Jimbo's lording over Wikiversity again, This time, Privatemusings gets the axe Options

[Enric_Naval]

I don't know how things are run at Wikipedia Review - is there a community process there, or are you the God-King of your own domain?

If a directory or user page isn't to your liking, do you delete it yourself, or are there a team of sysops?

I'm sorry... who are you, again?

I don't know who this guy is, but I have the same question.

[Moulton]

I don't know who this guy is, but I have the same question.

Ok. I'll ask the obvious question.

Zoloft, who are you, and what other online monickers might we know you as?

[thekohser]

I don't know how things are run at Wikipedia Review - is there a community process there, or are you the God-King of your own domain?

If a directory or user page isn't to your liking, do you delete it yourself, or are there a team of sysops?

I'm sorry... who are you, again?

I don't know who this guy is, but I have the same question.

"Same question" refers to "Who is Zoloft?" or "Greg, how do you keep that awesome Wikipedia Review site running so smoothly, without all the drama and dysfunction of the Wikipedia mess?"

If you're talking about the latter question, then I suggest reading these two magical paragraphs.

Disclaimer for Content

Neither Gregory Kohs nor Wikipedia Review.com are responsible for the contents of any of the pages on Wikipedia Review.com that have been generated by its contributors. The user specifically acknowledges that neither Gregory Kohs nor Wikipedia Review.com are liable for any defamatory, offensive, misleading or illegal content provided by other users, and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with the user.

That being said, Gregory Kohs and Wikipedia Review.com seek to fashion this site as a safe, pleasant environment for gentle people of ages 13 and older. The management reserves the right to delete the following sorts of content at any time: pornography, adult or mature content, illegal gambling or wagering, gratuitous violence, hate speech, fraudulent information, and business scams. These types of content are also restricted by Google AdSense, and because AdSense currently displays on many editors' content pages on Wikipedia Review, we cannot jeopardize AdSense account(s) with such prohibited content.

As for how "the management" works... I own the domain and pay for the server. If I'm ever in a quandary about a decision about pages "not to my liking", I am prone to consult -- privately, by e-mail -- with the site's top 3 or 4 contributors, for their input. Ultimately, the decision is mine... but (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) I don't believe I've ever acted in a way that was considered rash, out-of-process, or to the dismay of our most prolific contributors.

In that respect, I am light-years beyond Jimmy Wales and his method of managing Wikipedia disputes.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Thu 15th April 2010, 1:15pm

[Milton Roe]

As for how "the management" works... I own the domain and pay for the server. If I'm ever in a quandary about a decision about pages "not to my liking", I am prone to consult -- privately, by e-mail -- with the site's top 3 or 4 contributors, for their input. Ultimately, the decision is mine... but (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) I don't believe I've ever acted in a way that was considered rash, out-of-process, or to the dismay of our most prolific contributors.

In that respect, I am light-years beyond Jimmy Wales and his method of managing Wikipedia disputes.

Er, not really. You have yet another method that works on small scales, but isn't scalable, just as Jimbo did in 2002.

When you get 3 million pages, and you still have this system, let us know that's workin' for ya.

[thekohser]

Er, not really. You have yet another method that works on small scales, but isn't scalable, just as Jimbo did in 2002.

When you get 3 million pages, and you still have this system, let us know that's workin' for ya.

It's working the same with 60,000+ pages as when we had <25,000 pages. Where is the magical range of page counts between 60,000 and 3,000,000 where this system fails?

[Milton Roe]

Er, not really. You have yet another method that works on small scales, but isn't scalable, just as Jimbo did in 2002.

When you get 3 million pages, and you still have this system, let us know that's workin' for ya.

It's working the same with 60,000+ pages as when we had <25,000 pages. Where is the magical range of page counts between 60,000 and 3,000,000 where this system fails?

621,437 by my estimate. Watch for it.

[Zoloft]

I don't know who this guy is, but I have the same question.

Ok. I'll ask the obvious question.

Zoloft, who are you, and what other online monickers might we know you as?

I'm a middle-aged male writer and IT person, resident in California, married, gainfully employed, and I can still see my feet when I look down.

If I told you my WP monicker, it would be someone you've never heard of. I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles. Once in a while I revert unsourced additions to BLPs, but it's not a crusade of mine.

I frequent a few boards where people have gathered after they have been ousted from other online communities. I dunno why.

It's unclear whether in the long run my existence has any meaning, but I'm afraid we're all in that category, given enough elapsed time.

As I stated when I first came on board, I prefer anonymity online, 'cause people are crazy. I'm certain Tarantino could find out who I am in a dozen mouseclicks, but he'd be bored by the results.

[Milton Roe]

Notwithstanding the fact that I once wrote a similar song parody, this one was passed along to me by an otherwise anonymous Wikiversitan who says he is releasing it into the public domain...

Title: Hey Jim
Composer: Paul McCartney et al

Hey Jim, don't get mad
Take a bad page and make it better
Remember to let trolls into your heart
Then you can start to make Wikipedia better

....

Okay, now you've done it. Here's mine:

When I'll Be Ignored

When I get trolled and losing my cool
Half an hour from now,
Will you be supporting me with half the board--
Gardner, Snow, de Vreede, and the horde.

When I pull flags as "emer-gen-CIES"
While everyone is bored;
Will you dismiss me, or will you ass-kiss me?
Or will I be ignored?

