Re: [WikiEN-l] a formal, structured full-oversight body was Facepalm
On 30 October 2011 11:30, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote: I'm not a big fan of abstract calls for strong leadership, and I genuinely don't see Arbcom as being a disaster - though there could be things it has done that I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to changes that would make the pedia a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community, just not convinced that reforming or replacing Arbcom is the place to start. Without knowing which aspects of the pedia Marc and Phil diagnose as unfair or unhealthy it is difficult to know if your diagnosis is the same or the reverse of mine. Though our preferred solutions are certainly dissimilar. I'm not convinced that lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. Remember the wiki is at its strongest as a self organising community where people don't have to file requests in triplicate with some commissar. I like the flexibility of being able to launch things like the death anomaly project without having to seek approval from some central authority. To me a formal, structured full-oversight body isn't a way to achieve a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community, if anything its the reverse. That said we are a community in a longterm decline, which isn't in itself healthy; But we are a large and committed community that is still getting a lot done, so one shouldn't exaggerate the unhealthiness. We are still in large parts an astonishingly collaborative community, despite the unfortunate shift from fixing things to tagging them for others to fix. As for the fairness, I'd be interest in knowing which specific aspects you consider unfair. If there are any current or potential Arbs who you consider unfair then the time to say so is during the election for Arbcom. A well constructed case demonstrating that a candidate had a tendency to unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom. That's a reasonable overall analysis, though I might want to pick up specifics. Bear in mind, though, the multiplicity of points of view with which people approach these themes. One can single out: (a) Management consultant: Breezy views from outside the community that ignore the fundamental difficulty of implementing anything. (b) Doomwatch: Extrapolation to the point of radical failure (usually of enWP to the exclusion of all the other projects) based on some one-dimensional view and ignoring trends that favour the work (e.g. new stuff that is helpful coming online all the time). (c) Constitutional theorist: A better written constitution would be, well, better. Ignoring therefore the WP works only in practice, not in theory riff. (d) Golden Ager: Thinks things used to be better, against most experience of what things really used to be like. (e) Backlogs will kill us ecologically: A Doomwatch theory that ignores the way that editors reassign themselves. (f) Jimbo is dead: As with Paul McCartney, not true, just better known for other roles these days. This seems to be a Golden Ager theory based on the idea that it was all much better once, when Jimmy Wales had to do 14 hours a day reading emails to keep things on track (with a few phone calls and some IRC). (g) ArbCom doesn't do what it might: This gets a bit closer, ignoring the fact that the community view is skewed toward ArbCom not doing what it might, at least among enWP's political activists. (h) More central control: Given community views on ArbCom, this is one of the least likely solutions to anything, I believe. This a recurring debating point, both on content and on behaviour. Any further elected body is likely to have just the same issues with interfacing with the community. Perhaps there is some mileage in the concept of a deliberative body that gets round doing everything by direct democracy. (i) The whole system is bent: See a few vocal Wikipedia critics, passim. But that is clearly neither true, nor even arguable except on the basis of selective use of anecdotal evidence (of which of course there is an overwhelming supply by now). That is probably nearly enough from me, but a potted version of my solutions: (i) Discuss the history in a more informed and conceptual way; (ii) Divide out community roles where the WMF could step in, from those where they really can't; (iii) Get to the point where the management consultant approach on civility and newbie-biting is replaced by a more concerted community effort to tell rude folk on the site that they are problem editors, no matter what they write. In particular I have felt for quite some time that the Marc Riddell diagnosis really falls at all three of these hurdles. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] a formal, structured full-oversight body was Facepalm
