On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Charles Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > AfD can get it wrong: I suppose that is common ground. "Notability" as a > concept is broken, always has been, always will be (my view, not > necessarily the majority view given the status given to the GNG by some). > In some cases it is really not a big deal whether a topic is included or > not: there obviously is a level at which quite a number of reasonable > people are pretty much indifferent to the outcome. The same people would > not, presumably, be indifferent to the decision not being by "due process". > There is an appeal against AfD's process aspect. Anyone can navigate there. > > I think we first need to analyse whether this is a "manual page" problem or > a "complaint procedure" problem. (Actually I'm going to put in a plug for > "How Wikipedia Works" at this point: look in the index under "deletion", > "deletion review" is on p. 226 and the page tells you what to do. If the > guy really wanted to impress his colleague he could have done that.) If > he'd mailed OTRS and got an unhelpful answer, I really would worry. > > Look, the whole point of HWW or any other serious explanation about how we > got this far that people are so bothered about our content is that you have > to admit that: (a) the system does work, and is fit for the main purpose > for which it was set up (contra Tony's view); and (b) it's complicated. > There are no doubt people out there, in millions, who don't realise that > you probably can't have (a) without (b). You surely could have (a) if you > had enough paid staff, a skyscraper full of them (well, maybe 5000 > graduates); and if you paid yet more you could give an impression that (b) > didn't apply. The service would not be free at the point of use unless a > large charitable foundation was picking up the bill. The complication in > (b) is to do with decentralisation: multiple processes running in different > places, as the only solution that is known to scale. > > I can quite see why people do think Wikipedia "Byzantine", which is the > basic message of what we are talking about. Probably trainee medics curse > the immune system as unreasonably complicated. The metaphor doesn't seem to > me either too defensive or too stretched. I think we should bear in mind > that more and better written "manual pages" would only work better if > people had the basic humility to read instructions, at least in the context > of complex systems they don't understand. > > Charles
You're making the argument that some complex systems (bureaucracy) are necessary and intrinsic to the success of the project. I think most people would agree. People are not challenging the existence of any bureaucracy; they're saying there is too much, that it's too difficult for the average person, and that we hallow bureaucracy and its mastery above more important considerations. Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
