[Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart

[Dror Kamir]

Hello,

I think we should think a bit out of the box here. If we are thinking 
about breaking the English Wikipedia apart, we might as well consider 
other "revolutionary" ideas.
What we see here, in fact, is a slow but persistent collapse of 
Wikipedia's management system. This is hardly surprising. First of all, 
the community of editor is huge, and more complex mechanisms are needed 
to make things work. All attempts to create such mechanisms (e.g. 
Arbitration Committee, WikiProjects etc) have failed. Another problem is 
that the popularity of Wikipedia encourages people to use it 
manipulatively. The reaction to that is offering the admins more and 
more "weapons" which are too often used excessively and deter new 
editors from joining in.

WikiProjects have become "cabals", something Wikipedia wished to prevent 
from its very beginning. It would be wrong to encourage this trend by 
labeling users. We also have an obligation to assume good faith and to 
encourage collaborative work. Defining certain users as "trust-worthy" 
is counterproductive in this sense, and invites all kinds of 
manipulations we wouldn't like to see.

As a first step, I think it would be useful to appoint an ombudsman to 
Wikipedia, either one to all of them or to each one. We can start with 
the English Wikipedia. This ombudsman will be identified by her/his real 
name and receive complaints from editors and from people who are 
subjects of articles. While this person can use help from other 
Wikipedians, it is important that there would be one person who would 
lead this work and be known, reachable and responsible to answer every 
complaint. The idea that anonymous admins, who act mainly upon their own 
personal judgment, can handle every problem, should be cast aside. It is 
also important that such ombudsman publish a public report about the 
complaints received in a certain period of time and how they were 
handled. It is also important that s/he would have the authority to 
intervene in the decisions of admins in certain cases, e.g. BLP.

While I am quite sure about the problem, I am not so sure about the 
solution I'm suggesting here. Other solutions should be considered. And 
yet, we have to bear in mind the principle. We have to aim to equality 
among editors rather than create "classes", we have to encourage new 
editors rather than give too much power to veteran ones, we have to 
create an atmosphere that would encourage collaborative work. This is 
not the atmosphere on the English Wikipedia at this point in time.

Dror K

בתאריך 14/03/11 14:20, ציטוט SlimVirgin:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:35, FT2<ft2.wiki at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> The other thing we thought was that there is benefit in recognizing editors
>> whom the community agrees are competent, edit well sourced neutral good
>> quality material, and act well, across the board. ... If there were some way to communally recognize such users (call
>> them "proven editors" lacking a better term) it would have some immense
>> advantages. ...
>>
>> The aim is to make recognition of this kind very widespread within the
>> community and to actively coach and encourage uptake and success -- a
>> recognition routinely won by many editors who have been active for over a
>> year or so.
> This is a good idea, but your first and second paragraphs contradict
> themselves somewhat. If "proven editor" were a status people had to
> strive for, and really didn't want to lose, it couldn't be something
> awarded routinely to anyone active for over a year. We have lots of
> people active for over a year who are very poor editors. They
> currently have no reason to improve themselves, because so long as
> they don't engage in behavioral problems their status continues
> uninterrupted.
>
> If we could create a carrot -- "proven editor" or whatever we call it
> -- that required the acquisition of editorial skills that were within
> the reach of just about anyone who applied herself, it would give
> people something to aim for other than adminship. But there would have
> to be a real improvement in their editing, not just "you've shown that
> you're not a complete idiot," otherwise it's patronizing and
> worthless.
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>