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

Fri Sep 6 20:50:17 UTC 2013

As said it was only an example. And a very small part of my argumentation.

You must however understand that the average user has no reason to feel the way you do and he has no possibilty to know who these persons are.

Regards,

Lars Gardenius

________________________________
 Von: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
An: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org> 
Gesendet: 19:31 Freitag, 6.September 2013
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

You see, that's the difference, when I see NuclearWarfare I think tried
trusted and true; he has a long track record on Wikipedia, whatever his
real name is. By the way, the actual identity of all arbitrators,
oversighters, etc are verified by the Foundation.

Fred

>
>
> The Arbitration Committe is a step in
> the right direction. I was probably never informed about it because
> it is only available for a small number of Wikis, and I speak about
> Wikis in general (including the Swedish Wikipedia).
>
> The Committe is obviously alive and
> kicking in the English Wikipedia. When I look at other Committes they
> seem dormant or "dead". As I said earlier I don't believe
> this problem is as big in the English Wikipedia as it is in some
> smaller Wikis, so it is more important that the others were alive.
>
> There are however some principal
> problems with the Arbitration Committee (and I will now use the
> English one as an example). I think these problems are symptomatic
> for the Wiki-org, and reflects what I meant by that the problem is
> not seriously addressed.
>
> I don't care if there is a committe for
> all Wikis or one for every Wiki, the import thing is that they work
> (or for that matter what this instance is called).
>
> 1. The members are not independent of
> the Wikis. It is obvious that they still work on the Wikipedia. That
> means that they run the risk of still having loyalities to old
> friends. It is like when I asked an Ombudsman why he didn't intervene
> when he saw abuses, and he answered "I don't want to because
> they (the abusers) are my friends".
>
> 2. The members have no responsibility.
> First of all they are volunteers and they are anonymous. This means
> that the arbitration is simply moved from a bigger to a smaller group
> within the same community.
>
> The members have no responsibility,
> i.e. they are not accountable for their decisions. How can you make
> someone called "NuclearWarfare" accountable (no offense
> intended, I don't know this person, it is an example.) Would you
> buy a used car from someone who called himself "NuclearWarfare"?
> Would you put your little daughter in care of someone who just calls
> himself " NuclearWarfare"?
>
> If not, why would you put the question
> whether your daughter has been mobbed and harassed in a Wiki in the
> hands of someone who only identifies himself as "NuclearWarfare"?
>
> No, it needs to be professional people
> (with enough knowledge about the Wikis) who is hired by the
> organisation (local or global) and thereby also represents the
> organisation and answers to the organisation.
>
> Someone pointed at Facebook and other
> social medias earlier and said that the problem with mobbing is much
> bigger there. It might be, but the most of these medias actually take
> active part in stopping mobbing and abuses. You can contact them and
> they will often respond very quickly. Some of us may think that they
> are even to restrictive, but they take anyhow their responsibility.
>
> The Wikis on the other hand take no
> responsibility, not for what is written and not for who people are
> treated in the Wiki communities.
>
> This lack of responsibility is I think
> at the heart of this question, and is the soil in which these abuses
> can grow.
>
> 3. Since the members are not
> independent they can not act on their own initiative which is
> absolutely necessary. Not all users, especially children, have the
> courage to speak up even if they are treated very badly. If the
> members were responsible for the actions in the Wikis they must also
> be able to take action when they see abuses.
>
>
> ________________________________
>  Von: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> An: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Gesendet: 21:21 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
>
>
> On the contrary, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and the
> power. That they do not discharge the full remit is another matter.
> People have ran for and been elected to the committee on a platform of
> not discharging the responsibility it was given.
>
> Fred
>
>> No, I just responded to a problem that I recognized well.
>>
>> If you call him/her this or that is not important.
>>
>> The important thing is that the person (or group of persons) has the
>> responsibility and the power to fulfil its task, i.e. to protect
>> Wiki-users from abuses and mobbing. Today nobody has neither that
>> responsibility nor that power.
>>
>> regards,
>> Lars Gardenius
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  Von: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
>> An: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Gesendet: 18:44 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013
>> Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from
>> itself
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>

_______________________________________________
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>