[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up
an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is
possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.

Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not
rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates
community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we
all support are what works.

Fred

>
> If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom
> will
> get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by
> kneecapping
> people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like
> arbitrary
> justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of
> process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA
> is
> that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to
> deliver
> an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without
> personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking
> someone
> for calling a troll "a troll".
>
> What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm
> never
> greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you
> actually
> had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who
> wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the
> leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he
> valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
>
> The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid
> behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive
> reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to
> pass
> RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't
> have
> consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues
> for
> years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've
> needed
> to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative,
> short
> tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as
> arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in
> the
> midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it
> easier
> to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you
> tone it down a bit".
>
> If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats.
> It
> is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to
> long-term
> frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on
> en.Wikipedia
> means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is
> structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn
> to
> fight and equally you get frustrated.
>
> As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change
> structures
> than to change people. And structures shape people.
>
> But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't
> happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
>
> Scott (Doc)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>