Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Ian Woollard]

On 05/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
> Academic writing makes a judgement about  what the most likely state
> of matters is, and gives a position. When I read  an academic paper ,
> in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am
> likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem
> interesting, then go back and read the evidence.)

A wikipedia article is NOT, in that sense, an academic paper that you
would get published. It's an *encyclopedia* article. They're not
supposed to come to a conclusion, they're supposed to summarise all of
what is known.

>  I don't see how
> community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a
> particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that
> different people will necessarily reach different conclusions.

No.

The Wikipedia article should then contain multiple different
conclusions, even conclusions that disagree with each other. Academic
papers almost never do that.

The only responsibility of each editor is the responsibility of
accurately reporting their sources. That's why having sources is
essential, in the long term, in the short term we need(ed) to get
articles off the ground even if we haven't found really good sources
for everything.

> A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but
> nonetheless arrange the material so  as to express one. I think all
> good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook
> writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one,
> beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different
> people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other
> out.

No. Absolutely not!

They don't cancel out, they are ALL listed, with suitable emphasis.
The reader may come to a conclusion, but the article should only do so
if there really is a strong consensus in the world.

> But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular
> direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an
> understanding. An understanding implies a POV.

No. A true understanding implies including knowing and understanding *all* POVs.

> This provides a
> fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and
> give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a
> theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of
> variable relevance.

We don't only include facts, we include POVs as well.

NPOV is pretty much the inclusion of ALL POVs (with suitable weightings).

The Wikipedia is not AN academic paper, it's supposed to be a summary
of all reliable sources (most of which should ideally be academic).

That's NOT about creating a POV!

> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
> I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components
> which
> usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged
> editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never
> defined
> which of these is core and which is "the means to the end", on the
> occasions
> when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over
> another
> we are all at sea.
>
>
> Scott

Scott,

We are not "all at sea". The point is to make useful information
available to the public. If that goal is keep in mind it is possible to
resolve most issues by discussion. Focusing on the task at hand is the
key.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Sat, 5/2/11, wiki  wrote:
> From: wiki 

> If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA
> standard, we'd need
> to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer
> was allowed to
> start from scratch and write a new article, and then
> demonstrate to the
> community that it was superior to the existing one. Good
> writers with
> expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive
> to begin with the
> mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers
> for every change
> they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts,
> or indeed
> careful research/writers off.


Precisely. FWIW, this is what I recommended to the scholar I mentioned
earlier (who has written several books on the Jehovah's Witnesses): Go 
ahead, announce your intention on the article's talk page and at the 
relevant WikiProject, write the article, and then present it to the wider
community for adoption.

I assured him that Wikipedia would welcome the article, once it was
formatted and referenced correctly, over the likely objections of both 
the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Witness-bashers frequenting the article. 

I haven't heard back from him ... :)

If we want to have scholars contributing, this is an option that has to be 
on the table.

Andreas

 
> The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and what
> is the (usually
> welcome) by-product. 
> 
> *Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd
> sourcing and
> consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put
> aside if a
> certain article is better written a different way. In these
> cases we'll put
> up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until
> and unless
> something better is offered. 
> 
> *Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created
> articles. In which
> case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only
> in the gaps. If
> the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then
> this is to be
> preferred, and the FA with his superior article must
> necessarily go
> elsewhere. 
> 
> I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has
> components which
> usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing,
> no-privileged
> editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it
> has never defined
> which of these is core and which is "the means to the end",
> on the occasions
> when there is a conflict between choosing one of the
> elements over another
> we are all at sea.
> 
> 
> Scott
>       
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[wiki]

-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe
Sent: 05 February 2011 10:21
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender
gap in Wikipedia contributors} 

>This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming 
for is FA.

Is it?

The quality standard FA writers are aiming at is clear, I'm not sure that's
the aim of the rest of the project. The rest of the project is governed by
crowd sourcing and consensus, and tends to operate in a different manner.


>FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. 


Precisely. It is also the case why FA tend to be on more obscure subjects,
where it is possible for a small group (or usually one writer) to commandeer
the article with little squealing. It is also possible here to totally
re-write whatever one finds (if indeed there is an existing article). 

If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA standard, we'd need
to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer was allowed to
start from scratch and write a new article, and then demonstrate to the
community that it was superior to the existing one. Good writers with
expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive to begin with the
mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers for every change
they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts, or indeed
careful research/writers off.

The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and what is the (usually
welcome) by-product. 

*Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd sourcing and
consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put aside if a
certain article is better written a different way. In these cases we'll put
up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until and unless
something better is offered. 

*Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created articles. In which
case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only in the gaps. If
the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then this is to be
preferred, and the FA with his superior article must necessarily go
elsewhere. 

I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which
usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged
editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined
which of these is core and which is "the means to the end", on the occasions
when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another
we are all at sea.


Scott
  

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman  wrote:

> Academic writing makes a judgement
> about  what the most likely state
> of matters is, and gives a position. When I read  an
> academic paper ,
> in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions.
> (I am
> likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if
> they seem
> interesting, then go back and read the evidence.)  I
> don't see how
> community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for
> which a
> particular person does not take responsibility: the reason
> is that
> different people will necessarily reach different
> conclusions.
> 
> A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a
> POV, but
> nonetheless arrange the material so  as to express
> one. I think all
> good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or
> textbook
> writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying
> one,
> beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the
> different
> people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel
> each other
> out.
> 
> But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a
> particular
> direction. We try to write articles so the readers will
> have an
> understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This
> provides a
> fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning
> guide, and
> give a basis for further understanding--"understanding"
> implies a
> theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts
> of
> variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the
> way we
> work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and
> balance.   Let those
> who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method
> of
> orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that
> will
> express their personal view.


David, as always with your posts, this is an interesting view, and there is
much in it that I half-agree with. 

This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming 
for is FA. FAs are not written in the way you describe; they typically are 
polished, they do explain things, apply discrimination in the selection of
sources, and place appropriate weight on mainstream opinion, rather than 
focusing on tabloids and POVs from either end of the bell curve. 

The same is true about all good encyclopedia or textbook writing, to use
your expression.

FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. The 
process you describe rarely results in FAs. Once anonymous community editing 
takes over, with an opinion inserted here, and a factoid inserted there, 
articles usually degrade, and lose FA status. That for example is the way 
the Atheism FA seems to be going currently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&action=history

The question is if we want a jumble of POVs, with duelling extremist 
sources inserted by anonymous drive-by editors, or sober articles that give 
a balanced overview of the knowledge compiled by society's institutions of
learning.

The problem with the anonymous crowdsourcing process, as it stands, is that 
the attraction of a good, emotive soundbyte, motivating an anonymous editor 
to insert it in knee-jerk fashion, outweighs the attraction exercised by a 
wealth of well-researched published educational content. Researching the 
latter takes time and serious effort; inserting a soundbyte does not.

FA writers do survey, access and reflect this educational content. I believe
in good encyclopedia writing. I believe we should aspire to it, and do what
we can to foster it.

Andreas
 
> In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and
> recognize
> the limitations. I think the general public does also, and
> it is our
> very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more
> polished,
> it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is
> twofold:
> bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is
> accurate and
> representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; 
> and increasing
> our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the
> traditional
> humanities and similar areas in one direction, and
> everything outside
> the current English speaking world, in the other .



  

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[David Goodman]

Academic writing makes a judgement about  what the most likely state
of matters is, and gives a position. When I read  an academic paper ,
in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am
likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem
interesting, then go back and read the evidence.)  I don't see how
community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a
particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that
different people will necessarily reach different conclusions.

A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but
nonetheless arrange the material so  as to express one. I think all
good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook
writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one,
beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different
people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other
out.

But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular
direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an
understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a
fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and
give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a
theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of
variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we
work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance.   Let those
who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of
orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will
express their personal view.

In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize
the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our
very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished,
it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold:
bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and
representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully;  and increasing
our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional
humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside
the current English speaking world, in the other .

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>>
>> That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the
>> more
>> heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the
>> more
>> lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
>>
>> NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to
>> reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative
>> sources
>> in their restraint.
>>
>> I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning
>> more
>> weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not
>> reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given
>> equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an
>> authoritative
>> scholarly biography.
>>
>> Andreas
>
> No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means
> use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight
> to give various sources.
>
> Fred
>
-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Carcharoth wrote:
> Which incident are you both talking about? If Ken's user page makes it
> obvious, just say that, but I can't immediately remember what you are
> both talking about here.

Spoiler warnings.  And no, it's not on my userpage.

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
> That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the
> more
> heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the
> more
> lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
>
> NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to
> reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative
> sources
> in their restraint.
>
> I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning
> more
> weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not
> reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given
> equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an
> authoritative
> scholarly biography.
>
> Andreas

No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means
use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight
to give various sources.

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth  wrote:

> one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some
> people take
> a "percentage" approach to it. My view is that the amount
> of weight
> something has in an article is a function not just of the
> *amount* of
> text, but also how it is written (and also the sources it
> uses).
> 
> It may not be clear from the wording of policy, but if
> something is
> sourced to a lightweight source, then it should carry less
> "weight"
> (in the sense of being taken seriously) than something
> sourced to a
> really authoritative source. It might seem that this is not
> what
> WP:WEIGHT is talking about, but in some sense it is. Also,
> the wording
> used: if something is said in a weaselly, vague and
> wishy-washy way
> (*regardless* of the volume of text used), then that
> carries less
> weight than a strongly-worded and forceful sentence.
> Similarly, a
> rambling set of paragraphs actually weights an article less
> than a
> single sentence that due to the way it is written jumps up
> and down on
> the page and says "this is the real point of the article".
> 
> In other words, the *way* an article is written affects the
> weighting
> of elements within in, not just the volume. Which all come
> back to the
> tone used in writing, which often affects the reader more
> than the
> volume of text used. Ideally, a succinct, dispassionate,
> non-rhetorical tone will be used, and articles looked at as
> a whole.
> It is extremely depressing when arguments devolve into the
> minutiae of
> sentence structure in an effort to find a compromise
> wording. It often
> chokes the life out of the prose of an article.


That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more 
heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more 
lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.

NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to 
reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources
in their restraint.

I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more
weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not
reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given
equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative
scholarly biography.

Andreas


  

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

> On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>> One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids
>> for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
>> expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source
>> for
>> the subject.
>
>
>
> That requires people be familiar with such things on an international
> scale. In practice most such sources will be the result of people
> using the first thing that comes up on Google that looks like a news
> source (and the daily mail does rank so well these days) rather than
> any deliberate attempt to use tabloids as references.
>
> Other than getting a database report to list every link to such a site
> within a ref tag there isn't much we can do about it.
>
> --
> geni
>

Totally.

