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

Tue Feb 1 17:35:47 UTC 2011

Got sidetracked and didn't put the other parts of what I wanted to say
in...  Ok. Once we have mediation restructured to take the load off
ArbCom, that leaves effective governance, and effective policing as
key parts of a fix.

Effective governance is a key because without it, as Scott said,
tenditiousness and bullheaded persistence become the only ways to get
things done. That means we need a stronger executive that can decide
to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so
that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation. I'm not
saying that they should have unbridled "Jimboesque" authority, but
they should be able to step up in any situation where consensus
process doesn't seem to be working. That IMO means an "advice and
consent" model, where advice comes from previous discussion, and
consent comes by virtue of the office, as well as from the ability of
the community to formally reject it's actions by referendum.

Policing is tricky, because of the fact that calling a dick a dick is
itself a dickish move, but sometimes it's the only way to get the
message across. To that end, a warnings tool would be helpful,
supplementing or replacing the uw- templates with a MediaWiki
extension that requires that warnings be acknowledged by the editor to
continue editing, and providing a record of warnings. This is
basically a very soft block that the editor is free to remove
themselves. Warnings need not be generally visible except in the case
where a matter progresses to arbitration, but they should persist for
a period of time so that patterns of behavior become apparent.

-Stephanie

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
<sdaugherty at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think one thing leads to another here. Incivility leads to loss of
> editors of all genders. ArbCom has too narrow of a function and too
> little time to deal with every case of incivility. We have a lack of
> effective governance to be able to bring about a solution to all of
> these issues.
>
> The conversation kindof jumped around a bit, but we have hit on some
> very serious issues. Operationally, everything works, as far as
> management, we are effectively leaderless and without any clear way to
> govern - the consensus process being so easily thrown off course it's
> become useless for any large-scale contentious issue. It's not that we
> are unable to make decisions, it's that we are unable to make
> controversial ones. We have a judiciary of sorts for our community,
> but the design as a court of last resort, coupled with the lack of any
> other authority with sufficient clout to deal with more established
> contributors, effectively cripple us, because every other process
> except ejection ("community ban") by community consensus is toothless,
> and consensus to eject a vested contributor doesn't happen short of
> them going suddenly and completely berserk and staying that way for an
> extended period of time.
>
> So, that leaves us with several problems:
>
> We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that
> is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an
> appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they
> can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the
> worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline
> disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution
> that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and
> it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute
> resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom
> first.
>
> As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure,
> we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The
> way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed
> to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload.
> Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the
> condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted
> - or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in
> dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would
> enter a binding mediation.
> Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution
> mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the
> standards of policy and practical enforceability)  by the mediators,
> or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the
> prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form
> further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached
> from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard
> remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an
> agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until
> renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given
> access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask
> ArbCom for an injunction in a case that has not yet been presented to
> them)  for obtaining injunctions in order to stop a disputed activity
> while negotiations take place - injunctions of this nature would
> expire after reaching an agreement through mediation, or after
> reaching a decision through arbitration.
>
> -Stephanie
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>