Politics 101: Remedial or Virtual? Options

[Peter Damian]

Volunteer Marek (our Radek, I think) makes some great points at the current RfA talk. Read it for yourself. There should be a theme of the proposed book, which goes something like this: once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway?

Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

The thread also illustrates pretty well the famous stupidity of Wikipedians.

I am explaining this in detail here but honestly, this is like old school stuff. This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits. This is like Political Science 101. This is why I said that term limits are fundamental to any kind of meaningful RfA reform. You cannot even begin that conversation seriously without considering them. And these convoluted proposals for weird-ass term limits structures or what have you just distract folks - and hey, we all like to give our opinions about convoluted meaningless proposals - but let's keep it simple.
The only meaningful question here is actually how to deal with existing old-time administrators, given that we reasonably impose term limits on new ones. Do we keep the old guys? Do we make them go through it again? If so how? Etc. THAT is what the conversation should be about. Not this "if .0485 of voters express dissatisfaction then we move it to a committee which then decides whether to send it to an RfC for comment blah blah blah" crap.
There's no RfA reform without A-term limits.
Term limits first, details later. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

“How can getting rid of all the admins (for their terms will all eventually expire) help the project? I think what you really mean is that wikipedia must move beyond volunteer editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)”

“Ok. Stop. Think. Stop. Think. ... are there any Senators in the US Senate? Do Senators terms expire? Yes? Are there still Senators in the US Senate? See what's wrong with what you just said? Volunteer Marek 06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460102419

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

Volunteer Marek (our Radek, I think) makes some great points at the current RfA talk. Read it for yourself. There should be a theme of the proposed book, which goes something like this: once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway?

Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

The thread also illustrates pretty well the famous stupidity of Wikipedians.

I am explaining this in detail here but honestly, this is like old school stuff. This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits. This is like Political Science 101. This is why I said that term limits are fundamental to any kind of meaningful RfA reform. You cannot even begin that conversation seriously without considering them. And these convoluted proposals for weird-ass term limits structures or what have you just distract folks - and hey, we all like to give our opinions about convoluted meaningless proposals - but let's keep it simple.
The only meaningful question here is actually how to deal with existing old-time administrators, given that we reasonably impose term limits on new ones. Do we keep the old guys? Do we make them go through it again? If so how? Etc. THAT is what the conversation should be about. Not this "if .0485 of voters express dissatisfaction then we move it to a committee which then decides whether to send it to an RfC for comment blah blah blah" crap.
There's no RfA reform without A-term limits.
Term limits first, details later. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

“How can getting rid of all the admins (for their terms will all eventually expire) help the project? I think what you really mean is that wikipedia must move beyond volunteer editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)”

“Ok. Stop. Think. Stop. Think. ... are there any Senators in the US Senate? Do Senators terms expire? Yes? Are there still Senators in the US Senate? See what's wrong with what you just said? Volunteer Marek 06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460102419

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

[Peter Damian]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

[Michaeldsuarez]

I've suggested reconfirmation elections in the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=438918578

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=438947394 (sorry for the typos here)

It didn't go anywhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=439259463

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Peter Damian]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

[Rhindle]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

If you're not with us you're with the terrorists.

[Peter Damian]

If you're not with us you're with the terrorists.

No, with the Wikipedians. Or did you mean that Wikipedians are terrorists?

[powercorrupts]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I think "Above." would be a little more honest.

Where you given a big box of periods as a Welcome Back gift after your relaxing break?

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

[Ottava]

This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits.

Ahahahaha what?

If he took Politics 101 he would know that "Democratic elections" took a long time to arise and are still rare. There are many positions in the US that are appointed and lack term limits. Look at the Bureaucracy which makes up 99.99% of the US government.

[radek]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits.

Ahahahaha what?

If he took Politics 101 he would know that "Democratic elections" took a long time to arise and are still rare. There are many positions in the US that are appointed and lack term limits. Look at the Bureaucracy which makes up 99.99% of the US government.

Oh Ottava... nevermind, not worth it.

[GlassBeadGame]

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

Poor, deluded asshole.

[Peter Damian]

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

Poor, deluded asshole.

He is saying that Wikipedia is the most widely used reference work on the planet. Many people believe that it is reliable. Why is that deluded?

[GlassBeadGame]

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

Poor, deluded asshole.

He is saying that Wikipedia is the most widely used reference work on the planet. Many people believe that it is reliable. Why is that deluded?

The text generated in playing the MMORPG has nothing to do do with fixing reforming improving or even destroying Wkipedia. It is merely an artifact of the game. Looking for solutions in RfAs or any other internal process is ridiculous.

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

[Peter Damian]

The text generated in playing the MMORPG has nothing to do do with fixing reforming improving or even destroying Wkipedia. It is merely an artifact of the game. Looking for solutions in RfAs or any other internal process is ridiculous.

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

If you had read my original post carefully, you would see I was not looking for 'solutions in RFAs'.

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia. 'Volunteer Marek' is Radek here.

Here's what I said in the original post above.

once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway? Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

It was a comment on human nature. People who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia.

I don't believe you.

[Malleus]

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia.

I don't believe you.

Who, apart from you, has even the slightest interest in what you believe?

[Abd]

Here's what I said in the original post above.

once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway? Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

It was a comment on human nature. People who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

And well said it was. People who did come in, in the second wave, who did understand such things as organizational structure, deliberative process, etc., were frequently banned as they tried to propose sane structure, or gave up in desperation.

There was a vision, a decent one, but far too little understanding of how to implement it, of how to keep it from sliding into the mud. What was built is often a thing of beauty, but often otherwise, and the process was horrific in its human costs, in broken hearts, wasted time, pushing the boulder up the hill again.

[GlassBeadGame]

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia.

I don't believe you.

Who, apart from you, has even the slightest interest in what you believe?

You, apparently.