This sort of problem is well suited to the wiki editing style. Subsequent
editors can look for better sources or hedge or even delete the material.
References to blogs, which often contain information much to an editors
liking, are a good example.

Then there is state-controlled media, China's media and government
websites being an interesting example. In China even bold cutting-edge
journals are self-censored; But how can that be differentiated from any
journal's blind spot. For example, peer review for an academic journal
can, in practice, amount to exclusion of material that reflect an
approach to the discipline the peer jury doesn't approve of rather than
actual proof of reliability.

Remember though that the entry point to this discussion was use of
British tabloids for BLP purposes. There controversial material, a
tabloid's stock in trade, may be removed if there is no reliable source.
WP:BEANS There can be no exhaustive list of what might be an appropriate
source for each type of subject.


Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from
> mature, and still beset with problems

[...]

> it is not easy to say what "fair, proportionate representation"
> actually ought to mean in practice.

I agree strongly with the opening part of your post (about NPOV),
which I snipped, and am focusing in on the point you raised above, as
one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some people take
a "percentage" approach to it. My view is that the amount of weight
something has in an article is a function not just of the *amount* of
text, but also how it is written (and also the sources it uses).

It may not be clear from the wording of policy, but if something is
sourced to a lightweight source, then it should carry less "weight"
(in the sense of being taken seriously) than something sourced to a
really authoritative source. It might seem that this is not what
WP:WEIGHT is talking about, but in some sense it is. Also, the wording
used: if something is said in a weaselly, vague and wishy-washy way
(*regardless* of the volume of text used), then that carries less
weight than a strongly-worded and forceful sentence. Similarly, a
rambling set of paragraphs actually weights an article less than a
single sentence that due to the way it is written jumps up and down on
the page and says "this is the real point of the article".

In other words, the *way* an article is written affects the weighting
of elements within in, not just the volume. Which all come back to the
tone used in writing, which often affects the reader more than the
volume of text used. Ideally, a succinct, dispassionate,
non-rhetorical tone will be used, and articles looked at as a whole.
It is extremely depressing when arguments devolve into the minutiae of
sentence structure in an effort to find a compromise wording. It often
chokes the life out of the prose of an article.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[geni]

On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids
> for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
> expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for
> the subject.



That requires people be familiar with such things on an international
scale. In practice most such sources will be the result of people
using the first thing that comes up on Google that looks like a news
source (and the daily mail does rank so well these days) rather than
any deliberate attempt to use tabloids as references.

Other than getting a database report to list every link to such a site
within a ref tag there isn't much we can do about it.

-- 
geni

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

> "I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from
> such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of
> living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to
> be problems with me."-MuZemike
>
> All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily Mail, Sun and various
> other tabloids are regularly used as sources on BLPs. The typical way of
> getting round the reliability issue will be to use phrases likes "it was
> reported in the popular press that...", on the pretext that that anything
> tabloids report is notable by virtue of being reported in popular
> newspapers
> (regardless of whether the source is reliable or not wrt the facts).
> After
> all: "surely that The Sun has said x is notable, and The Sun is a
> reliable
> source regarding what The Sun has said." :(
>
> As has been said, Wikipedia has yet to define what it means by "reliable
> source", and "notable source" is very easily substituted as a metric,
> with
> the small safeguard of attribution (sometimes).
>
> Scott

One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids
for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for
the subject.

Fred Bauder


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[wiki]

"I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from 
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of 
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to 
be problems with me."-MuZemike

All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily Mail, Sun and various
other tabloids are regularly used as sources on BLPs. The typical way of
getting round the reliability issue will be to use phrases likes "it was
reported in the popular press that...", on the pretext that that anything
tabloids report is notable by virtue of being reported in popular newspapers
(regardless of whether the source is reliable or not wrt the facts). After
all: "surely that The Sun has said x is notable, and The Sun is a reliable
source regarding what The Sun has said." :( 

As has been said, Wikipedia has yet to define what it means by "reliable
source", and "notable source" is very easily substituted as a metric, with
the small safeguard of attribution (sometimes).  

Scott




___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Thu, 3/2/11, MuZemike  wrote:

> From: MuZemike 
> I'm sorry, but if I see somebody
> starting to source information from 
> such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on
> biographies of 
> living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there
> are going to 
> be problems with me.

See for example use of radaronline.com:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=radaronline.com&fulltext=1

Andreas



  

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[MuZemike]

I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from 
such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of 
living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to 
be problems with me.

-MuZemike

On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerard  wrote:
>> NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just
>> letting everyone edit the website.
>
> Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly
> encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is akin to what we
> are attempting (and they often succeed better at it than we do). But the way
> NPOV is defined in Wikipedia may be new, and relatively few academic and
> expert writers will have contributed to an encyclopedia before. Most have
> published their own books and papers, in which they are free to present
> their original research and opinions.
>
> Any outreach to scholars and universities needs to communicate that idea
> clearly. The reality gap between our NPOV aim and the actual state of our
> articles may otherwise give new contributors the wrong idea. They shouldn't
> do as we do, they should do better.
>
> We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from
> mature, and still beset with problems. First and foremost, we lack clarity
> on the topic of media vs. scholarly sources, and the weight to assign to
> each of them. We simply say,
>
> "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly,
> proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views
> that have been published by reliable sources."
>
> As the term "reliable sources" encompasses everything from gossip websites,
> The Sun and The Daily Mail to university press publications and academic
> journals, it is not easy to say what "fair, proportionate representation"
> actually ought to mean in practice.
>
> The other day, I discussed Wikipedia with a religious scholar. I had asked
> why there were no scholars contributing. His comments were illuminating.
> Here is what he said:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> "To take an example of a topic with which I'm familiar - Jehovah's Witnesses
> - I would really need to start all over again, and I don't know whether it's
> OK to delete an entire article and rewrite another one, even if I had the
> time. It's a bit like the joke about the motorist who asked for directions,
> only to be told, 'If I were you, I wouldn't be starting from here!'
>
> The JW article begins with an assortment of unrelated bits of information,
> it fails to locate the Witnesses within their historical religious origins,
> it says it was updated in December 2010 yet ignores important recent
> academic material. The citations may look impressive, but they are patchy,
> and sometimes the sources state the exact opposite of what the text conveys.
> So what does one do?"
>
> ---o0o---
>
> What we have going for us is that Wikipedia has become so big that it has
> become hard to ignore. And scholars have begun to notice that if their
> publications are cited in Wikipedia, this actually drives traffic to them.
>
> If our success and our faults can induce those who know better than our
> average editor to come along and help, then we might actually get to the
> point where Wikipedia provides free access to the sum of human knowledge. It
> would be no mean achievement.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerard  wrote:
> NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just
> letting everyone edit the website.

Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly 
encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is akin to what we 
are attempting (and they often succeed better at it than we do). But the way 
NPOV is defined in Wikipedia may be new, and relatively few academic and 
expert writers will have contributed to an encyclopedia before. Most have 
published their own books and papers, in which they are free to present 
their original research and opinions. 

Any outreach to scholars and universities needs to communicate that idea 
clearly. The reality gap between our NPOV aim and the actual state of our 
articles may otherwise give new contributors the wrong idea. They shouldn't 
do as we do, they should do better.

We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from 
mature, and still beset with problems. First and foremost, we lack clarity 
on the topic of media vs. scholarly sources, and the weight to assign to 
each of them. We simply say, 

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, 
proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views 
that have been published by reliable sources."

As the term "reliable sources" encompasses everything from gossip websites, 
The Sun and The Daily Mail to university press publications and academic 
journals, it is not easy to say what "fair, proportionate representation" 
actually ought to mean in practice.

The other day, I discussed Wikipedia with a religious scholar. I had asked 
why there were no scholars contributing. His comments were illuminating. 
Here is what he said:

---o0o---

"To take an example of a topic with which I'm familiar - Jehovah's Witnesses 
- I would really need to start all over again, and I don't know whether it's 
OK to delete an entire article and rewrite another one, even if I had the 
time. It's a bit like the joke about the motorist who asked for directions, 
only to be told, 'If I were you, I wouldn't be starting from here!'

The JW article begins with an assortment of unrelated bits of information, 
it fails to locate the Witnesses within their historical religious origins, 
it says it was updated in December 2010 yet ignores important recent 
academic material. The citations may look impressive, but they are patchy, 
and sometimes the sources state the exact opposite of what the text conveys. 
So what does one do?"

---o0o---

What we have going for us is that Wikipedia has become so big that it has 
become hard to ignore. And scholars have begun to notice that if their 
publications are cited in Wikipedia, this actually drives traffic to them.

If our success and our faults can induce those who know better than our 
average editor to come along and help, then we might actually get to the 
point where Wikipedia provides free access to the sum of human knowledge. It 
would be no mean achievement.

Andreas



  

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[David Gerard]

On 3 February 2011 11:28, David Gerard  wrote:

> NPOV is IMO W

... Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting
everyone edit the website.


 -d.

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[David Gerard]

On 3 February 2011 11:26, Mark  wrote:

> What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being
> written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for
> the most part?


Nerds are obsessive about things being right and not wrong. This leads
to most things about Wikipedia.


> That's something Nupedia didn't succeed in, and on the
> second point is something even most academic-press books don't succeed
> in--- the median overview book on a subject sneaks in quite a bit of
> opinion and original research, and sometimes even digs at academic
> opponents if the editors let them get away with it, which is why you
> can't really read an academic book without *also* reading a few
> journals' reviews of it.


NPOV is IMO W

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Mark]

On 2/3/11 11:59 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of
>> real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a
>> good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until
>> the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing.
> This is an excellent point. Though you may get some angst from those
> already present who may feel pushed out as they see the culture of
> Wikipedia changing (think how hard it has been for some of those
> present from the very beginning, or near the beginning, to adapt over
> the last ten years). How to manage such change is an interesting
> problem.

It's important to make sure we do maintain the aspects of Wikipedia's 
culture that have made it work, though. I'm a professor in my day job 
(though I was an undergrad when I became a Wikipedian), and I don't see 
academia and academic experts as holding all advantages, though they/we 
do do well in the having-a-lot-of-domain-knowledge arena.

What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being 
written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for 
the most part? That's something Nupedia didn't succeed in, and on the 
second point is something even most academic-press books don't succeed 
in--- the median overview book on a subject sneaks in quite a bit of 
opinion and original research, and sometimes even digs at academic 
opponents if the editors let them get away with it, which is why you 
can't really read an academic book without *also* reading a few 
journals' reviews of it.

-Mark


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of
> real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a
> good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until
> the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing.

