Hi Mark, Very interesting post. The logical conclusion of all that would seem to be that we must avoid specifying rules for certain parts of our code of behaviour. That is, we should leave certain areas deliberately vague, in order to stop these "rule-followers with poor judgment" from having any rules to follow.
The classic one I see again and again is people trying to put numbers on "consensus". I recently noticed that at FPC, "Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support." WTF? I mean, really, "what the fuck?" Anyone incapable of determining genuine consensus should *not* be given a crutch to lean on. Any decision that can only be justified on the basis of a numerical count is not a good decision...
Steve
(Yes, I top posted. I didn't have any specific remarks to make wrt any particular section of the post).
On 8/20/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Steve,
I wish we had editorial judgment. Specifically, I wish we had a way of determining which of our editors had good judgment, and empowered them to do so.
I was going to suggest that we do. Those with good editorial judgment are the ones who don't follow the rules anyway, and so the system sorts itself out by making those who need the rules most being the only ones who follow them. However, I thought about it a bit too much, and that led to this post.
Bear with me for a moment, we're talking about a matrix in words again. There are four possibilities:
- Those with good judgment who follow the rules
- Those with good judgment who Ignore All Rules(TM)
- Those with poor judgment who follow the rules
- Those with poor judgment who Ignore All Rules(TM)
Now, of these, the process wonks with good judgment tend to become less wonky as time goes on, promoting the worthwhile aspects of process but acknowledging that when it leads to an absurdity one should never follow process to the letter.
Those with good judgment who do what they think is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia tend to get away with it. Boo-yah!
Those with poor judgment who ignore the rules get blocked, because the rules would be all that keeps them from being dickheads. I don't intend to cry too much over them.
Finally, we get to those with poor judgment who follow the rules. These people are a *problem*. They don't seem to care about doing the Right Thing or the Wrong Thing, they don't seem to know what's appropriate behaviour and what isn't, they don't seem to be capable of saving their grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without ... you get the idea. This is a problem for five reasons:
a) They get upset at those of us who are willing to make editorial or administrative decisions even though we *haven't* received orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queries, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
b) They can make some really rather shit decisions, because of that "process can lead to absurdity" thing mentioned above.
c) They refuse to accept that there's anything at all silly about their behaviour, becuase the rules say such-and-such, and how can it be wrong if they're following the rules? This same point of view leads to the famous "instruction creep", as they to make more rules, subconsciously trying (I reckon) to provide enough guidelines to blindly follow that they can never be held responsible for anything.
d) THEY CORRUPT THE YOUTH!!!!! In more sensible terms, what I mean is that new users tend to assume that Wikipedia, given its size and status and their own experience with the Real World(TM), must be a bureaucracy. Process wonks are only too happy to oblige. I recall one anonymous user told he couldn't copyedit an article on a video game character without discussing it on the talkpage first!
e) Which leads me to my biggest complaint: they get the rules *wrong*. It's bad enough to insist that we all follow the rules regardless of the end result, but when *they don't even know what the rules are*, they become a menace. This is my current hobbyhorse: the "Chinese Whispers Effect". It means that someone with the wrong idea about policy but who thinks he knows what he's talking about will attempt to impose his view of policy on other editors, who will misunderstand and take an even more corrupted view ... and so on.
Examples include: the video game talkpage thing above; someone on DRV who attempted to use the definition at [[Rough consensus]] (mainspace article!) to argue that my satirical Administrator Discretion Zone really did exist (!!!); the fellow who opposed an RfA because "there is no excuse, *ever*, for not using the {{testN}} templates to warn someone"; the people replacing removed {{prod}} tags because the article author isn't allow to remove it (or because the reason for removal wasn't considered sufficient); the people insisting articles must be speedied because "it fails WP:CORP"; and ... well, how long do we want this list to *get*?The more intelligent actions (not to say there haven't been some blindingly stupid actions too) of Wikipedians like Lar and to a lesser extent Aaron Brenneman and Xoloz have convinced me that people who espouse a "process is important" view can be worth listening to at times. Process wonkism is not necessarily the enemy of Clue, but Cluelessness when combined with wonkism is a bloody menace.
There are some Clueful editors --- see "corrupted youth" --- who merely hung out with the wrong crowd and are salvageable. However, there are others out there who are too ignorant to bear; too arrogant to teach[0]; too bossy to ignore. What's the answer?
<snip/>
[0] I'm the first to admit I can be an arrogant prick at times, too. Arguably, I have taken on such a persona to write this post. I like to think, though, that in comparison with the people who've inflicted their stupidity on this community in the guise of upholding policy, I've earned it.
-- Mark Gallagher "You shit-lover! Off-brusher! Jaded, bitter joy-crusher! Failure has made you so cruel!" (Never get Amanda Palmer angry)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l