[WikiEN-l] The more I think about my ban from Wikipedia, the more I realize how wrong it was.

[Monahon, Peter B.]

 > Earlier: "... I recently sent a ... long
 > account of ... get[ing] ... banned
 > from Wikipedia ... a lot of people were
 > wondering about the details of the
 > story ..."

Peter Blaise responds: 

Not me.  

The details don't matter to me.  

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing any Wikipedia contributor (non-spammer, non-vandal) can do to get banned.  

The problem is "banning", not "Wikipedia contributors".  

I run into this all the time in retail: "... if it weren't for the dang customers, retail would run sooo smooothly! ..."  Same on Wikipedia: if it weren't for all the contributors, Wikipedia would run sooo smooothly!  

Getting rid of contributors because someone feels discomfort is inappropriate power, and should not be available to moderators, admins, and sysops.  If they can't handle a little discomfort, and address it by setting an example, then they should turn in their moderatorship, adminship, and sysopship, and let someone else have a go at it, and go do something they feel better doing, and have a chance to do well.  

The banning tool is a sign of failure, not an implement of success.  Wikipedia, ANY wiki is a community.  The Internet is word wide.  "Banning" and a "worldwide invitation" don't mix well.

--

 > Earlier: "... NOTE: This message is not
 > complete because the size limit for this
 > list is 10KB ...

Peter Blaise responds: 

Switch to "text only", not HTML.  Some people even reply to and quote the entire 30kb daily summary and it goes through!  ;-)

--

 > Earlier: "... checkusers are free to check
 > whoever they like (as long as they have
 > good reason) ..."

Peter Blaise responds: 

... sounds like tools in support of banning policies.  Once banning is banned, then the checkuser feature should probably go, too.

What is the problem in assessing any content on it's merits alone, regardless of the source?  An idiot and a genius yelling, "FIRE," can be equally right or wrong.  Are we gonna sit and roast because we think the warning came from an idiot?

--

 > Earlier: "... [[WP:NOT]] - Wikipedia is
 > not a democracy, not a soapbox, etc ..."

Peter Blaise responds: 

But it IS a community that builds relationships and needs meta-discussions using discussion/talk pages, user pages, and these lists.

So, as I see it, the article pages have one set of criteria (neutral point of view and so on), and all the rest of the pages have another set of criteria (inclusive, expansive, provocative discussions of all alternatives).  These differences shouldn't create conflict; they should function in concert.  On many of the MediaWiki installations I setup for the US Government (internal, employee use only at the moment), we leave the article pages locked for to admins to publish official information, but, the discussion/talk and user pages are a come-one-come-all free-for-all.  The two not only must co-exist, but cannot exist without each other.  That's what a wiki is, what a wiki has come to be.  Otherwise, it's merely an official blog, and the only readers would be the original writers themselves.  If everyone can write, suddenly everyone is invited to read, too, and participation expands exponentially.  Start clamping down on the ability to contribute, and readership dies.  What was the goal, again?  Grow or die.  Stability = death. 

--

 > Earlier: "... I don't understand this fetish
 > people have for comparing Wikipedia to
 > a democracy. We're an encyclopaedia-
 > writing project ..."

Peter Blaise responds: 

"... We're an encyclopaedia-writing project ..." ... that can ONLY move forward democratically.  Otherwise, it's a Britannica project, in the hands of the owners, not the participants.  As soon as it becomes a game of rules being inflicted on one set of attempted participants by another set of participants, then the democracy falls away, and, as noted here, the encyclopedia falls away, and we stop to have endless meta-discussions.  Why?  Because we're trying to rebuild the democracy FIRST.  Then we can get back to the encyclopedia.  One follows the other, depends upon it, and cannot exist without it.  Kill the democracy, kill the encyclopedia.

--

 > Earlier: "... Those advocating an
 > organisational or governance model
 > abstracted directly from a national
 > government should explain why this
 > is a relevant model to adopt ..."

Peter Blaise responds:  

Why?  "Power regulation."  People are fearful and greedy - it's in our DNA.  However, all is not lost to instinct and reactivity, since we also have the ability to think and reprogram ourselves above our DNA, including such external programs as constitutions, and bills of rights, and the separation of powers, that successfully address our fears and greed.  The goal is that no ONE holds all the powers such that they can kill (ban) another.

Banning, as implemented on Wikipedia, is all too powerful and in the hands of solo people who are effectively permitted use it to soothe their own discomfort, and to deny others from participating in the community, in the encyclopedia.  And while I appreciate those who say that all newcomers must respect the existing community, I suggest that is a foil, a way to hide behind the community as an expression of one's own predilections.  No one can say, "you make the community uncomfortable."  We, individually, can only say, "I feel uncomfortable at your presence."  Deal with it ... with growing patience, tolerance, acceptance, and equivalent consideration, not banning.

--

 > Earlier: "... Can you present an example
 > of where we've had to moderate someone
 > with ultimately negative effects for the
 > project directly because of this? ..."

Peter Blaise responds:  

One, we're talking about Wikipedia banning, not wikien-l moderation.  

Two, ANY banning, in my view, subverts everyone.  ALL alternatives should be exhausted first before banning.  In my experience, it not only works, but, as seen in the lengthy threads and discussion here (all quite peaceful, I might add), alternatives to banning are actually briefer in the long run.

And don't forget that "the project" MUST be second to "the community" because without "the community" there is no "project" at all.  Killing (banning) one member of the community is abject failure of that community to maintain itself as a community for all the members of that community.

--

 > Earlier: " ... some leadership, some
 > guidance, some fella who ultimately
 > has the authority to say "take it or
 > leave it" ..."

Peter Blaise responds:

Ahhh, and therein lies the conflict.  If there is leadership and guidance, then there is no need for "take it or leave it".  

(And I presume "fella" is either feminine, or plural, and we don't mean a "man" must be in penultimate control, right?) 

"Parliament", or "Congress", or any other political example is NOT the model for Wikipedia contents; it's the model for Wikipedia admins and sysops!

--

 > Earlier: "... We don't know how many
 > messages from moderated users are
 > filtered out , nor do we know the
 > nature of those moderated messages ...

 > Earlier Response: "... mostly just a
 > continuation of rants ... 3 months later
 > and someone's still complaining about
 > having been blocked ...

Peter Blaise responds: Wow - there's a self-fulfilling prophecy!  Ban someone and all they seem to want to talk about is removing the ban and stopping the banning.  Go figure!  Might as well ban them some more to see if that fixes it.  Geesh!

--

 > Earlier: "... [Re: Subjectivism] ... 
 > supporting a permaban against a
 > user ...

So, the banning problem grows and grows.  If we want to discuss anything else, then either: all banning discussions will have to be banned, or, the banning itself will have to be banned, eh what?

--

 > Earlier: "... the Project is being
 > confronted with problems the
 > creators never dreamed of ... 
 > work to be done ... must start
 > at the top ..."

Peter Blaise responds:

Too late.  It's already started at the bottom!  ;-)

Are you reading, Jimbo?

-- Peter Blaise