I'm not a big fan of abstract calls for strong leadership, and I genuinely don't see Arbcom as being a disaster - though there could be things it has done that I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to changes that would make the pedia a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community, just not convinced that reforming or replacing Arbcom is the place to start. Without knowing which aspects of the pedia Marc and Phil diagnose as unfair or unhealthy it is difficult to know if your diagnosis is the same or the reverse of mine. Though our preferred solutions are certainly dissimilar. I'm not convinced that lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. Remember the wiki is at its strongest as a self organising community where people don't have to file requests in triplicate with some commissar. I like the flexibility of being able to launch things like the death anomaly project without having to seek approval from some central authority. To me a formal, structured full-oversight body isn't a way to achieve a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community, if anything its the reverse. That said we are a community in a longterm decline, which isn't in itself healthy; But we are a large and committed community that is still getting a lot done, so one shouldn't exaggerate the unhealthiness. We are still in large parts an astonishingly collaborative community, despite the unfortunate shift from fixing things to tagging them for others to fix. As for the fairness, I'd be interest in knowing which specific aspects you consider unfair. If there are any current or potential Arbs who you consider unfair then the time to say so is during the election for Arbcom. A well constructed case demonstrating that a candidate had a tendency to unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom. WereSpielchequers On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the community tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes). The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion. Carcharoth I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] a formal, structured full-oversight body was Facepalm
WS, what you say here is not a refutation of my arguments but simply stating a different point of view. And Arbcom is just one small part of a much larger and more complex problem. So I'm going to stick with my diagnosis. Unfortunately, there is a great deal at stake to let it go at that; but that is what I must do. MR on 10/30/11 7:30 AM, WereSpielChequers at werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not a big fan of abstract calls for strong leadership, and I genuinely don't see Arbcom as being a disaster - though there could be things it has done that I'm not aware of. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to changes that would make the pedia a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community, just not convinced that reforming or replacing Arbcom is the place to start. Without knowing which aspects of the pedia Marc and Phil diagnose as unfair or unhealthy it is difficult to know if your diagnosis is the same or the reverse of mine. Though our preferred solutions are certainly dissimilar. I'm not convinced that lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. Remember the wiki is at its strongest as a self organising community where people don't have to file requests in triplicate with some commissar. I like the flexibility of being able to launch things like the death anomaly project without having to seek approval from some central authority. To me a formal, structured full-oversight body isn't a way to achieve a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community, if anything its the reverse. That said we are a community in a longterm decline, which isn't in itself healthy; But we are a large and committed community that is still getting a lot done, so one shouldn't exaggerate the unhealthiness. We are still in large parts an astonishingly collaborative community, despite the unfortunate shift from fixing things to tagging them for others to fix. As for the fairness, I'd be interest in knowing which specific aspects you consider unfair. If there are any current or potential Arbs who you consider unfair then the time to say so is during the election for Arbcom. A well constructed case demonstrating that a candidate had a tendency to unfairness would probably tank any candidate for Arbcom. WereSpielchequers On 28 October 2011 18:52, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: I agree with you completely, Phil. ArbCom, as it presently is, is a disaster. And is a major obstacle to achieving a healthy, collaborative and fair creative community. My questions are: Who has the power to change that? How would the process that could evaluate ArbCom, and bring about change, get started? I would be interested in helping. on 10/28/11 12:40 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: ArbCom has far less influence than people give it credit for. What you are looking for is leadership, and that has to come from the community (or a body elected for that purpose by the community), not a dispute resolution body (which is what ArbCom is, or at least what it started out as). What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. That is what Wikipedia is lacking. There have been attempts (by both ArbCom and the community) to institute such a body, but the community tends to resist radical change, which is of course part of the problem (though it is also a safety feature against too radical changes). The upcoming ArbCom elections might be a good time to air some of these matters, but only if done in a well-thought out manner, by someone with the time and motivation to see through a process that may take months or years to come to a conclusion. Carcharoth I agree with you completely, Carcharoth, that What is needed is a body other than ArbCom to provide leadership. It is this lack of a formal, structured full-oversight body this is the fatal flaw in the entire Wikipedia Project. But to try and establish this body via ArbCom doesn't register with me. I believe such a new concept such as this will require a formal resolution, or whatever mechanism such additions or alterations to the structure of the Project require. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
