The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> SirFozzie: Teetering on the edge...
Lar
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:44pm
Post #101


"His blandness goes to 11!"
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined: Wed 26th Dec 2007, 6:04pm
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290



QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 11th March 2009, 12:54pm) *

QUOTE(One @ Wed 11th March 2009, 2:45pm) *
We should demand CONSENSUS' retirement. It outlived its usefulness in 2002.
I think it still has its place as an arbiter of small, local disputes (for both content and policy). But you're quite right that on broader issues is basically a lockdown on the status quo.

My problem with these various forms of civil disobedience being proposed is that I'm not at all clear who we're supposed to be demanding things from. If nobody has the power to make a decision, then demanding a decision is sort of silly (it's like that scene in Arrested Development when everybody gets a "Speech!" chant going without having any idea who it is who's supposed to speak).


For the most part, policy at Wikipedia is descriptive. If enough people civilly disobey current perceived policy, et voila, the project has a new policy. Many people have (rightly) pointed out that this makes policy making a game, a form of mob rule, whatever flash mob can form, can get what it wants, at least for a while (local consensus). Often that local consensus sticks, though. And as long as it's within the very broad outlines of Foundation policy, which IS prescriptive, that's all well and good as far as the rules of the game go.

So it's not really demanding things. Except from ourselves.

Just do it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:46pm
Post #102


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:44pm) *
For the most part, policy at Wikipedia is descriptive. If enough people civilly disobey current perceived policy, et voila, the project has a new policy. Many people have (rightly) pointed out that this makes policy making a game, a form of mob rule, whatever flash mob can form, can get what it wants, at least for a while (local consensus). Often that local consensus sticks, though. And as long as it's within the very broad outlines of Foundation policy, which IS prescriptive, that's all well and good as far as the rules of the game go.

So it's not really demanding things. Except from ourselves.
Well, here's what happens if we go all Nike on this: it gets brought up at ANI, the prevailing view there is that the protections were taking place outside of consensus, somebody decides to unprotect on the basis of ANI discussion, and we're no further ahead than we were when we started. We could wheel war over it, but then there's an arbitration case, I can't see Arb Comm prescribing smie-protection of BLPs absent a consensus to do so.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:49pm
Post #103


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(One @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:45am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th March 2009, 9:36am) *

Want real change? Demand Jimbo's retirement.
As long as he is the little boy-king, nothing will move.

Actually, I think the reverse is probably true. I doubt WP:BLP would even exist if it wasn't for extra-community leadership. Jimbo and the foundation are not wedded to the status quo--CONSENSUS is.

We should demand CONSENSUS' retirement. It outlived its usefulness in 2002.


Spoken like a true creature of Mr. Wales as ArbCom is best defined. Not that there isn't some truth there. Mr. Wales is one important but fading power center with one foot in and one foot out of "the community." Hard war on the idea of "the community" as capable of reform is probably a better approach but without offering any quarter to Mr. Wales either.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
One
post Wed 11th March 2009, 6:56pm
Post #104


Postmaster General
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined: Tue 25th Dec 2007, 10:49am
Member No.: 4,284

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 11th March 2009, 6:46pm) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Wed 11th March 2009, 3:44pm) *
For the most part, policy at Wikipedia is descriptive. If enough people civilly disobey current perceived policy, et voila, the project has a new policy. Many people have (rightly) pointed out that this makes policy making a game, a form of mob rule, whatever flash mob can form, can get what it wants, at least for a while (local consensus). Often that local consensus sticks, though. And as long as it's within the very broad outlines of Foundation policy, which IS prescriptive, that's all well and good as far as the rules of the game go.

So it's not really demanding things. Except from ourselves.
Well, here's what happens if we go all Nike on this: it gets brought up at ANI, the prevailing view there is that the protections were taking place outside of consensus, somebody decides to unprotect on the basis of ANI discussion, and we're no further ahead than we were when we started. We could wheel war over it, but then there's an arbitration case, I can't see Arb Comm prescribing smie-protection of BLPs absent a consensus to do so.


Maybe not, but I can see them declining to desysop when admins uninvolved with each individual protection carefully and manually reprotect the articles callously unprotected by an ANI bot head (causing BLP violations, cited in the evidence). By their mere nonaction, we would reach the same policy result described by Lar.

Consider that last year ArbCom passed BLPSE with absolutely no community support. ArbCom is, if anything, even more committed to BLP issues this year.

Also recall the statistics from the semi-protection trial. Admins favored it three-to-one. If this majority works carefully and civilly, I am confident that a majority of arbitrators will side with the majority of the admins. I think we just need to build up escape velocity.

This post has been edited by One: Thu 12th March 2009, 12:20am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Wed 11th March 2009, 8:00pm
Post #105


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(One @ Wed 11th March 2009, 12:45pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th March 2009, 9:36am) *

Want real change? Demand Jimbo's retirement.
As long as he is the little boy-king, nothing will move.

