[Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[Fred Bauder]

And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution
that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in
search of a problem. Out with it!

Fred

> The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the
> admins not from the newbies.
>
> But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis lack
> an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed in
> the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or
> men.
>
> Regards,
> Lars Gardenius
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  Von: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish
> from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices
> form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic
> deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy
> environment.
>
> Fred
>
>> On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
>>> That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a
>>> worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work
>>> now.
>>
>> Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I
>> demanded".
>>
>> I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and
>> came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast
>> majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing"
>> to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.
>>
>> When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from
>> getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing
>> exactly what it's been designed for.
>>
>> Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being
>> convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing
>> side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged.  We play up the
>> concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid
>> ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness,
>> and personality conflicts.
>>
>> There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices.  No system is perfect and,
>> occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't
>> let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to
>> make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.
>>
>> This certainly could be improved.  More education of users upfront
>> might
>> prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on
>> established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated
>> conservatism.  More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of
>> human nature...
>>
>> -- Marc
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>