This is an excellent point. Though you may get some angst from those
already present who may feel pushed out as they see the culture of
Wikipedia changing (think how hard it has been for some of those
present from the very beginning, or near the beginning, to adapt over
the last ten years). How to manage such change is an interesting
problem.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Andreas Kolbe]

> The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken
> over by
> single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and
> continued
> participation by a reasonable number of independent editors
> with new
> voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification
> stagnation. At
> various times, one or the other person will drive an
> initiative, and
> some will voice concerns about short-term and long-term
> issues, but
> overall, as long as the atmosphere doesn't drive people
> away, things
> will get done. If things aren't getting done, they should
> be
> identified and something done about them, but problems
> won't get
> solved if people walk away from them.
> 
> Carcharoth


Any culture is a function of the people participating in that culture, and 
the only way to change the culture is to change the people in it. We need a 
critical mass of mature, knowledgeable editors; people who participate 
because they are knowledgeable, and not because they have strong opinions.

The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of 
real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a 
good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until 
the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing.

Andreas (Jayen466)


  

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Carcharoth]

David (Goodman) and Marc (Riddell)  said it better than I could have
done. But I don't think stepping back and watching is necessarily the
best response. Those who have the time should take part in discussions
like this, and refine their positions as a result of what they say and
read. And write it down somewhere, as it is all too easy to just let
things go until the next such discussion.

Carcharoth

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Marc Riddell
 wrote:
> on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Marc, you should know me better than that.
>>
>> No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia  has
>> proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference
>> source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source
>> that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment,
>> but there are other information needs in the world also, among which
>> is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by
>> known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined   the
>> original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of
>> accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel.
>> Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number
>> of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of
>> building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and
>> therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not
>> think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing  can really do
>> this; I do not think we   have found a good free   model, & I suspect
>> that it may need central editorial control of a relatively
>> conventional nature.
>>
>> I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help
>> form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of
>> the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for
>> contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at
>> Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to
>> continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for
>> the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also.  We
>> should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards
>> of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among
>> ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition
>> to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior.
>> There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot
>> at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the
>> first priority.
>>
>> I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my
>> first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I
>> would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation
>> when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong
>> views about the way they would really like it.  To work within a
>> diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals.
>>
>> In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with
>> an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree
>> of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in
>> fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes
>> better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing
>> structures.
>>
> I apologize David, I did misread your statement. Thank you for this writing.
> Like you, I believe very strongly in the ideas and goals of the Wikipedia
> Project. But I fear for its future. I have made these fears known, and have
> tried to make rational suggestions as to how to prevent what will happen if
> the behemoth that the Project has become does not improve its organizational
> structure. What I have encountered in this effort are two basic types of
> persons: Those, blind in their euphoria, still dancing on airplane wings;
> and those whose own self-interests have blinded them, and caused them to
> resist any change that would effect those self-interests. Fortunately, there
> is a third, much smaller (right now) group who can put aside their emotions
> and self-interests, think rationally beyond today and consider the future of
> the Project. They are the Movement within the Movement. They're the hope. As
> for me, I have said all that I can say at this point. It's time for me to
> step back and watch.
>
> 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM, George Herbert
 wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
>>> The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
>>> in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is
>>> just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
>>> - remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.
>>
>> Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a
>> whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.)
>
> ...And a policy discussion which was driven by a small, vocal, and
> policy-active minority, who drove a solution upstream against a
> consensus gap.
>
> The long term damage that incident did has been consistently shoveled
> under the rug.

Which incident are you both talking about? If Ken's user page makes it
obvious, just say that, but I can't immediately remember what you are
both talking about here.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
>> The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
>> in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is
>> just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
>> - remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.
>
> Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a
> whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.)

...And a policy discussion which was driven by a small, vocal, and
policy-active minority, who drove a solution upstream against a
consensus gap.

The long term damage that incident did has been consistently shoveled
under the rug.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote:
> The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
> in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is
> just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
> - remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.

Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a
whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.)

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:

> Marc, you should know me better than that.
> 
> No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia  has
> proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference
> source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source
> that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment,
> but there are other information needs in the world also, among which
> is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by
> known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined   the
> original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of
> accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel.
> Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number
> of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of
> building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and
> therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not
> think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing  can really do
> this; I do not think we   have found a good free   model, & I suspect
> that it may need central editorial control of a relatively
> conventional nature.
> 
> I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help
> form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of
> the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for
> contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at
> Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to
> continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for
> the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also.  We
> should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards
> of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among
> ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition
> to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior.
> There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot
> at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the
> first priority.
> 
> I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my
> first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I
> would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation
> when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong
> views about the way they would really like it.  To work within a
> diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals.
> 
> In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with
> an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree
> of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in
> fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes
> better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing
> structures.
> 
I apologize David, I did misread your statement. Thank you for this writing.
Like you, I believe very strongly in the ideas and goals of the Wikipedia
Project. But I fear for its future. I have made these fears known, and have
tried to make rational suggestions as to how to prevent what will happen if
the behemoth that the Project has become does not improve its organizational
structure. What I have encountered in this effort are two basic types of
persons: Those, blind in their euphoria, still dancing on airplane wings;
and those whose own self-interests have blinded them, and caused them to
resist any change that would effect those self-interests. Fortunately, there
is a third, much smaller (right now) group who can put aside their emotions
and self-interests, think rationally beyond today and consider the future of
the Project. They are the Movement within the Movement. They're the hope. As
for me, I have said all that I can say at this point. It's time for me to
step back and watch.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[David Goodman]

Marc, you should know me better than that.

No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia  has
proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference
source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source
that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment,
but there are other information needs in the world also, among which
is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by
known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined   the
original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of
accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel.
Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number
of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of
building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and
therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not
think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing  can really do
this; I do not think we   have found a good free   model, & I suspect
that it may need central editorial control of a relatively
conventional nature.

I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help
form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of
the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for
contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at
Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to
continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for
the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also.  We
should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards
of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among
ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition
to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior.
There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot
at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the
first priority.

I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my
first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I
would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation
when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong
views about the way they would really like it.  To work within a
diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals.

In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with
an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree
of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in
fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes
better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing
structures.




On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Marc Riddell  wrote:
>
>
>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
 The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
 content, but that anyone can help make policy.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
>>
> on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
>>
>> Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
>> fraught with danger.
>>
> What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And,
> what is the danger you're talking about?
>
> 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
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
 wrote:

> The only danger i see is some people
> will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor
> of status quo.

The fact that consensus can change on Wikipedia is both its great
strength and its great weakness. It is possible, if the stars are
aligned right (i.e. the right people show up to the discussion), to
'change' a long-established consensus. Sometimes it emerges, through
later discussion and participation, that this so-called change in
consensus was illusory or false. Sometimes, it emerges that the
consensus had in fact changed, and the change to the status quo was
correct.

Finding this out, though, takes lots of time and discussion. This is
the weakness of the consensus-based system, in that you sometimes need
endless discussion merely to maintain the status quo. And also that
for some situations, consensus can swing from side to side, between
two or more different camps. Assessing the consensus requires looking
at both the short-term arguments and the long-term trends. Otherwise
you end up with a system where things chop-and-change constantly, and
no stability is achieved.

The classic example is naming debates, where a great deal of time and
energy goes into discussing what title an article should be at, and if
consensus was truly ruled on every few months, you might get a
situation where an article was at one name for a few months, and then
at another name for another few months. Clearly that sort of result
just drains time and resources away from where it should be focused,
and allows people to obsess over specific issues rather than looking
at the big picture.

This is why allowing the status quo to stay in the absence of
consensus otherwise is used. Anything else leads to increased
instability. Either that, or you insist on and enforce moratoriums on
repeating the same debates until a set period of time has passed.
Accept that the present discussion (whatever it is) has run its
course, and move on to work on other things, and then return to the
old discussion after that set period of time has passed. Over time,
you build up a long-term picture of how and whether consensus is
changing over month and years, or not, as the participants and
arguments change and evolve and mature.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate
policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a
strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values
> (openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a
fairly weak system especially if the council members had their own veto
in council decisions and the community kept a power of referendum to
undo any council mistakes. The only danger i see is some people will no
longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor of status
quo. Whether or not we want to give them authority to close debate is
well debatable but even with that we wouldnt be creating another jimbo
but rather an extension of the existing community
> governance.  As for secret ballots we already elect a much more
> powerful and perhaps more dangerous body by secret election and those
are the community reps to the board so i think it is a viable and
proven system.
>

Agreed, (not about anonymous voting, but that how we do things, for now)

Fred




___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Stephanie Daugherty]

so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate
policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a
strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values
(openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a
fairly weak system especially if the council members had their own
veto in council decisions and the community kept a power of referendum
to undo any council mistakes. The only danger i see is some people
will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor
of status quo. Whether or not we want to give them authority to close
debate is well debatable but even with that we wouldnt be creating
another jimbo but rather an extension of the existing community
governance.  As for secret ballots we already elect a much more
powerful and perhaps more dangerous body by secret election and those
are the community reps to the board so i think it is a viable and
proven system.

On 2/2/11, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>> i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the
>> consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be
>> there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the
>> authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong
>> enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to
>> be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still
>> be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that
>> they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that
>> the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto
>> over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the
>> council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority
>> the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend
>> proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small
>> cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument
>> would be over. Consensus still wins.
>>
>
> Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other
> contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is
> obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It
> should not result in sterile deadlocks though.
>
> I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea.
>
> Fred
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the
> consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be
> there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the
> authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong
> enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to
> be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still
> be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that
> they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that
> the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto
> over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the
> council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority
> the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend
> proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small
> cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument
> would be over. Consensus still wins.
>

Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other
contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is
obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It
should not result in sterile deadlocks though.

I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea.

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Stephanie Daugherty]

i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the
consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be
there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the
authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong
enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to
be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still
be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that
they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that
the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto
over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the
council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority
the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend
proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small
cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument
would be over. Consensus still wins.

