[WikiEN-l] Exit Interview -- Jon Awbrey

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Matt,

There's a still-outstanding request to cite "at least a dozen or so of examples",
it's a Major PITA to document this data right, and there's this Big !-Up Holiday
coming up Stateside, so it may be well into next week before I can catch up with
my homework on this score.  I have to run now, but a quick scan of what you have
written below tells me that it's probably worth the pain to lay out all the gory
details in this way.

Back later,

Jon Awbrey

Matt Brown wrote:
> 
> On 6/30/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the majority of editors on the page agree that the block quote
> > is inappropriate, this is concensus.   If you disagree with this
> > decision, you can initiate a discussion on the talk page, and
> > ideally these editors would discuss the issue with you.
> >
> > I'm still trying to sort out exactly what your complaints are, so I
> > don't want to accuse you of saying or advocating something you are not
> > saying, as I inadvertantly did regarding the 3RR.  So I have some
> > questions: What would have been the ideal outcome in this case?   Do
> > you think the editors should be forced to discuss the issue with you
> > before removing this block quote?  Do you think consensus should not
> > be used to guide decisions regarding Wikipedia content?  If so, then
> > what decision making process should replace it?
> 
> I hope I'm not putting words in Jon Awbrey's mouth by stating that he
> things the problem is that when consensus can be defined as "Me and
> three of my friends I IM'd to come and agree with me", there's a
> problem.  Especially when a "consensus" among like-minded people on
> the same side of an issue can be used to trump core Wikipedia policies
> and standard Wikipedia ways of working.
> 
> Part of the issue is that there's always tension between deciding an
> issue for good on the one hand, and having every single opinionated
> person coming along to any article being able to re-open things for
> which an adequate conclusion has already been reached.
> 
> Standard Wikipedia policy / practise here is that there are no
> permanent decisions on Wikipedia apart from core policy, but that if
> an issue has been decided by strong rough consensus, we're resistant
> to re-opening the issue unless the one wishing to re-open it can
> convince enough people that the previous rough consensus no longer
> holds.
> 
> "Strong rough consensus" in my opinion means an issue that for the
> vast majority of contributors has a result they can live with - even
> if not outright approve - and that has been reached after a
> satisfactory discussion, a satisfactory attempt at compromise, a
> respect for policy, and with sufficient editors involved that are
> representative on the issue.
> 
> IMO, a rough consensus is not a strong one, a good one, if it has been
> arrived at without discussion, without attempts to find common ground,
> without regard for over-riding policy, or without sufficient numbers
> of contributors or variety of points-of-view to be truly
> representative.
> 
> There are many editors on Wikipedia who want to truly do the right
> thing and achieve good results.  There are enough others, however, who
> want articles to say exactly what THEY wish them to say, and who will
> game the rules and do everything they can to get their way.   (There
> are probably other categories of editors, of course, but this is
> simplifying).
> 
> I have a feeling that another issue Jon has is that some contributors
> are too willing to remove things from articles if they don't like
> them, regardless of the work that went into them, the usefulness of
> the content, or in any way trying to achieve consensus for that
> removal.
> 
> Jon, do I have your positions right?
> 
> -Matt

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Jon_Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o