[WikiEN-l] Scott McCloud on Wikipedia

[John Lee]

On 2/27/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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


I think some perspective is necessary. Common sense isn't necessarily the
same amongst different people, but I think there are some elements that tend
to be the same. Common sense is the ability to know your limitations, to
respect other people's opinions, and to deal with different opinions in a
peaceful manner. Despite some of the worst and most turmoiled debates I can
imagine occurring in 2004, we didn't have a problem with "rouge admins" or
such other issues. It was because the overall culture then was one of common
sense. As we scaled up, many newer editors were not assimilated into this
culture, and thus people resorted to policy and red tape to solve things
instead.

I don't believe there's carte blanche for admins, nor that there ever has
been. Even though in the early days, admins could have been said to have a
sort of blank cheque, it was much like the powers the Queen theoretically
has - the blank cheque was hardly ever exercised except where truly
necessary, in the borderline outliers. Today's culture in newer admins,
however, is that the blank cheque exists to be used in any case. The
elements of common sense that once were a core part of our culture are gone.

The blank cheque is *very* useful for handling the outlying cases, and
that's why I've always maintained that it's necessary. The problem with
these reserve powers, however, is that they are so easily abused, despite
their necessity. More red tape only creates more loopholes through which
"rouge admins" can abuse their powers, so I would prefer a slightly more
structured hierarchy which permits, say, some people to oversee the exercise
of admin powers. At least we can reduce the possible points of failure,
without resorting to Jimbo.

And I've always favoured getting serious about desysoping people. Adminship
is no big deal, and taking it away shouldn't be that big a deal either. The
problem is that the arbcom works too slowly, and so we constantly require
Jimbo to step in. That shouldn't be the case.

Johnleemk