On 2/2/11, WereSpielChequers  wrote:
> We seem to be confusing several separate issues here.
>
> 1) Directive versus self organising organisations.
> Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are
> inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self
> organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals
> empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way
> Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist
> Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out
> there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader
> should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered
> people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to
> think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm
> not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match
> with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my
> instinctive assumption that "strong leadership" is more often a
> disadvantage than an advantage.
>
> 2) Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus.
>
> Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to
> discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people
> realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking
> minority.
>
> 3) Direct versus indirect Democracy
> Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well
> as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN
> wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the
> active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that
> argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a
> small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If
> 49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it,
> and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that
> means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and
> better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda
> and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect
> democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other
> options wins.
>
> But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from
> the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local
> disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments.
> Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but
> the fundamentalists.
>
> The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would
> either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where
> existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the
> only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable
> way to get round the drawbacks of consensus.
>
> My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was
> involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little
> but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies
> project -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_projects
> Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less
> successful.  So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change
> that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with
> those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree
> with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what
> they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them.
>
> WereSpielChequers
>
> On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell  wrote:
>> on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>>
>>>
 Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by
 the
 Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer
 and
 donor support? And, I specifica

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell 
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell 
>>> wrote:
> People agree and support the decision.
> 
 Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
 that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be
 factually validated?
>> 
>> on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this
>>> general question has no exact answer.
>>> 
>>> This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including
>>> those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes;
>>> scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the
>>> community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
>>> 
>>> That's the way it works, though.
>>> 
>>> I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is
>>> often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done
>>> in.  The reality is that we're there.  That's how Wikipedia works (for
>>> whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the
>>> project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
>> 
>> George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
>> state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia
>> Community" is fundamentally dishonest.

on 2/1/11 11:12 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Consensus is the method which was chosen for Wikipedia to determine
> things (in general).  Raw majority voting (or supermajority voting)
> was intentionally not chosen.
> 
> It's entirely fine to point out that this leads to existential angst
> over what consensus is, means, or how anyone ever determines it.  But
> that's what we do, every day for the last 10 years.  Something worked,
> at least some of the time.
> 
> You're looking for a deeper meaning (fair) and a way to legitimately
> and concretely get approval for changes (fair to ask for) that gives
> you an answer you feel was unambiguously arrived at.
> 
> We have no guarantee that the last clause will ever be satisfied under
> the consensus system.  Some issues are uncontroversial and it's not
> really challenged that consensus exists.  Some issues are very
> controversial, and calling the consensus either way is ambiguous.
> 
> I understand and acknowledge that the ambiguity is a pain point for
> you.  That is the system, for better or worse.  There is no magic
> wand.
> 
George, your equivocation surprises me. My assessment of the Wikipedia
"consensus" process remains the same. And your implied suggestion that it
works because Wikipedia is still here and going strong: you are mistaking
size for strength, mass for solidity. Wikipedia's structure may be massive,
but it is by no means solid. My prognosis if some basic lifestyle changes
aren't made: Poor.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[WereSpielChequers]

We seem to be confusing several separate issues here.

1) Directive versus self organising organisations.
Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are
inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self
organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals
empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way
Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist
Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out
there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader
should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered
people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to
think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm
not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match
with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my
instinctive assumption that "strong leadership" is more often a
disadvantage than an advantage.

2) Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus.

Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to
discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people
realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking
minority.

3) Direct versus indirect Democracy
Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well
as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN
wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the
active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that
argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a
small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If
49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it,
and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that
means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and
better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda
and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect
democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other
options wins.

But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from
the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local
disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments.
Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but
the fundamentalists.

The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would
either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where
existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the
only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable
way to get round the drawbacks of consensus.

My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was
involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little
but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies
project - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_projects
Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less
successful.  So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change
that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with
those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree
with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what
they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them.

WereSpielChequers

On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell  wrote:
> on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>
>>
>>> Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by
>>> the
>>> Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer
>>> and
>>> donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have
>>> nothing
>>> to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss
>>> of
>>> independence?
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
>> You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad
>> idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of
>> skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of
>> sense does that make?
>>
> Your use of the word "skulduggery" in this context is very telling, Fred.
>
> 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell  wrote:
>
>> George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
>> state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia
>> Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
>
> Marc, you're still looking for a driver. There's no-one driving.

Or everyone is.

The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken over by
single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and continued
participation by a reasonable number of independent editors with new
voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification stagnation. At
various times, one or the other person will drive an initiative, and
some will voice concerns about short-term and long-term issues, but
overall, as long as the atmosphere doesn't drive people away, things
will get done. If things aren't getting done, they should be
identified and something done about them, but problems won't get
solved if people walk away from them.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[David Gerard]

On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell  wrote:

> George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
> state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia
> Community" is fundamentally dishonest.


Marc, you're still looking for a driver. There's no-one driving.


- d.

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell
>> 
>> wrote:
 People agree and support the decision.

>>> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and
>>> declaring
>>> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus"
>>> cannot be
>>> factually validated?
>
> on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this
>> general question has no exact answer.
>>
>> This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including
>> those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes;
>> scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the
>> community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
>>
>> That's the way it works, though.
>>
>> I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is
>> often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done
>> in.  The reality is that we're there.  That's how Wikipedia works (for
>> whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the
>> project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
>
> George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
> state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the
> Wikipedia
> Community" is fundamentally dishonest.
>
> Marc

We make decisions according to our long-standing policy of making
decisions by consensus and have successfully for many years. You saying
that our experience is bogus does not make it so. Please take a look at
Wikipedia:Consensus

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
>>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> I could make out the last sentence
>>> which
>>> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the
>>> entire
>>> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of
>>> consensus",
>>> nor
>>> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is
>>> determined.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>> on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>
>> We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for
>> adopting
>> alternatives, and come to agreement.
>>
> C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is,
> after
> the
> discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the
> Community
> has been reached?
>
> Marc

>>> on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>>>
 People agree and support the decision.

>>> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and
>>> declaring
>>> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus"
>>> cannot
>>> be
>>> factually validated?
>>>
>>> Marc
>
> on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>>
>> The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought
>> like
>> that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do
>> not
>> change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and
>> follow it.
>>
> And how many of these Talk Page "votes" are usually cast before the
> results
> are announced as being the "consensus" of the entire Wikipedia Community?
>
> Marc

That depends on how important and significant the issue is. Remember
watch lists. A change that is consistent with existing policy does not
call for debate; a major change to one of the "pillars of policy" would
call forth major participation and debate.

Fred

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell  wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell 
>> wrote:
 People agree and support the decision.

>>> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
>>> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be
>>> factually validated?
>
> on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this
>> general question has no exact answer.
>>
>> This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including
>> those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes;
>> scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the
>> community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
>>
>> That's the way it works, though.
>>
>> I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is
>> often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done
>> in.  The reality is that we're there.  That's how Wikipedia works (for
>> whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the
>> project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).
>
> George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
> state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia
> Community" is fundamentally dishonest.

Consensus is the method which was chosen for Wikipedia to determine
things (in general).  Raw majority voting (or supermajority voting)
was intentionally not chosen.

It's entirely fine to point out that this leads to existential angst
over what consensus is, means, or how anyone ever determines it.  But
that's what we do, every day for the last 10 years.  Something worked,
at least some of the time.

You're looking for a deeper meaning (fair) and a way to legitimately
and concretely get approval for changes (fair to ask for) that gives
you an answer you feel was unambiguously arrived at.

We have no guarantee that the last clause will ever be satisfied under
the consensus system.  Some issues are uncontroversial and it's not
really challenged that consensus exists.  Some issues are very
controversial, and calling the consensus either way is ambiguous.

I understand and acknowledge that the ambiguity is a pain point for
you.  That is the system, for better or worse.  There is no magic
wand.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell 
> wrote:
>>> People agree and support the decision.
>>> 
>> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
>> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be
>> factually validated?

on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this
> general question has no exact answer.
> 
> This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including
> those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes;
> scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the
> community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.
> 
> That's the way it works, though.
> 
> I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is
> often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done
> in.  The reality is that we're there.  That's how Wikipedia works (for
> whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the
> project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).

George, it may be "how it works", but it also misleading - or worse. To
state that any decision made in this manner is a "consensus of the Wikipedia
Community" is fundamentally dishonest.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell  wrote:
>> People agree and support the decision.
>>
> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be
> factually validated?

It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this
general question has no exact answer.

This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including
those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes;
scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the
community trying to understand or quantify it; many others.

That's the way it works, though.

I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is
often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done
in.  The reality is that we're there.  That's how Wikipedia works (for
whatever definition of "work" you care to apply to the state of the
project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory).


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

>> 
>> 
 
> 
>> I could make out the last sentence
>> which
>> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the
>> entire
>> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of
>> consensus",
>> nor
>> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is
>> determined.
>> 
>> Marc
>> 
> on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
 
> We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting
> alternatives, and come to agreement.
> 
 C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after
 the
 discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the
 Community
 has been reached?
 
 Marc
>>> 
>> on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>> 
>>> People agree and support the decision.
>>> 
>> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
>> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot
>> be
>> factually validated?
>> 
>> Marc

on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
> 
> The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like
> that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not
> change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and
> follow it.
> 
And how many of these Talk Page "votes" are usually cast before the results
are announced as being the "consensus" of the entire Wikipedia Community?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
>
>>>

> I could make out the last sentence
> which
> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the
> entire
> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of
> consensus",
> nor
> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is
> determined.
>
> Marc
>
 on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>>>
 We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting
 alternatives, and come to agreement.

>>> C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after
>>> the
>>> discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the
>>> Community
>>> has been reached?
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
> on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>
>> People agree and support the decision.
>>
> Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
> that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot
> be
> factually validated?
>
> Marc

The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like
that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not
change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and
follow it.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

>> 
>>> 
 I could make out the last sentence
 which
 contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the
 entire
 community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus",
 nor
 described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is
 determined.
 
 Marc
 
>>> on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>> 
>>> We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting
>>> alternatives, and come to agreement.
>>> 
>> C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after
>> the
>> discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the
>> Community
>> has been reached?
>> 
>> Marc
> 
on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

> People agree and support the decision.
> 
Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring
that there in Community consensus, knowing that this "consensus" cannot be
factually validated?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

> 
>> Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by
>> the
>> Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer
>> and
>> donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have
>> nothing
>> to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss
>> of
>> independence?
>> 
>> Marc
> 
> You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad
> idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of
> skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of
> sense does that make?
> 
Your use of the word "skulduggery" in this context is very telling, Fred.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
>>
>>> I could make out the last sentence
>>> which
>>> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the
>>> entire
>>> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus",
>>> nor
>>> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is
>>> determined.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>> on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
>
>> We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting
>> alternatives, and come to agreement.
>>
> C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after
> the
> discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the
> Community
> has been reached?
>
> Marc

People agree and support the decision.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by
> the
> Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer
> and
> donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have
> nothing
> to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss
> of
> independence?
>
> Marc

You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad
idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of
skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of
sense does that make?

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
> On 02/02/2011, Marc Riddell  wrote:
>> on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
>>> fraught with danger.
>
> Yup, that's exactly what people normally say to virtually any change.
>
>> What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And,
>> what is the danger you're talking about?
>
> He's talking about the 'Danger That Cannot Be Named, So Nothing Must
> Be Changed.'
>
> To be honest, I was thinking about starting a liberal political party
> on wikipedia. It's about time we had political parties. My party is
> going to be called 'The Party for Change (tm)'.
>
> I'm not sure what the changes would be yet, but we can work out a
> manifesto as we go.

I am shaking in my boots.  Woe is us!

> It's going to be a New Force (tm) in Wikipedian politics!

