[Foundation-l] en.WP dysfunction (was: A letter to Wikipedia collides with the non-free content policies)

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Jan 26, 2008 11:22 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF
> evaluation of specific case, when the most general
> pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . .
> ambitious.

Agreed.

> I really do not understand why en.WP is so
> dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions
> within the community without appealing to the
> foundation several times a month.
[snip]

I think you're misreading it.:  En.WP can, but appealing to a higher
authority is a frequent way to try to gain advantage in a dispute.
(Not that I'm claiming that is what's happening in this instance, just
that it's a common factor)

The higher relative frequency of these requests from enwiki is most
likely due to size and a lack of language barriers (this list is
predominantly in English) and not necessarily dysfunction.

[snip]
> Is it because Jimbo's historical special
> relationship has handicapped them into always looking
> for a higher authority to step-in?

Authority is a widely used and proven method of resolving issues. It
is argued by some that in matters which are highly subjective that
authority decision making produces the best outcomes.

In many places authority decision making is the primary method used to
resolve disputes, so it is natural that some people really want to use
that approach to solve disputes on our projects.

>From a foundation perspective I think we should be generally be
neutral to project-internal decision making. If a project wants an
authority-based method for deciding some things they could invent one
internally.

Since En.Wp's only obvious pre-existing authority for such things is
explicitly not intended to deal with this kind of issue, people on
enwiki seeking authority come here.

> Can we simply continue
> to ignore their dysfunction, or is there something to
> be done to help them become more self-suficiient?
[snip]

Since these questions almost never get the authoritarian response they
seek I don't see them as evidence of a lack of self-sufficiency.  A
real lack of self-sufficiency would probably result in dozens of posts
per day. :)


Still, I agree with your "don't come here" message. ;) (and I'd extend
it to pestering office staff.. i.e. Mike).

Pointing things out which may have significant long term impacts is
useful. Coming to foundation-l for a ruling, not so much.