two different realities. So, I set out to write a
> meaningful explanation of at least one side of the story, or one of the
> two realities, all in the interest of reducing the need to read and
> misunderstand future misguided comments by people who misunderstood your
> last comment.
>
> Unfortunately, it turns out there was a lot to say, so the explanation
> is rather long. I hope you can bare with me till the end. (There may or
> may not be a test later.)
>
> ===The channel===
> The initial creation of #wikipedia back in the mists of time is beyond
> the memory of all but the best of us. However, it's safe to say that it
> is the mother of all Wikimedia channels, and as such has served us in
> many ways over the years. These have included:
> * Discussion of "the PHP script" and its descendents. This was moved to
> #mediawiki in early 2004.
> * Discussion of the server farm status. Moved to #mediawiki and then to
> #wikimedia-tech in 2005.
> * Inter-project coordination and foundation business. Moved to
> #wikimedia in 2004.
> * Editor coordination on en. Moved to #wikipedia-en in 2005.
> * Admin coordination on en. Moved to invite-only #wikipedia-en-admins in
> 2006, causing conflicts on en for a time.
> * Editor and admin coordination on Wikipaedie in other languages. Moved
> out gradually to other channels over the years.
> * Editor and admin coordination on other Wikimedia projects. Ditto.
> * Detailed discussion of gender issues and personal lives of the LGBT
> community. Moved to other channels around 2004/2005.
> * Coordination of anti-vandal activities, violations of WP:BEANS, newby
> biting and general incitiment to siege mentality. Moved gradually to
> other channels over the years.
> * Process-wonk bashing, RFA pile-ons, slander against editors,
> coordination of on-wiki attacks and causing all sorts of trouble on en.
> Shouted down and moved to other channels during 2005.
> * Trollbashing, warfare against critics and "enemies", coordination of
> counter-trolling on "enemy sites". Shouted down and moved to other
> channels during 2006.
> * Juggling channel modes, micromanagement of the ban list, kickbanning
> people for a laugh, flaunting op powers. Actively discouraged, but
> recurrent in occasional waves, related to new crops of ops.
> * Sulking, assuming worst about human nature, righteousness and general
> misanthropy. Somewhat reduced in 2006, but still persistent.
> * Trolling and crapflood attacks. Killed with fire at least since 2005.
> * Running jokes about autofellatio and furries. Died out on their own as
> jokes grew old over the years.
> * Discussion of theoretical and practical approaches to the English
> Wikipedia, other Wikipeadiae and encyclopedias in general.
> * Discussion and analysis of articles in en and other Wikipediae, as
> well as other Wikimedia projects.
> * Learning and teaching of encyclopedic and people skills by new users,
> new admins and old hands.
> * Helping new users, new admins, as well as old hands, find their way
> down the ever changing corridors of Wikipediae and other projects.
> * Handling requests for admin action on en and other projects.
> * Being the lobby to wikipedia for people who are technically savvy
> enough to use IRC. Not that IRC beginners aren't given help when they
> show up.
>
> In addition to all the on-topic talk, #wikipedia communicates in several
> off-topic registers:
> * Discussion of encyclopedic subjects, which tends to take a relaxed,
> but largely academic tone.
> * Socializing and friendly banter.
> * Monologues at quiet hours, which sometimes go ignored, sometimes spark
> of a new round of discussion, and sometimes just make somebody smile.
> * Humour, which is often grotesque, dark, over-the-top. I'll come back
> to this later.
>
> It is my informed belief that off-topic discussions play a crucual part
> in attracting the right kind of people to the channel and ensuring
> antendance, which enables the channel to perform its on-topic functions.
> They're often the most flamboyant, most memorable, and certainly
> longest, but to get some perspective, according to the
> [http://stats.fennecfoxen.org/freenode/wikipedia.html channel
> statistics], the most common real word in the channel is "article", not
> "penis".