You're channeling one of the Terry Pratchett books here, aren't you?


I hereby announce the second party; we're the California Conservative
party.  We believe in "God-or-outmoded-concept saving the Queen" (in
the San Francisco sense; see [[Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence]]) and
will adopt a modification of the Aspen Drug and Gun club ("Death
before Dishonor, Drugs before Lunch").



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/1/11 7:58 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard 
>>> wrote:
 On 01/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
> The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can
> contribute
> content, but that anyone can help make policy.
 
 You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
>>> 
>> on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
>>> 
>>> FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
>>> 
>>> Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
>>> fraught with danger.
>>> 
>> What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth?
>> And,
>> what is the danger you're talking about?
>> 
>> Marc
> 
> In the case of your proposals, imposition of arbitrary authority; loss of
> volunteer and donor support; and lose of editorial independence.
> 
Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the
Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and
donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing
to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of
independence?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Ian Woollard]

On 02/02/2011, Marc Riddell  wrote:
> on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
>> fraught with danger.

Yup, that's exactly what people normally say to virtually any change.

> What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And,
> what is the danger you're talking about?

He's talking about the 'Danger That Cannot Be Named, So Nothing Must
Be Changed.'

To be honest, I was thinking about starting a liberal political party
on wikipedia. It's about time we had political parties. My party is
going to be called 'The Party for Change (tm)'.

I'm not sure what the changes would be yet, but we can work out a
manifesto as we go.

It's going to be a New Force (tm) in Wikipedian politics!

> Marc

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

> 
>> I could make out the last sentence
>> which
>> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire
>> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor
>> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
>> 
>> Marc
>> 
> on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

> We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting
> alternatives, and come to agreement.
> 
C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the
discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community
has been reached?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

>
>
>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard 
>> wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
 The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can
 contribute
 content, but that anyone can help make policy.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
>>
> on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
>>
>> Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
>> fraught with danger.
>>
> What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth?
> And,
> what is the danger you're talking about?
>
> Marc

In the case of your proposals, imposition of arbitrary authority; loss of
volunteer and donor support; and lose of editorial independence.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Marc Riddell]

> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
>> On 01/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
>>> The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
>>> content, but that anyone can help make policy.
>> 
>> You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.
> 
on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:

> Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)
> 
> FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.
> 
> Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
> fraught with danger.
> 
What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And,
what is the danger you're talking about?

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

> I could make out the last sentence
> which
> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire
> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor
> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
>
> Marc
>

We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting
alternatives, and come to agreement.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[wiki]

The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate
in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is "dangerous" is
just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia
- remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making.

What makes new editors stay or leave is a good editing experience. We
understand that there's many problems with that experience, and many ways we
might change Wikipedia that might improve it for them. However, we can't do
that because the current way of changing policy is defective, fights all
innovations, and privileges those wishing to oppose any reforms. But now we
are told that we can't change the policy-making process, because we
potentially violate the new editor's highly valued right to full
participation in said defective process?

What are we saying? "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia where everyone gets an
equal right to vainly bang their head against a policy brick wall". 

Amazingly a project that began with risk taking an innovation has now
managed to allow the fear of change and reactionaries to call the shots.
(Oops, that's not civil either!)

Scott

-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth
Sent: 02 February 2011 00:31
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender
gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard 
wrote:
> On 01/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
>> The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
>> content, but that anyone can help make policy.
>
> You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.

Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)

FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.

Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
fraught with danger.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard  wrote:
> On 01/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
>> The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
>> content, but that anyone can help make policy.
>
> You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.

Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-)

FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote.

Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is
fraught with danger.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Ian Woollard]

On 01/02/2011, David Goodman  wrote:
> The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
> content, but that anyone can help make policy.

You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors.

In most cases attempts to change Wikipedia's policy in reasonable ways
fails because somebody, somewhere will think that virtually any change
could, theoretically, backfire in some nightmare scenario that they
believe in their heart of hearts 100% definitely will transpire, or
because they assume bad faith of the editor, or any number of other
what if looked at closely are fairly weird reasons.

The idea that if bad things did happen as a result of a change; that
they could be reverted as easily as the change to the policy, that
ironically never, ever stops anyone reverting changes to policy.

The normal case where changes are done, and stick, involve some sort
of gang of editors of some description.

The gangs aren't necessarily up to no good, but that's the normal way
it happens.

> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[David Gerard]

On 1 February 2011 23:06, Marc Riddell  wrote:
> on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:

>> It cannot do everything, or suit
>> everybody. If one wants something different,  try other projects.

> David, are you really saying what I hear you saying - ["]If you don't like
> the way things are, go someplace else["]?!


FWIW, I read it as "Wikipedia sorely needs competition and it may not
be possible any more to get any." Blog post:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2011/01/19/single-point-of-failure/


- d.

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote:


> 
> We have something that has proven successful far beyond any
> expectations. It puzzles me why anyone would want to risk a
> fundamental change in its structure.

Because it, as well as its needs, have grown beyond its original structure.

> Let it continue as far as
> relative anarchy can take it.

And then what, David?

It cannot do everything, or suit
> everybody. If one wants something different,  try other projects.

David, are you really saying what I hear you saying - ["]If you don't like
the way things are, go someplace else["]?!

Marc



> 
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>> 
>>> You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.
>> 
>> 
>> The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a
>> city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two
>> people are in the same room, let alone 160,000.
>> 
>> 
>> - d.
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[David Goodman]

The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute
content, but that anyone can help make policy. Though it's a little
harder to be accepted for this, even newcomers are listened to,
especially if they do not trying to do propaganda for promotionalism;
it is not necessary to serve a long apprenticeship.

This is the point of open culture as a general way of working: it's
open. Of course, it produces inevitable inefficiencies and
instabilities, but it has the attraction to new people that they can
come and soon affect things. There are more than enough formal
organizations in the world for those who prefer their efficiency and
stability.

There are many informal organizations also. Some, like open software,
are in principle open to all, but in practice have extensive technical
prerequisites. the uniqueness of Wikipedia is that it is open to even
the beginners, and yet produces work of major public usefulness on a
par with that produced by formal organizations and experts. And that
it accomplishes this on a broad  multilingual basis is unmatched by
any organization.

We have something that has proven successful far beyond any
expectations. It puzzles me why anyone would want to risk a
fundamental change in its structure. Let it continue as far as
relative anarchy can take it. It cannot do everything, or suit
everybody. If one wants something different,  try other projects. The
main thing Wikipedia needs for improvement at this point, is some real
competition.  The worst thing to happen to Wikipedia these last few
years, is that the alternate program at Citizendium did not succeed
sufficiently to challenge it.

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.
>
>
> The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a
> city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two
> people are in the same room, let alone 160,000.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[David Gerard]

On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder  wrote:

> You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.


The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a
city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two
people are in the same room, let alone 160,000.


- d.

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

> How about this for starters for a leadership council. 5 members,
> serving staggered 3 year terms, and possibly subject to recall, with
> the following duties:
> - To engage members of the community in open and frank discussions
> about policy, technical, and content/style issues.
> - To participate in discussions of broad-reaching issues, lending
> moderation and reminding the community of it's core responsibility and
> values.
> - To rule on the presence or absence of consensus where it is contested.
> - To occasionally impose decisions based on the advice of the
> community where the consensus process cannot produce a decision, and
> where the decision would reflect both a majority viewpoint and the
> long-term interests of the project.
> - To occasionally call referendums on technical and policy matters
> after sufficient discussion has taken place, and where the wishes of
> the community are not clear.
> - To use the site notice and watchlist notice functions to call
> attention to broad-reaching policy and technical discussions requiring
> more community input.
> - To impose temporary policy decisions where timeliness is critical
> due to potential for disruption to the community or gross violation of
> our core values.
>
> The community would retain the ability to govern through consensus,
> and would further have the ability to call referendums on any decision
> imposed by the council. Overturning a council decision would be by
> simple majority, so that the council would lack the ability to go
> completely against the wishes of the community.
>
>
> Someone take this and keep editing please :)

Later with elaboration, but very very promising initiative.

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> Carcharoth, we evidently edit entirely different wikis.
>
>>"You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not
>>building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to
>>problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that
>>work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later
>>you find that the problem has come back and got worse."
>
> What "quick fixes"??? The problem is that nothing gets done short or long
> term. My approach doesn't produce "quick fixes" for the impatient, I have
> been at some of the issues patiently for years and getting nothing done,
> or
> little and only be attrition. Perhaps an aggressive approach seldom
> works,
> but the opposite of civil patience shows no sign of working any better.
>
> You are right, you /should/ be able to demonstrate that civil patience is
> more productive than bullheadedness, the problem is that the evidence is
> at
> best neutral.

If you've been at something for years, people do not agree with your
approach. Not with your method necessarily, but with whatever you are
trying to do.

Everybody loses a debate from time to time, but after bringing something
up over and over you should assume others understand the issue but don't
agree.

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> My own simple solution would be to elect a "policy advisory committee"
>
> *The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort,
> where the status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated
> community attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile.
> *The PAC by majority voting would define the issues, call for evidence of
> the problems, and assess the possible reform possibilities (like an
> arbitration, the community free to make submissions).
> *The PAC would vote and either endorse the status-quo or a "preferred
> solution"
> *If a preferred solution emerges, this would go for community
> consultation and then be tweaked by the committee.
> *The final "preferred solution" would then be set against the "status
> quo" in a straight up/down community vote.
>
> Scott

Promising suggestion

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> on 2/1/11 9:02 AM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> (This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as
>> HTML and mucked up the formatting)
>>
>> I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent
>> dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their
>> responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
>>
>> I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an
>> open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with
>> the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process.
>> Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we
>> can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our
>> project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no
>> involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
>>
>> I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal
>> charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on
>> which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect
>> those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple
>> document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all
>> the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community,
>> it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe
>> that they could approve such a document without taking on the
>> oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a
>> lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation.
>> The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive
>> aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of
>> governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through
>> careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.
>
> Thank you, Stephanie. Now I understand why some of the other posts to
> this
> and other Lists are nearly unreadable to me. I usually simply skip them
> without having to take the time do decipher them. But yours was worth
> both
> the time and struggle. And, thanks to the crappy weather we're having
> here
> on the east coast of the USA, most of my appointments have been postponed
> 'til another day. I'm like a school kid with a snow day!:-)
>
> I like your idea of an elected council. Unlike the present Arbitration
> Committee, they would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or
> behavioral disputes. They would hear appeals from persons who have been
> through the existing process. Their role being to serve as the final
> arbiter
> in intractable disputes, and an entity to hear and review proposals for
> change; and have the power to institute that change. That
> Community-elected
> body would then elect their leader who would have the responsibility of
> being the final arbiter of disputes within that council. That council
> could
> (and should) have a Mailing List, or other such mechanism for the
> Community
> members at large to ask questions and provide their input.
>
> The keys are stability, accountability and openness!
>
> Marc

You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
>  wrote:
>
>> That means we need a stronger executive that can decide
>> to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so
>> that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation.
>
> These are the two approaches that work in most situations. I'm very
> much in favour of structured debates, rather than the chaotic ones
> that sometimes take place. But you need to set up the debate so that
> someone (or a group) is tasked with closing it and moving things
> forward. Too many debates just founder and fade away, with nothing
> being done.
>
> Carcharoth

The closing of debates is something an elected council could do. That
preserves the role of the community in formulating and debating policy.