Actually, I think the reverse is probably true. I doubt WP:BLP would even exist if it wasn't for extra-community leadership. Jimbo and the foundation are not wedded to the status quo--CONSENSUS is.

We should demand CONSENSUS' retirement. It outlived its usefulness in 2002.

Ah yes. The All-Holy Fourth Pillar of Wikipedia. Go for it, Samson!

Image


It's all about the rule of the strongest cabal, anyway. Isn't it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LessHorrid vanU
post Wed 11th March 2009, 10:11pm
Post #106


Devils Advocaat
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu 11th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
Member No.: 3,466

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 10th March 2009, 10:43pm) *

QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Tue 10th March 2009, 3:12pm) *
(No disrespect to Foz and the others who have recently handed back the keys - and sometimes the pen as well - and whose decision I believe is in keeping with their genuine belief that it is for the best for everyone involved.)

I would like to hear your personal reasons for remaining, even after seeing this
forum for the past several months, plus all those other admins quitting.

What kind of logical construct are you operating under, that keeps you in there,
battling sockpuppets and apparent sockpuppets for almost 3 years?

What have you got to show for it, other than the collegial camaraderie of your
fellow slaves (whom I'll bet you probably have never met in person)?

Did the WMF send you an honorary T-shirt or plaque, thanking you for all your hard work?
Not even a postcard, right?


I get to slap queerbashers, racists, fascists (no, the real ones - not those who vote for right wing parties who participate in the democratic process), and all the stupid shitheads who think they have a right to spoil someone elses work (no matter how poor it may be, it is the result of honest labour) for their own selfish amusement. I really do not like vandals.

Plus, Wikipedia has a modest page on a Mick Ronson - which I have had the pleasure of contributing to - and I am not prepared to walk away from it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 12th March 2009, 12:16am
Post #107


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 11th March 2009, 11:46am) *

We could wheel war over it, but then there's an arbitration case, I can't see Arb Comm prescribing smie-protection of BLPs absent a consensus to do so.

Which is going to be a little difficult to get, since there's no consensus as to what a consensus is. Operationally it seems to be defined as any policy-state from which the WP site has been unable to escape by shear application of bloody force.

The WP:CONSENSUS attempts to define it, but fails, since they claim it's a process which produces "a compromise that everyone can agree on." Except when it doesn't. tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kevin
post Thu 12th March 2009, 3:18am
Post #108


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat 28th Feb 2009, 2:58am
From: Adelaide, Australia
Member No.: 10,522

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 11th March 2009, 9:11am) *

Well I applaud those who are finally fed up with things enough to resign for actually going through with it and making a point by leaving a mark on

I still have the belief I can cause change, which is why I haven't joined you yet in the line for applesauce at the [[retirement home]]. When NOINDEX was first started, it got on to about 50,000 pages on its own, now thanks to my, CHL, Rootology, Lar, FT2, and NYB's constant nagging, it is on 377,774 pages and the User namespace is noindexed in the software.

So I've said my piece at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Action needed and will keep saying my piece until we have responsible change.


And now he has replied with the new plan:

QUOTE

I think we can get long term gain without short term pain, if we move forward carefully and thoughtfully. Patience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Sounds a bit like the old plan to me.

Kevin

This post has been edited by Kevin: Thu 12th March 2009, 3:22am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seicer
post Thu 12th March 2009, 3:42am
Post #109


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri 15th Feb 2008, 4:40am
Member No.: 4,854

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



All the while another has given up the bit.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Thu 12th March 2009, 5:17am
Post #110


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kevin @ Thu 12th March 2009, 3:18am) *

And now he has replied with the new plan:

QUOTE

I think we can get long term gain without short term pain, if we move forward carefully and thoughtfully. Patience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin


Mmmm, that's a much different response than he gave me when I emailed him concerning the same subject yesterday.

By the way, if you think that the new ArbCom isn't willing to be tough, look at the proposed decision in this case. Chock full of topic and full bans with heavy support, although three-month topic bans seem kind of weak to me.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 12th March 2009, 6:10am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
everyking
post Thu 12th March 2009, 2:37pm
Post #111


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined: Mon 27th Mar 2006, 7:24am
Member No.: 81



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 12th March 2009, 6:17am) *

By the way, if you think that the new ArbCom isn't willing to be tough, look at the proposed decision in this case. Chock full of topic and full bans with heavy support, although three-month topic bans seem kind of weak to me.


The ArbCom's problem has never been that it isn't willing to be tough; it's problem is that it doesn't reserve its toughness for the right people.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kurt M. Weber
post Mon 1st June 2009, 3:50am
Post #112


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun 21st May 2006, 10:44pm
Member No.: 199

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 10th March 2009, 12:10am) *

The analogy is made funnier when one considers that I don't get paid. It's like having to pick the lock to the building every day so I can get in and do volunteer work.


"I'm sorry, but I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you."
"But I don't even really work here!"
"That's what makes this so difficult..."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 8 17, 8:25am