================
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oooo
You'll need backing too,
(ah ah ah ah ah)

And if you say the word,
I could... vote.. with you...
=================


When I stomp projects I never helped with
Pretending I'm involved,
Will you tell me that I'm really wise, and stuff--
Or rudely tell me: you've had enough?

When I'm the troll, and trolling my own
Not God, King, or Lord--
Will you still sass me, or will you kiss-ass me?
Or will I be ignored?

[Moulton]

Applause!

[thekohser]

I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles.

Man, if I had a dollar for every egomaniac admin or uber-editor on Wikipedia who's said that before, I'd have enough to register 20 anti-Wikipedia domain names.

[SB_Johnny]

I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles.

Man, if I had a dollar for every egomaniac admin or uber-editor on Wikipedia who's said that before, I'd have enough to register 20 anti-Wikipedia domain names.

Well, tell them to pay up!

[Zoloft]

I make uncontroversial edits to a wide range of articles.

Man, if I had a dollar for every egomaniac admin or uber-editor on Wikipedia who's said that before, I'd have enough to register 20 anti-Wikipedia domain names.

Well, tell them to pay up!

As penance for being a cliché, I advised a business owner who wanted his very own Wikipedia article to go over to Wikipedia Review, make an account, and create a directory listing.

As far as uncontroversial edits go, none of mine have been reverted to the best of my knowledge (I stop watching pages I edit after a week or so), so if there is a controversy, it's a real quiet one...

[Abd]

Is there a way to do something like "show all edits for the period X-Y"?

Yes, but it won't show traffic from the wholesale deletions of entire projects and userspace discussion pages. However, you can sometimes find relics pointing to those wholesale deletions. And sometimes a friendly admin will rescue deleted pages and send them to an aggrieved party for their personal off-wiki archives.

I'm getting a bad feeling.

That's not surprising. Is it shpilkes in the geneckteckessoink?

Nah, just a bad feeling. I'll leave the shpilkes to my fiance, who is ... undescribable.

Now, don't sit on it, share the wealth! How do I show traffic from a period?

[Abd]

The idea that WV is in deep doo-doo because of Jimbo, or "abusive administrators," is really the same view as Jimbo's idea that the problem is those "trolls."

So, your position is that someone who performed out-of-process page deletions, made bad blocks of people who violated no rules or policies, performed an emergency desysop action when no emergency existed and threatened to shut down Wikiversity in order to enforce his actions is the same as the honest Wikiversity participants who he called trolls? Pardon me if I don't agree.

Sometimes I feel like Gulliver in Lilliput. I should go wash, I've been swimming in the Wiki-river. I should talk to my shrink, maybe adjust my medication.

To say that a view is the same (which is obviously a form of analogy) is not to say that the persons are the same. However, both are serving the same delusion, that the problem is the bad people, not defective structure or process.

So far, here, we have identified Jimbo Wales and JWSchmidt (who is certainly violating policies -- written or unwritten -- as far as I can see) as holding that view and serving that delusion, we could add countless people, it's a common one, all the way up to, say, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, G. W. Bush, and, in fact, most people. Am I saying that these people "are the same"? Only in a certain way. Now, student at the University, figure it out. Paper due next Thursday. Whether you agree with me or not isn't relevant, do your work well.

[Moulton]

What the hell is an unwritten policy?

[Zoloft]

What the hell is an unwritten policy?

Why it's a gentleman's agreement, sir, a quiet understanding that we won't allow... certain types in our club.

[Moulton]

What the hell is an unwritten policy?

Why it's a gentleman's agreement, sir, a quiet understanding that we won't allow... certain types in our club.

I wonder what the corresponding derivative practice would be for ejecting those certain types. Surely it's not some variety of unseemly Spammish Inquisition.

[JWSchmidt]

delusion, that the problem is the bad people, not defective structure or process.

I've never made that dualistic distinction. I've spent years studying the defects of Wikimedia "structure" and how those defects result in "leaders" who abuse their positions of responsibility. When I see the abuses, I speak out. I've spent a huge amount of effort collaborating with others in an effort to build a sensible structure for Wikiversity only to see a swarm of barbarians arrive and perform a hostile takeover of Wikiversity. Interestingly, one of the main concerns of the barbarians is how to prevent Wikiversity participants from studying the defects of Wikimedia wiki projects.

[Moulton]

There was plenty of evidence to establish that Wikipedia governance suffered from a defective structure.

There was also overwhelming evidence to convict some of the most abusive admins of egregious abuse of power. Here is the example that most closely pertains to my own unhappy experience with IDCab.

[Milton Roe]

delusion, that the problem is the bad people, not defective structure or process.

I've never made that dualistic distinction. I've spent years studying the defects of Wikimedia "structure" and how those defects result in "leaders" who abuse their positions of responsibility. When I see the abuses, I speak out. I've spent a huge amount of effort collaborating with others in an effort to build a sensible structure for Wikiversity only to see a swarm of barbarians arrive and perform a hostile takeover of Wikiversity. Interestingly, one of the main concerns of the barbarians is how to prevent Wikiversity participants from studying the defects of Wikimedia wiki projects.

Since the bad people are in the world always, short of mass executions or imprisonments to deal with them, it's better to focus on institutional policies which prevent them from gaining authority.

Attica riots: warden quoted, "It's the class of prisoner we get here."