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

> On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell 
> wrote:
>
>> Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term
>> "consensus"
>> and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts
>> on
>> this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that
>> "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community!
>> it's
>> like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the
>> American
>> Community"!
>
>
> Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.
>
>
> - d.

I'm going to answer his question, it is a very good one, but I do manage
to do a few things besides answer email.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

This idea arose in the context of a discussion which generally addressed
civility. The warnings would be civility warnings.

Fred

> To that end, a warnings tool would be helpful,
> supplementing or replacing the uw- templates with a MediaWiki
> extension that requires that warnings be acknowledged by the editor to
> continue editing, and providing a record of warnings. This is
> basically a very soft block that the editor is free to remove
> themselves. Warnings need not be generally visible except in the case
> where a matter progresses to arbitration, but they should persist for
> a period of time so that patterns of behavior become apparent.
>
> -Stephanie

Brilliant!

Fred Bauder


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

on 1/31/11 11:43 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Marc Riddell 
> wrote:
> 
>> It's time.
> 
> To march on Tahrir Square?

Or the tower of babble :-)
> 
> I think you will find that "Choosing a leader" only works if you have
> the mechanisms in place to do so.

Then let's create that mechanism.
> 
> I'm not even sure it is *possible* to lead an entity like Wikipedia.

If the whole of an entity is composed of a single entity - such as a
community - then is is possible to lead. Even a riot needs leadership if the
group that is rioting has any hope of calling attention to its issues. A
group without a leader is just a mob.
> 
> Horses being led to water to drink and old dogs being taught new
> tricks come to mind.

If the horse is thirsty enough it doesn't care how it gets to the water. And
an old dog will learn new tricks when he discovers that the old ones don't
work anymore.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Stephanie Daugherty]

How about this for starters for a leadership council. 5 members,
serving staggered 3 year terms, and possibly subject to recall, with
the following duties:
- To engage members of the community in open and frank discussions
about policy, technical, and content/style issues.
- To participate in discussions of broad-reaching issues, lending
moderation and reminding the community of it's core responsibility and
values.
- To rule on the presence or absence of consensus where it is contested.
- To occasionally impose decisions based on the advice of the
community where the consensus process cannot produce a decision, and
where the decision would reflect both a majority viewpoint and the
long-term interests of the project.
- To occasionally call referendums on technical and policy matters
after sufficient discussion has taken place, and where the wishes of
the community are not clear.
- To use the site notice and watchlist notice functions to call
attention to broad-reaching policy and technical discussions requiring
more community input.
- To impose temporary policy decisions where timeliness is critical
due to potential for disruption to the community or gross violation of
our core values.

The community would retain the ability to govern through consensus,
and would further have the ability to call referendums on any decision
imposed by the council. Overturning a council decision would be by
simple majority, so that the council would lack the ability to go
completely against the wishes of the community.


Someone take this and keep editing please :)






On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Marc Riddell  wrote:
> on 2/1/11 12:43 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell  wrote:
>>
>>> Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus"
>>> and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on
>>> this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that
>>> "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's
>>> like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American
>>> Community"!
>>
>>
>> Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.
>>
>>
> David, yes and the road becomes more complex and hazardous with every new
> mile that is traveled. And, if that continues, then I am afraid for a
> Project and a Community that I have come to have a great deal of respect and
> affection for.
>
> 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[wiki]

Carcharoth, we evidently edit entirely different wikis.

>"You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not
>building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to
>problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that
>work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later
>you find that the problem has come back and got worse."

What "quick fixes"??? The problem is that nothing gets done short or long
term. My approach doesn't produce "quick fixes" for the impatient, I have
been at some of the issues patiently for years and getting nothing done, or
little and only be attrition. Perhaps an aggressive approach seldom works,
but the opposite of civil patience shows no sign of working any better. 

You are right, you /should/ be able to demonstrate that civil patience is
more productive than bullheadedness, the problem is that the evidence is at
best neutral.

-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth
Sent: 01 February 2011 17:54
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender
gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, wiki  wrote:

> 1)  the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are
generally,
> tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and
> breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is
> also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring
> and a willingness to battle vested-interests).

I think that is a short-sighted view.

You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not
building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to
problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that
work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later
you find that the problem has come back and got worse.

I would focus on:

WP:CHRONIC INCIVILITY (as a subset of WP:RFC/U)
WP:LONG-TERM (to pull together long-term issues and see them through)

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Ian Woollard]

On 01/02/2011, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
>> If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can
>> lose
>> the most productive members.
>
> Good propaganda, and it worked, but our most productive members are not
> habitually nasty, only a few are.

This is a good example. I resent you for referring to my general
discussion as 'propaganda'. This is rather uncivil. So please can
Bauder be suspended from this list as he violates civility Many
thx. ;-)

/tongue in cheek example

The point is that it's a continuum, what some people consider
incivility may not be considered by others, and they vary on how much
is needed for action. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any statute of
limitations, so I've seen numerous cases where people come along with
a dirty laundry list from several years; implicitly this may overwhelm
thousands and thousands of positive edits, and the incivility may be
directed at people that are objectively up to no good.

That's the trade-off. As George says, everyone is incivil sometimes.

But my fundamental point is that perhaps it's about trade-offs between
things; so identifying the trade-offs identifies the areas that
require leadership. Things that aren't traded, don't require
leadership, since consensus will very typically do the right thing for
things that aren't traded off.

> Fred

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/1/11 9:02 AM, Stephanie Daugherty at sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:

> (This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as
> HTML and mucked up the formatting)
> 
> I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent
> dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their
> responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
> 
> I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an
> open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with
> the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process.
> Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we
> can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our
> project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no
> involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
> 
> I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal
> charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on
> which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect
> those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple
> document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all
> the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community,
> it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe
> that they could approve such a document without taking on the
> oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a
> lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation.
> The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive
> aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of
> governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through
> careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.

Thank you, Stephanie. Now I understand why some of the other posts to this
and other Lists are nearly unreadable to me. I usually simply skip them
without having to take the time do decipher them. But yours was worth both
the time and struggle. And, thanks to the crappy weather we're having here
on the east coast of the USA, most of my appointments have been postponed
'til another day. I'm like a school kid with a snow day!:-)

I like your idea of an elected council. Unlike the present Arbitration
Committee, they would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or
behavioral disputes. They would hear appeals from persons who have been
through the existing process. Their role being to serve as the final arbiter
in intractable disputes, and an entity to hear and review proposals for
change; and have the power to institute that change. That Community-elected
body would then elect their leader who would have the responsibility of
being the final arbiter of disputes within that council. That council could
(and should) have a Mailing List, or other such mechanism for the Community
members at large to ask questions and provide their input.

The keys are stability, accountability and openness!

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/1/11 12:43 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell  wrote:
> 
>> Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus"
>> and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on
>> this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that
>> "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's
>> like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American
>> Community"!
> 
> 
> Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.
> 
> 
David, yes and the road becomes more complex and hazardous with every new
mile that is traveled. And, if that continues, then I am afraid for a
Project and a Community that I have come to have a great deal of respect and
affection for.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[wiki]

My own simple solution would be to elect a "policy advisory committee"

*The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort, where the 
status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated community 
attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile.
*The PAC by majority voting would define the issues, call for evidence of the 
problems, and assess the possible reform possibilities (like an arbitration, 
the community free to make submissions).
*The PAC would vote and either endorse the status-quo or a "preferred solution" 
*If a preferred solution emerges, this would go for community consultation and 
then be tweaked by the committee.
*The final "preferred solution" would then be set against the "status quo" in a 
straight up/down community vote.

Scott


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
 wrote:

> That means we need a stronger executive that can decide
> to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so
> that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation.

These are the two approaches that work in most situations. I'm very
much in favour of structured debates, rather than the chaotic ones
that sometimes take place. But you need to set up the debate so that
someone (or a group) is tasked with closing it and moving things
forward. Too many debates just founder and fade away, with nothing
being done.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, wiki  wrote:

> 1)  the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally,
> tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and
> breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is
> also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring
> and a willingness to battle vested-interests).

I think that is a short-sighted view.

You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not
building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to
problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that
work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later
you find that the problem has come back and got worse.

I would focus on:

WP:CHRONIC INCIVILITY (as a subset of WP:RFC/U)
WP:LONG-TERM (to pull together long-term issues and see them through)

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[David Gerard]

On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell  wrote:

> Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus"
> and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on
> this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that
> "community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's
> like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American
> Community"!


Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving.


- d.

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Stephanie Daugherty]

Got sidetracked and didn't put the other parts of what I wanted to say
in...  Ok. Once we have mediation restructured to take the load off
ArbCom, that leaves effective governance, and effective policing as
key parts of a fix.

Effective governance is a key because without it, as Scott said,
tenditiousness and bullheaded persistence become the only ways to get
things done. That means we need a stronger executive that can decide
to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so
that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation. I'm not
saying that they should have unbridled "Jimboesque" authority, but
they should be able to step up in any situation where consensus
process doesn't seem to be working. That IMO means an "advice and
consent" model, where advice comes from previous discussion, and
consent comes by virtue of the office, as well as from the ability of
the community to formally reject it's actions by referendum.

Policing is tricky, because of the fact that calling a dick a dick is
itself a dickish move, but sometimes it's the only way to get the
message across. To that end, a warnings tool would be helpful,
supplementing or replacing the uw- templates with a MediaWiki
extension that requires that warnings be acknowledged by the editor to
continue editing, and providing a record of warnings. This is
basically a very soft block that the editor is free to remove
themselves. Warnings need not be generally visible except in the case
where a matter progresses to arbitration, but they should persist for
a period of time so that patterns of behavior become apparent.