>
> ===The people===
>
> People in #wikipedia come from many countries, all age groups, all kinds
> of backgrounds, and have widely differing world views and opinions on
> everything. What brings them together is the fact that they're editors
> of one or more Wikipediae or other Wikimedia project, and that they
> enjoy the immediate medium that IRC provides. As a fortunate
> consequence, they tend to have a common interest in a wide range of
> encyclopedic subjects, which facilitates enjoyable discussions and
> bonding. The channel has exposed many Wikipedians to a widely differing
> POVs on a great number of issues, which has maed them better
> encyclopedia editors and admins. These fun sides of the channel,
> combined with the common purpose of improving Wikipediae, and with the
> collaboration on chores that the channel is responsible for, are what
> makes the channel interesting enough to keep people coming for months,
> in many cases for years.
>
> These are the "regulars". They're the ones who carried out the chores.
> They're the ones kept the channel running 24 hours a day and made sure
> that questions don't go unanswered. They're the ones who killed
> crapflooders with fire while making sure that the channel could still be
> used by normal people. They're the ones who shouted down the schemers
> and the backslappers. They're the ones who told the young admins to
> think twice before ganging up on the editor that irks them, in many
> cases because they learned it the hard way in the channel. And
> crucially, they're the ones who have seen every trolling trick in the
> book, every type of confused newbie, and every way that a
> misunderstanding can be turned into a conflict.
>
> But all is not that rosy, of course. The splintering of channels has
> hurt the mother-of-them-all badly. The gains that we made by getting rid
> of the people that caused on-wiki onflicts were to a large extent offset
> by the brain drain to other channels. Over time, the powers that be
> first came more rarely and than completely stopped coming to the
> channel. Some regulars followed them either because they needed to work
> with them, or they liked to associate with them. Others naturally
> drifted to more specific channels which suited them better, or were
> driven away by the atmosphere. Regulars who had no such ambitions or
> interests remained and continued to run and improve the channel and the
> atmosphere.
>
> This brought us to the current situation, or rather the situation before
> the "reform". The people who know and care about #wikipedia are no
> longer the same people who hang out with the powers that be. Thus we
> became completely divorced groups - the regulars became the
> left-behinds, and the former regulars became their own grandparents who
> visited Spain in 1969 and think it's still a fascist dictatorship in 2007.
>
> ===The reform===
> :''Disclaimer: The following sections includes many references to
> "reformers" and "regulars". The names may not be precise nor 100% serious,
> and the membership of both groups is fuzzy and non-exclusive, but I
> trust everybody will know what is meant. In any case, we're discussing
> two concepts of how the channel should be run. Actual personalities are
> secondary.''
>
> It's useless to talk about the "reform" as a single issue. On the whole,
> the regulars obviously think it's a bad thing, and the perpertarors
> obviously think they're doing something good. So I'll try to separate it
> into issues and see if we can come to an agreement on at least some of them.
>
> ;The channel structure
> The newly proposed channel structure isn't ''illogical'' or ''wrong''.
> It makes sense, philosophically speaking. Yet, there are several
> important drawbacks which seem to have been overlooked:
>
> #Success of any channel scheme depends largely on incoming links, in our
> case those posted on Wikipediae and related sites. Even if we changed
> them all (btw, has anybody investigated how many there are, where they
> are, etc.?), it's still a fact of life that, unlike on other Wikipediae,
> readers of en are often oblivious to the existence of other language
> editions. Those who are IRC-adept will still simply type /join
> #wikipedia and ask questions about en. And of course, there are
> countless links to #wikipedia around the net which are beyond our
> control. It is questionable whether the final results will be worth the
> effort.
> # It is questionable whether a symmetrical channel scheme is really
> beneficial to a largely assimetrical project.
> # It is highly questionable whether further splintering of the channels
> is beneficial. See above.
> # #wikipedia has been used this way for years, and without strong
> indications that it is harmful, it's simply reckless to change it for
> the sake of symmetry. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
> In any case, this is something that could have been discussed reasonably
> and calmly in advance. Changing the channel scheme succesfully is quite
> a tedious operation and certainly isn't urgent.
