[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[Jeff Raymond]

Marc Riddell wrote:

> I see a great deal of the problem being many persons with many different
> agendas and purposes for being in WP itself. If a degree of common sense
> is
> needed to accomplish the common goal of ³A² then all persons must be
> trying
> to accomplish ³A². If others are there to accomplish ³B², their ³common
> sense² will be applied and measured differently.
>
> Solutions? That is going to take some creative, collaborative thinking
> with
> all participants working toward the same common goal. But first, there
> must
> be an agreement about what the problem - and its cause - really is.

Well, I think the first step is to stop thinking that common sense is
universal.  Look at what happened over the weekend - common sense
apparently told people that we did and didn't need an article on Daniel
Brandt, and did and didn't need to discuss it.  Some people feel common
sense is to simply do what you think is best (WP:IAR, which should be
destroyed with heat seeking nuclear missiles after the way February has
gone on this project), some people feel common sense is giving people the
due process they crave.

There's obviously no such thing as "common sense" here, so we need to get
out of that frame of mind and come to a conclusion as to what's best - not
what's favored by any specific group of people, not what the people who
show up on a given afternoon believe, but what makes the most logical
sense for the project to continue to succeed as opposed to looking like
morons to outsiders.

>
> There seems to be a great deal of resistance to the idea that many of the
> problems within WP involve the very culture itself. This speaks to me of a
> great deal of denial on the part of the Community Members.

Damn skippy.  You nailed it with this paragraph.

>
> Denial is saying ³anything but that². To admit that the ³that² is the
> problem, might mean having to confront, and possibly get rid of, the
> ³that².
> If a chemical dependent admits that the chemical is the ³that² that is
> killing them, they might have to give up that ³that².  ³Anything but
> that!²

I mean, an easy short term fix has two steps:

1) Stop giving administrators carte blanche to do as they please when they
please based on their version of common sense.

2) Remove the admin bit from the worst offenders, in which there are more
than enough to cause major problems and further destroy a culture that's
been rotting for a long time.

This solves - in the short term - 90% of our problems, and gives us the
opportunity to fix the problems, heal the wounds, put up the necessary
boundaries, and start as fresh as possible.  We're in a good *position* -
Citizendium, the most capable fork to challenge Wikipedia long-term, is
not ready for prime time, or even cable access - but we're very close to
teetering off the edge.  We can unbecome a top 15 website quicker than we
became one, and that can be headed off at the pass by amputating the
diseased aspects - users, administrators, policies, guidelines, and even
articles.

But I remain pessimistic.  Even now, after three weeks of consistent
abuses from many administrative forces, the only time Jimbo feels the need
to step in is due to a wheel war.  It tells me that the perspective on the
top end is lacking regarding the problems this project is facing on the
interior, which, while a legitimate perogative, is unfortunate for those
of us who are/were doing the legwork to keep the articles coming and the
cash flowing.  And the sickness will still remain.

-Jeff