-Stephanie

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
 wrote:
> I think one thing leads to another here. Incivility leads to loss of
> editors of all genders. ArbCom has too narrow of a function and too
> little time to deal with every case of incivility. We have a lack of
> effective governance to be able to bring about a solution to all of
> these issues.
>
> The conversation kindof jumped around a bit, but we have hit on some
> very serious issues. Operationally, everything works, as far as
> management, we are effectively leaderless and without any clear way to
> govern - the consensus process being so easily thrown off course it's
> become useless for any large-scale contentious issue. It's not that we
> are unable to make decisions, it's that we are unable to make
> controversial ones. We have a judiciary of sorts for our community,
> but the design as a court of last resort, coupled with the lack of any
> other authority with sufficient clout to deal with more established
> contributors, effectively cripple us, because every other process
> except ejection ("community ban") by community consensus is toothless,
> and consensus to eject a vested contributor doesn't happen short of
> them going suddenly and completely berserk and staying that way for an
> extended period of time.
>
> So, that leaves us with several problems:
>
> We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that
> is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an
> appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they
> can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the
> worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline
> disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution
> that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and
> it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute
> resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom
> first.
>
> As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure,
> we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The
> way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed
> to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload.
> Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the
> condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted
> - or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in
> dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would
> enter a binding mediation.
> Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution
> mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the
> standards of policy and practical enforceability)  by the mediators,
> or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the
> prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form
> further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached
> from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard
> remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an
> agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until
> renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given
> access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask
>

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that
> is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an
> appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they
> can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the
> worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline
> disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution
> that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and
> it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute
> resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom
> first.

> As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure,
> we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The
> way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed
> to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload.
> Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the
> condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted
> - or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in
> dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would
> enter a binding mediation.
> Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution
> mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the
> standards of policy and practical enforceability)  by the mediators,
> or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the
> prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form
> further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached
> from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard
> remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an
> agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until
> renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given
> access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask
> ArbCom for an injunction in a case that has not yet been presented to
> them)  for obtaining injunctions in order to stop a disputed activity
> while negotiations take place - injunctions of this nature would
> expire after reaching an agreement through mediation, or after
> reaching a decision through arbitration.
>
> -Stephanie

You're proposing a rather complex structure when we are having trouble
finding responsible talented people to populate the limited one we have.

I think we need to go the other direction, empowering administrators, a
movement that is ongoing. However along with more widespread power there
needs to be more widespread skill and finesse.

I keep coming back to community practices; they need to advance on a
broad basis. Everybody needs to do better and have an understanding of
how their behavior affects the entire project. That, I guess, is called
socialization.

How are Wikipedia editors socialized?

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

> 
>> Fred, this "authority" could bring order to the present chaos. As for my
>> proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them
>> out
>> with persons who also believe this change is necessary.
>> 
>> This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came
>> formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence
>> which
>> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire
>> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor
>> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
>> 
>> Marc
> 
on 2/1/11 11:01 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

> I think you need to define the problem. What problems are not being
> addressed by lack of centralized authority? As Stephanie suggested we
> could have an elected council. What would their role be?
> 
Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term "consensus"
and, especially, the term "community consensus" used in many contexts on
this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that
"community consensus" measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's
like saying, "National policy is determined by a consensus of the American
Community"!

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Stephanie Daugherty]

I think one thing leads to another here. Incivility leads to loss of
editors of all genders. ArbCom has too narrow of a function and too
little time to deal with every case of incivility. We have a lack of
effective governance to be able to bring about a solution to all of
these issues.

The conversation kindof jumped around a bit, but we have hit on some
very serious issues. Operationally, everything works, as far as
management, we are effectively leaderless and without any clear way to
govern - the consensus process being so easily thrown off course it's
become useless for any large-scale contentious issue. It's not that we
are unable to make decisions, it's that we are unable to make
controversial ones. We have a judiciary of sorts for our community,
but the design as a court of last resort, coupled with the lack of any
other authority with sufficient clout to deal with more established
contributors, effectively cripple us, because every other process
except ejection ("community ban") by community consensus is toothless,
and consensus to eject a vested contributor doesn't happen short of
them going suddenly and completely berserk and staying that way for an
extended period of time.

Admins can deal effectively enough with harmful behavior from
"outsiders", but the effectiveness disappears in all but open-and-shut
policy violations where it concerns another admin or an established
contributor.

So, that leaves us with several problems:

We need an effective way to sanction any member of the community that
is disruptive or incivil. We need ArbCom to become more of an
appellate than the sole "court" of English Wikipedia, because they
can't scale to that, and because they are specifically tasked with the
worst problems, not with the "death by a thousand cuts" of borderline
disruption. A start would be some form of binding dispute resolution
that doesn't require ArbCom involvement, but it has to be binding, and
it has to be able to consistently result in sanctions if the dispute
resolution process fails - without the case having to go before ArbCom
first.

As far as fixing dispute resolution, I suggest that a first measure,
we restore and revamp the mediation system and make it binding. The
way this would work, mediators would begin to be elected or appointed
to reach a suitable number of mediators for the expected caseload.
Mediators would be assigned to cases requesting mediation, under the
condition that prior dispute resolution steps must have been attempted
- or that only one of the parties were willing to participate in
dispute resolution. Once a case was reviewed and accepted, it would
enter a binding mediation.
Editors participating in binding mediations would reach a solution
mutually agreeable to the parties and found reasonable (by the
standards of policy and practical enforceability)  by the mediators,
or the failure to do so would be submitted to arbcom along with the
prior chain of dispute resolution activity and could potentially form
further evidence of tenditiousness and incivility. Agreements reached
from mediation would be binding on the parties, in that the standard
remedies of "any uninvolved administrator" being able to enforce an
agreement would apply, and such agreements would stand until
renegotiated or appealed to ArbCom. Finally, mediators would be given
access to an expedited ArbCom process (essentially, the ability to ask
ArbCom for an injunction in a case that has not yet been presented to
them)  for obtaining injunctions in order to stop a disputed activity
while negotiations take place - injunctions of this nature would
expire after reaching an agreement through mediation, or after
reaching a decision through arbitration.

-Stephanie

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up
> an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is
> possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.
>
> Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not
> rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates
> community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we
> all support are what works.
>
> Fred
>
>>
>> If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom
>> will
>> get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by
>> kneecapping
>> people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like
>> arbitrary
>> justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of
>> process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA
>> is
>> that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to
>> deliver
>> an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without
>> personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking
>> someone
>> for calling a troll "a troll".
>>
>> What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

> If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can
> lose
> the most productive members.

Good propaganda, and it worked, but our most productive members are not
habitually nasty, only a few are.

> Other areas might be things like policies, there very much are areas
> where people are deliberately writing the policies differently in
> different parts so that they can delete things they don't like, even
> though the policies, on the whole, probably don't permit them to do
> that; if you write something into the corner of a policy somewhere and
> then edit war that to stick with a group, then it's very hard to
> remove, even if people in general looked at them wouldn't agree with
> it.
>
> So the Wikipedia could go to more of a parliamentary type system where
> parliament writes the policies and tries to keep them consistent.

> -Ian Woollard
>

That is a good example. I wanted to change Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is
not the other day and just went and changed it. Put a note on the talk
page and on the effected project page and that was all there was to it.

I doubt I would have even bothered to try if I had to get onto an agenda,
convince a dozen people unfamiliar with the issue that there was a
problem, that a certain change should be made, etc.

However, we have had experience with people skulking around changing
policy in order to have something to point to when they were violating
every policy Wikipedia has.

Fred



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[wiki]

Yes, the civility message is garbled. 

Because:

1)  the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally,
tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and
breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is
also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring
and a willingness to battle vested-interests).

2) whether one engages in (1) above or not, if you involve yourself in
attempting to change things it is likely to be a very emotional experience.
You will need to care passionately about your issue (or you'll give up) and
then deal with the frustration caused by the fact that changing anything is
almost impossible. Strategic or not, that's liable to make many of us
irritable and angry in the long-run.

3) When you are dealing with an issue that matters, and having to battle all
the way, nice, well-meaning, people picking you up on minor points of
civility are likely to have an effect utterly reverse of their intention -
they are likely to illustrate how Wikipedians pick up on internal etiquette
and ignore the issue. More frustration and anger.

Of course, the reverse argument is that being nice, civil and persuasive is
actually a more effective way of getting things changed. Unfortunately, I am
not at all convinced that is true. And the experience of trying it, and
finding it doesn't work, is likely to lead to more frustration and
short-temperedness (rinse and repeat). 

What we need are structures that allow calm debate and effective
communication to work efficiently. A structure that rests of punishing
incivility will simply lead to more bureaucracy and gaming and will be used
as a partisan weapon. It is entirely the wrong response.  
 
Scott



-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth
Sent: 01 February 2011 16:24
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender
gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:07 PM, wiki  wrote:

> A leader(ship) would find it easier
> to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you
> tone it down a bit".

I thought that is what (some) arbitrators *did* say to you! Maybe the
message got garbled in the transmission.

But that is the problem. Even if ArbCom says something like that,
there is no guarantee that people will listen, or that sometimes
subtle points will come across in the rather civil language
arbitrators have to use. After all, if the people involved in disputes
were the listening sort, there would be less disputes.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Ian Woollard]

The problems are those things where there's a trade-off.

For example, a highly productive member may be very abrasive.

Are they too abrasive for their productivity or not? In other words,
are they of net benefit to the project or not?

That's a trade-off.

If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can lose
the most productive members.

Basically whenever there's a tradeoff, consensus on any individual
thing (e.g. 'civility') is highly likely to fail- that everyone should
be civil will normally be consensus, but what about other factors
surrounding contributors? Consensus on civility would be that everyone
uncivil MUST be banned

That's where leadership of one form or another comes in; you have to
say that civility is important, and how important other things are as
WELL. It's the relative importance that matters.

What arbcom does is that the candidates state what they stand for on the
areas that have to be traded off and then they get elected and make
decisions (hopefully) along the lines that they were voted in for.
That's why arbcom more or less works.

What other trade offs are there in/around the Wikipedia?

Other areas might be things like policies, there very much are areas
where people are deliberately writing the policies differently in
different parts so that they can delete things they don't like, even
though the policies, on the whole, probably don't permit them to do
that; if you write something into the corner of a policy somewhere and
then edit war that to stick with a group, then it's very hard to
remove, even if people in general looked at them wouldn't agree with
it.

So the Wikipedia could go to more of a parliamentary type system where
parliament writes the policies and tries to keep them consistent.

What other trade-offs do people see?

-- 
-Ian Woollard

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

I guess I kind of forgot what we were talking about when Marc brought up
an authority. The original subject was nastiness, but that too is
possibly unrelated to the question of why more women don't edit.

Yes, it is the community that determines the editing environment, not
rules or enforcement. They are just useful when someone violates
community norm and then wants to argue about it. Community norms that we
all support are what works.