>
> ;The guideline
> Especially after the recent edits, the guideline isn't a bad start for a
> reasonable discussion, content wise. In details and especially in tone,
> it's harmful. On one hand, it's full of weaseling like the contradictory
> (mystical?) description of the channel owners, and the hilarious talk
> about "catalysts". It's in urgent need of some straigh talking. On the
> other hand, it's primarily concerned with discipline, which shows that
> it's not based on traditional Wikimedian values, like openness,
> participation, consensus and above all, assumption of good faith.
> Instead, the reformers decided that the channel needs discipline in the
> form of kicks, bans, devoicing. This for the channel that kept its topic
> unprotected until it became wholly impracticable.
>
> Oh, and please, everybody, stay on topic. Some subjects, like television
> shows, movies, music or other popular culture, even clearly encyclopedic
> subjects like politics, government and religion are explicitly declared
> off-topic and nudged towards a dead-end channel. Things like
> non-wikimedia related open-source software and computer games aren't,
> and in the past few days, the reformers have indeed discussed such
> subjects freely and at length in the channel. Could it be that pet
> subjects are tedious only when they're other people's pet subjects?
>
> And of course, no humour please. At least not your kind of humour. Think
> of the children! But I'll come back to that later.
>
> ;The powerplay
> Now, the really tedious part: It all started one day, when the curious
> decision was made that all it takes to achieve consensus is have a
> proposal ignored for 5 days. Actually, as was made apparent later, it
> all started at an undefined time before that, with a conversation
> between uncertain participants who were concerned about the channels for
> unclear reasons. I can't tell you what and how happened (not for lack of
> trying to find out), and I wouldn't mind at least a short
> non-contradictory resume of that, if nobody can be bothered to provide
> actual details.
>
> In any case, the new owners enacted the new mission statement,
> authorization codes wer exchanged, all the employees were fired (and
> offered their jobs back provided that they pledge alleigance), and some
> of the patrons were booted. This understandibly met with protests and
> enquiries, which for some reason were repeatedly met by FUD.
>
> The questions were: Who was it that decided this? Who gave them the
> authrotity to decide this? Is it Freenode or Wikimedia? Is it up to a
> single person? Is that person the guy that says he was authorized, the
> one that says it wasn't him, or the one who's on vacation and doesn't
> say anything? Can the foundation do anything?  It all boils down to "who
> had the authority to do this and who has the authority to undo it"?
>
> We got a whole caleidoscope of tidbits and hints, but no straight
> answers. We were told to "go to the meta page". When the meta page was
> edited, it got protected, and reformers said "go to the meta talk page".
> When the meta talk page was filled with concerns and objections, they
> were brushed off or ignored, and the reformers said "go to
> foundation-l". (As an aside, this was not brought up on the
> Communication Committe's mailing list, though it clearly concerns
> internal communications.)
>
> As if the clearence of the op list weren't socially inadept enough, the
> reformers' choice of co-captains raised more eyebrows.  What was the
> criterion?
>
> Obviously not experience and attendance. Very few of the new ops are in
> the top 55 participants on the channel, according to the channel
> statistics, and most of the people who op themselves in #wikipedia last
> few days are certainly not long-time veterans. Some are former regulars,
> some seem to be freenode staffers, some are virtually unknown on the
> channel. That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or bad ops, or that
> they shouldn't be ops. But they are clearly not in the channel all the
> time. They obviously have other things to do and they're not familiar
> with the terrain.
>
> It also wasn't the willingness to follow the new guideline, at least not
> the non-fun parts of it. Channel modes were juggled alright, people were
> quieted, but the discussion continued much as before. Only it was
> different people and a narrower choice of pet subjects.
>
> So, it appears that the criterion was knowing the right people or being
> in the right position. It's downright funny that Raul was made an op in
> this scheme of things. He's known for occasionally crashing the channel
> with a flurry of gross jokes and other scary off-topic talk (bless him),
> and then disappearing. Could it be because he supports or cares for the
> new guidelines? Or is it just because he's Raul? (Don't get me wrong, I
> want Raul as an op in #wikipedia. He's not a bad op at all.)
