And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in search of a problem. Out with it!
Fred > The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the > admins not from the newbies. > > But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis lack > an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed in > the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or > men. > > Regards, > Lars Gardenius > > > > > ________________________________ > Von: Fred Bauder <[email protected]> > An: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> > Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 > Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself > > > Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish > from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices > form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic > deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy > environment. > > Fred > >> On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote: >>> That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a >>> worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work >>> now. >> >> Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I >> demanded". >> >> I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and >> came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast >> majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing" >> to it for having been in the wrong in the first place. >> >> When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from >> getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing >> exactly what it's been designed for. >> >> Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being >> convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing >> side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged. We play up the >> concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid >> ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness, >> and personality conflicts. >> >> There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices. No system is perfect and, >> occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't >> let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to >> make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting. >> >> This certainly could be improved. More education of users upfront >> might >> prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on >> established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated >> conservatism. More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of >> human nature... >> >> -- Marc >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