Fred

>
> If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom
> will
> get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by
> kneecapping
> people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like
> arbitrary
> justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of
> process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA
> is
> that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to
> deliver
> an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without
> personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking
> someone
> for calling a troll "a troll".
>
> What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm
> never
> greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you
> actually
> had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who
> wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the
> leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he
> valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.
>
> The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid
> behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive
> reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to
> pass
> RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't
> have
> consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues
> for
> years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've
> needed
> to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative,
> short
> tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as
> arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in
> the
> midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it
> easier
> to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you
> tone it down a bit".
>
> If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats.
> It
> is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to
> long-term
> frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on
> en.Wikipedia
> means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is
> structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn
> to
> fight and equally you get frustrated.
>
> As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change
> structures
> than to change people. And structures shape people.
>
> But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't
> happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.
>
> Scott (Doc)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:07 PM, wiki  wrote:

> A leader(ship) would find it easier
> to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you
> tone it down a bit".

I thought that is what (some) arbitrators *did* say to you! Maybe the
message got garbled in the transmission.

But that is the problem. Even if ArbCom says something like that,
there is no guarantee that people will listen, or that sometimes
subtle points will come across in the rather civil language
arbitrators have to use. After all, if the people involved in disputes
were the listening sort, there would be less disputes.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[wiki]

If you want a different editing environment, using a body like arbcom will
get you nowhere fast. You can't create a friendly environment by kneecapping
people who are uncivil - done like that it will either look like arbitrary
justice of people we don't like - or in the interest of transparency of
process you'll be reduced to counting sweary words. The problem with NPA is
that anyone with a good grasp of the English language knows how to deliver
an infuriating put-down, or frustrate by playing dumb-insolence, without
personally attacking anyone. On the other hand, we end up blocking someone
for calling a troll "a troll".  

What you need is something else. I'm not Jimbo's biggest fan, and I'm never
greatly taken by his idealistic "Jimbofluff" approach, but when you actually
had a leader (who at that time was perceived to have influence) those who
wanted to have influence with him, would strive not to disappoint the
leader. That ethos rubs off. Jimmy was very good at saying to people he
valued, "I'm disappointed with how you handled this" - and it stung.

The problem with arbcom is that it although people may seek to avoid
behavior which might lead to sanctions, there's little positive
reinforcement. Unless one is angling to be elected (or still needs to pass
RfA) then having, and expressing contempt, for all and sundry doesn't have
consequences. I speak from experience here. I've battled for BLP issues for
years, to do that I've had to fight for unpopular positions, and I've needed
to know arbcom will support me.- That I am often overly-combatative, short
tempered, and unnecessarily uncivil, ends up being beside the point -as
arbcom would look very petty were they to pass a critical resolution in the
midst of dealing with important issues. A leader(ship) would find it easier
to say "thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you
tone it down a bit".

If you want a atmosphere change it needs led, and not driven by threats. It
is also the case that much of the incivility of regulars is due to long-term
frustration caused by the fact that getting any small change on en.Wikipedia
means battle and endless debates with hundreds of people. The problem is
structural - change (when it comes) is driven and not lead - so you learn to
fight and equally you get frustrated.  

As hard as it is to change structures, it is far easier to change structures
than to change people. And structures shape people.

But we've discussed structural change time and time again, and it can't
happen. The bastards won't let it, so sod the lot of them.

Scott (Doc)


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

> Fred, this "authority" could bring order to the present chaos. As for my
> proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them
> out
> with persons who also believe this change is necessary.
>
> This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came
> formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence
> which
> contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire
> community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor
> described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.
>
> Marc

I think you need to define the problem. What problems are not being
addressed by lack of centralized authority? As Stephanie suggested we
could have an elected council. What would their role be?

Fred


___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Fred Bauder]

> (This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as
> HTML and mucked up the formatting)
>
> I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent
> dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their
> responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.
>
> I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an
> open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with
> the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process.
> Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we
> can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our
> project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no
> involvement in or connection to en.wiki.
>
> I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal
> charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on
> which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect
> those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple
> document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all
> the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community,
> it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe
> that they could approve such a document without taking on the
> oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a
> lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation.
> The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive
> aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of
> governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through
> careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.

Seems Ok. Using the arbitration committee for this purpose is not good as
there are way too many chores involved with that.

Fred Bauder



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Stephanie Daugherty]

(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as
HTML and mucked up the formatting)

I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent
dictator" position, but we still would need to be clear on what their
responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene.

I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an
open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with
the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process.
Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we
can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our
project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no
involvement in or connection to en.wiki.

I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal
charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on
which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect
those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple
document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all
the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community,
it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe
that they could approve such a document without taking on the
oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a
lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation.
The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive
aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of
governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through
careful deliberation and consent of the entire community.

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell
>>>  wrote:
 
 [...]
 And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what
 entity)
 would approve and implement them?
>>> 
>> on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> The community, by consensus, for approval.  Whoever chose to
>>> participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
>> 
>> This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the
>> beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do
>> you
>> determine consensus?
>>> 
>>> Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our
>>> current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does
>>> not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with
>>> what the consensus stands for).
>>> 
>>> We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact
>>> efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his
>>> "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led
>>> to reductions in founder bit authority.  I personally disagree with
>>> that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now.
>>> Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an
>>> effective tiebreaker.
>>> 
>> People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting
>> them.
>> It¹s a cautionary tale.
>> 
>> I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its
>> members
>> are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed
>> are
>> led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but
>> have
>> the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward
>> achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the
>> Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has
>> a
>> voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest.
>> That
>> leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group
>> stays
>> focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless
>> hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
>> 
>> Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is
>> needed.
>> 
>> Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision,
>> someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other
>> people's
>> lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to
>> inspire
>> us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we
>> can't imagine yet."
>> 
>> And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas
>> from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the
>> former
>> without feeling they must defend the latter.
>> 
>> It's time.
>> 
>> Marc
> 
on 1/31/11 11:48 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:

> I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps
> up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As
> far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no.
> We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other
> than having a great leader)
> 
> Fred Bauder
> 
Fred, this "authority" could bring order to the present chaos. As for my
proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them out
with persons who also believe this change is necessary.

This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came
formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence which
contained the phrases, "meaning of consensus", and "consent of the entire
community". No one has yet defined for me the "meaning of consensus", nor
described for me how the "consent of the entire community" is determined.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Stephanie Daugherty]

I think an (elected) council is a better form than a "benevolent dictator"
position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities
are, and how and when they should intervene.

I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open
comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same
oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials
would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently
neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other
projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki.

I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for
English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built,
and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our
project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy
rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's
adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their
approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking
on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not
a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The
argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of
policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other
crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and
consent of the entire community.

-Stephanie


On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>> And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what
> >>> entity)
> >>> would approve and implement them?
> >>
> > on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> The community, by consensus, for approval.  Whoever chose to
> >> participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
> >
> > This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the
> > beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do
> > you
> > determine consensus?
> >>
> >> Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our
> >> current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does
> >> not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with
> >> what the consensus stands for).
> >>
> >> We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact
> >> efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his
> >> "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led
> >> to reductions in founder bit authority.  I personally disagree with
> >> that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now.
> >> Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an
> >> effective tiebreaker.
> >>
> > People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting
> > them.
> > It¹s a cautionary tale.
> >
> > I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its
> > members
> > are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed
> > are
> > led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but
> > have
> > the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward
> > achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the
> > Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has
> > a
> > voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest.
> > That
> > leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group
> > stays
> > focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless
> > hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
> >
> > Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is
> > needed.
> >
> > Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision,
> > someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other
> > people's
> > lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to
> > inspire
> > us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we
> > can't imagine yet."
> >
> > And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas
> > from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the
> > former
> > without feeling they must defend the latter.
> >
> > It's time.
> >
> > Marc
>
> I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps
> up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As
> far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no.
> We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other
> than having a great leader)
>
> Fred Bauder
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiE

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what
>>> entity)
>>> would approve and implement them?
>>
> on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The community, by consensus, for approval.  Whoever chose to
>> participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.
>
> This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the
> beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do
> you
> determine consensus?
>>
>> Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our
>> current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does
>> not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with
>> what the consensus stands for).
>>
>> We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact
>> efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his
>> "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led
>> to reductions in founder bit authority.  I personally disagree with
>> that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now.
>> Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an
>> effective tiebreaker.
>>
> People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting
> them.
> It¹s a cautionary tale.
>
> I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its
> members
> are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed
> are
> led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but
> have
> the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward
> achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the
> Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has
> a
> voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest.
> That
> leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group
> stays
> focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless
> hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.
>
> Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is
> needed.
>
> Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision,
> someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other
> people's
> lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to
> inspire
> us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we
> can't imagine yet."
>
> And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas
> from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the
> former
> without feeling they must defend the latter.
>
> It's time.
>
> Marc

I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps
up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As
far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no.
We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other
than having a great leader)

Fred Bauder



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Carcharoth]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Marc Riddell  wrote:

> It's time.

To march on Tahrir Square?

I think you will find that "Choosing a leader" only works if you have
the mechanisms in place to do so.

I'm not even sure it is *possible* to lead an entity like Wikipedia.

Horses being led to water to drink and old dogs being taught new
tricks come to mind.

Carcharoth

___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Fred Bauder]

>>
>> Editing, content, and on-wiki policy is in the hands of the editing
>> community, limited by their ability to agree.
>>
>> The exception is actions which create potential liabilities.
>>
>> Heavy responsibility I know...
>>
>> Fred Bauder
>
> And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity)
> would approve and implement them?
>
> Marc

The community. The board cannot take control over content without
assuming a crushing legal liability. To say nothing of losing most of
their volunteers.

They can, as editors, take the lead in policy discussions much as members
of the arbitration committee can, but many such initiatives fail.

Fred Bauder



___
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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[Marc Riddell]

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell
>  wrote:
>> 
>> [...]
>> And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity)
>> would approve and implement them?
> 
on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:

> The community, by consensus, for approval.  Whoever chose to
> participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.

This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the
beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do you
determine consensus?
> 
> Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our
> current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does
> not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with
> what the consensus stands for).
> 
> We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact
> efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his
> "street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led
> to reductions in founder bit authority.  I personally disagree with
> that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now.
> Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an
> effective tiebreaker.
> 
People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting them.
It¹s a cautionary tale.

I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its members
are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed are
led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but have
the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward
achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the
Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has a
voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest. That
leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group stays
focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless
hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet.

Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is
needed.

Aaron Sorkin said: "Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision,
someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other people's
lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to inspire
us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we
can't imagine yet."

And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas
from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the former
without feeling they must defend the latter.

It's time.

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[George Herbert]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell
 wrote:
>
>[...]
> And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity)
> would approve and implement them?

The community, by consensus, for approval.  Whoever chose to
participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation.

Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our
current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does
not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with
what the consensus stands for).

We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact
efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his
"street cred" with the community writ large with the incident that led
to reductions in founder bit authority.  I personally disagree with
that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now.
 Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an
effective tiebreaker.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l