>
> As well-intentioned and well-mannered as most of them are, they simply
> can't do the job effectively. We had a crapflood attack lasting half an
> hour. Channel remained accessible only to registered freenode users for
> who knows how long. A very friendly lobby indeed.
>
> Other new ops seemed more confrontational and curiously better informed
> than the regulars about what was going on. We were told "bluntly" that
> the idea is to get rid of the people in order to change the atomsphere,
> we were called "so-called regulars", and told that the ex-regulars who
> have since left the channel were the "real oldbies". In reality, the
> people who oppose the guideline have been in the channel for years, some
> for 3 or 4. In all that time they were also productive editors of
> Wikipedia the encyclopedia, some for 4 or 5 years.
>
> As could be expected, such a turn of events led to a kind of a turf war,
> and we all started shouting past each other, which is where we're now.
>
> ==Possible causes==
>
> So, finally, back to the dark, surreal, vile humour of #wikipedia. Which
> seems to be the only point where both sides of the story meet at the
> same point.
>
> On one hand there is the perception that wikipedia is nothing but penis
> talk. There are people who drop into #wikipedia occasionally and walk
> straight into a bout of gross-out bantering. There are those that
> haven't been in the channel for years and are like the aforementioned
> grandaparent tourists, with snapshots of the most memorable moments and
> hardly any more knowledge of the channel. A similar phenomenon can be
> observed with AFD and DRV, for instance.
>
> On the other hand, it's not like the regulars don't know this or don't
> act on it. Even without this attempt at reform, the realization has been
> growing in the channel that being the lobby of Wikipedia and Wikimedia
> requires a somewhat cleaner image, simply to avoid shocking the random
> passers-by. In fact, the humour and gross-out bantering has been greatly
> reduced over the years, and certainly regulars are prepared to take it
> further.
>
> The only other relevant issue that I have seen brought up is the
> supposed op abuse, but that was never backed with any but most vague
> references to anecdotal evidence, at least to my knowledge. While I
> don't always agree with op decisions in the channel (I myself never
> desired to be an op), the idea that op abuse is ripe in #wikipedia is
> simply wrong.
>
> So, it seems to me that this was all based on a partly faulty perception
> of one of the many components of #wikipedia, and on the desire for a
> direction on which we all agree anyway. It boggles the mind that the
> "reformers" thought that they need to adopt such a confrontational
> stance and go behind the backs of the "regulars". An explanation of that
> would also be helpful.
>
> ==What now?==
> Mid-term solutions will require considerations such as who gets to
> appoint Wikimedia's contact with FreeNode, does the foundation have any
> influence on the appointment of both its own and freenode's contact
> persons, should such contact persons between real-life organizations be
> adults, and even should Wikimedia look for another network to avoid such
> situations in the future.
>
> But that's mid-term. In the meantime, we can get the channel back to
> normal pretty easily. Just reinstate the old ops and unprotect the
> guideline page so that it can be edited into something more sensible in
> tone and detail. The "regulars" agree with the general direction of the
> guideline and will be happy to improve it. I don't expect any opposition
> to cleaning up the act further. As long as it does not mean banning all
> discussion of certain "unclean" subjects, like sex, death, or politics,
> of course.
>
> But that won't save the channel by itself. We're still dependent on
> incoming links, and we're still being hurt by the braindrain. We all
> found the conversations more interesting when they included nicks like
> jwales, anthere, eloquence, raul654, submarine, disprosia, etc etc etc.
> And since you last saw us, we aged for a few years, some reached middle
> age, others grew up. So, if you're an ex-regular and are concerned for
> the welfare of #wikipedia, your help will be greatly appreciated. You
> don't need to be a "catalyst" or any other buzzword. Just
> [irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia don't be a stranger].
>
> ~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
Regards,
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
http://seanwhitton.com/