[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] A concept from Buckminster Fuller

[koyaanisqatsi at nupedia.com]

Jimmy wrote:
>There are lessons to be learned here.  In the design of proper traffic
>systems, it's important to not fight against human nature.  Rather
>than expecting and hoping people to behave properly at huge
>intersections, it's safer to build overpasses and ramps.
>
>In dealing with problem members, we should ask ourselves: are we
>shooing a wasp?  Is there a better way?
>
>--Jimbo

Yes, I agree with that.  What are the better ways?  I'm getting
disgusted with *what I perceive to be* (and which in fact may not be,
at all) a breakdown of community standards.  Notwithstanding 24, I
think everyone would agree that wikipedia is a community.  We try to
be friendly, we have the occasional tiffs, we choose to live together
and socialize a bit.  This to me is a no-brainer: Wikipedia is a
community?  Yes.

Physical communities have little compunction against casting people
out, either explicitly or implicitly: through gentrification, through
draconian rules regarding presentation, through neighborhood groups,
through calls to the police.  Sometimes this is a good thing,
frequently it is not.  Yet, unlike most communities, we are a
community bound by choice rather than circumstance, and we are bound
by intention rather than location.  We are together because we have a
common goal.  We are a community of people trying to build a free
online encyclopedia.  To this regard, it seems to me that we should
not hesitate to show people the door when they prove not to share our
goal.  We are a community, yes, but we are not a community of people
whose goal is to remove content, or to argue or chitchat (though some
of that will invariably occur along the way).

Imagine a community of economists who choose to work together in a
room dedicated to studying the economy.  An overzealous filmnut with
the initials KQ shows up and wants to talk about films endlessly, and
at every mention of trade he goes off on _Star Wars I_.  He doesn't
know much about the economy, he doesn't know much about trade, he
doesn't even know much about math; if he's aware of these defects he
doesn't even particularly care.  What he's found is a healthy
community who let him hang out, using their tolerance to assuage his
own clingy personal needs.

Would this person belong in a group of economists, given that he can't
discuss economy?  Should he go with them to work?  Certainly not. 
Should he know this already?  Certainly.  Should the group tell him
this if he does not know?  IMHO: absolutely.  He is interfering with
work.  He is welcome to stay provided he's not interfering with work,
but if he is, he has to go.

I see nothing wrong with people who want to change community rules. 
If we need to discuss a rule change, we need to discuss a rule change.
 What might be helpful is to put on each rule and convention page a
gloss over why the decision to support that convention was reached. 
That way people can address specific points in the future rather than
starting the whole debate again from scratch (I've been here a year
and a half and I've seen more than enough of the basic debates about
basic conventions).  These new debates, when started, should be both
calm & respectful, which IMHO means logical and unemotional.

If the community decides that we should append "all hail Dubya the
wise and mighty U.S. emperor" to every page title, then I will either
roll up my sleeves and get started or I will remove myself from the
community.  But what I will *not* do is remain in a community whose
goal is so often ignored or forgotten that it resembles usenet.  I'm
not here to chitchat incessantly; I'm not here to sling insults and
cast people out; I want to help contribute to this free/free
encyclopedia because I believe in the idea.  I've seen what we've done
in two years; I want to see what we can do in another two.

It seems to me that people should know what we're here for and respect
that, and people who don't should be asked, kindly, if their
priorities are straight in coming to the website.  As far as I'm
concerned, the encyclopedia is what matters; there are plenty of other
places online to chitchat, argue, or pontificate.  Try yahoo!groups,
or livejournal, or usenet, or even slashdot.  Our community is unified
in purpose, and quite frankly, anyone who is not here for that purpose
belongs to a different community.  Banning comes about IMHO because
people aren't seeing enough community pressure to quit being an
asshole and/or get to work.

So how we determine someone has nothing to contribute?  Isn't that a
bold decision?  How long do we allow someone to try to contribute
before deciding it's not worth it?

I believe that: 1) It should not be necessary to tell people to leave.
 The community expectation should be so great that we are here to
build an encyclopedia that trolls and vandals are immediately and
thoroughly discouraged.  2)I'd rather not feel compelled to tell
people to leave because they're interfering.  Most people realize it,
and so most people don't dabble where they don't belong.  3) If
someone proves a stubborn & insistent impediment, we should tell him
or her to leave.  4) When we do tell someone to leave, we should be
able to enforce it if necessary.  some people are simply not helpful.
 We don't all agree who those people are, but I think we do agree that
such people exist.  For those people who won't listen to reason and
won't listen to community pressure, we should have an accurate means
of blocking access.  We are accepting to people by default, but wasps
should make their nests outside, not inside.

I daresay our standards are fairly open: come here to help build an
encyclopedia.  Do not come here to chitchat, to troll, to play.  Work
may be fun, work may not always be fun (I know this for certain), but
work is why we are here.  We are open to people who want to help; we
are not open to people who want to hinder.  We also, it seems (and
here I'm thinking of Helga), are not open to people who want to help
and consistently can not.  Jerry Lewis can play in the
[[wikipedia:sandbox]]; he should keep his hands off the [[muriatic acid]].

kq

p.s. I like Axel's idea of making an edit per email to the list.  This
was a long email, and so deserved more than a few edits--however, the
'pedia is responding very slowly.  I will redeem myself.  :-)

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aunt_May&diff=439390&oldid=439389
(and later adding the missing verb)  :-)
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Third_Man&diff=0&oldid=439397
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Academy_Award_for_Best_Cinematography&diff=439410&oldid=439407
and corrections.  Speaking of which, why doesn't "preview" preview? 
All I get is a text-edit box showing what I've typed in.  An HTML
preview might be handy.