QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 15th August 2007, 7:53am)
I always thought that the WP anti-canvassing position was not only a serious violation of fair process but just plain weird. Why can't people who care about issues be informed that a process is addressing the issue? The alternative is Management-By-Whoever-Wanders-By. It also is an advantage to people with off channel communication, which usually means united by a specific real world POV to push. It would better to allow unlimited canvassing on wiki. It would be transparent and avoid a whole lot of sneaky stuff and nasty accusations. This prohibition against canvassing is part of the failure of consensus that plaques WP.
Precisely, and it's silly. Wikipedia needs utter transparency. Lets have public e-mail logs as well. If UserA emails UserB, UserC, UserD, etc., it should show that UserA did so. Nothing more. Just time, date. If UserZ receives four emails, list who sent him emails, and time/date. Nothing more. Then let people canvass their silly hearts out.
Having more people be aware of an issue is a good thing, but I'll tell you right now that the people who primarily edit and 'maintain' policies will violently shit their pants and scream fucking MURDER if someone seriously tried to get such a change enabled. It would basically marginalize them out of process and policy control, as anyone could draw people's attentions to issues with a free hand.
And since most people that do policy work are senior admins (Sidaway, SlimVirgin, etc.) that will never fly without a war, illegal Checkusering, and bannings like it was Joseph Stalin's Wikipedia.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 15th August 2007, 7:53am)
Mongo and his elk are a relatively minor sub-cabal. I think he is over reaching to attempt to "consensus coup" this RfA which seems doomed to fail. Maybe pulling off such a grab is new way to measure status on WP. Still it is very entertaining when they have to threaten-ban-accuse to reach a simple decision.
MONGO and his Goof Troop are hapless and helpless. No one likes them because the demographics of Wikipedia aren't conservative Christian males who are older like they are. MONGO, Arthur Rubin, Tom Harrison, Tim Beatty, and Morton Devonshire (that picture is a fake--he's admitted via comments to remembering events as an adult that occurred nearly 20+ years ago, so he's clearly not in his 20s) are older professional men, and not the 'standard' Wikipedia user base at all. They're an aberration that is trying to remake Wikipedia into Conservapedia. Or Republicanopedia, or Fundiepedia, I don't know.
Evidence of failed attempts? This RFA and the "Conservative Backlash" from it. They're accusing EVERYONE that opposed Crackpot of being either Bad Faith, a troll, a sockpuppet, or biased, and they're even trying to get multiple Opposers banned now. Before that, remember MONGO with his "Wikipedians for Encyclopediac Merit" horseshit from 2004 or 2005? Basically, he tried HARD to make it policy to delete all objectionable material from Wikipedia. Objectionable to who? Well, the demographic was basically MONGO: older white conservative Christian males. Hint hint: Wikipedia isn't Christian. It's an ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Why are MONGO and the Republican Party going nuts? Because they're frankly losing their long term efforts to conservatize Wikipedia and every few months they get increasingly furious about it. Well, fuck them. If your views weren't minority fringe views maybe you'd have more support. Gays, blacks and Jews are evil? News to me that all my gay, black, and Jew friends are evil. I suppose the godfather of my children, who qualifies for two out of those three, must be leading my kids straight to Hell. Here I thought they just got straight A's and were very nice kids.