Coren continued
QUOTE
Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus.
The problem is that this happens on-wiki as well. It was the core of my "cabal" claims, that participation bias led to the appearance of consensus, if consensus means "majority," -- and Wikipedia routinely follows "majority rule" on a very small scale, i.e., the 3RR rule is a rough majority rule when applied to individual editors -- or even if it means "supermajority," for, as I 've shown , there was a 2/3 majority to ban me when the cause was that I raised a claim of action-while-involved at RfC/JzG 3, a claim that ArbComm confirmed. The supermajority was caused by participation bias, a large faction can easily do that, without any off-wiki coordination.
The majority at that RfC clearly imagined that they represented the consensus, and the big claim that continued against me was that I "disregarded consensus." I didn't, of course, rather, I sought consensus, which, in the presence of participation bias, requires patient, extended process and lots of discussion, if it's done on-wiki, which I did, in fact, do, I didn't utilize my extensive email contacts to solicit support.
Now, if the members of the EE mailing list didn't know that a consensus among them wasn't, per se, a wiki consensus, wouldn't they be awfully stupid? What, exactly, is the problem with a group of editors finding and recognizing a consensus among themselves? The problem is, of course, that they may express this consensus. But, with a mature process, how would that be different than any individual editor expressing their opinion? Indeed, if only one member expresses that consensus, it is *more* efficient and displays *less* participation bias. And if they all pile in, WP process that doesn't recognize that birds of a feather flock together is, itself, pretty stupid. The Massachusetts bird population is almost entirely sparrows, and I know because I look out my window and can see hundreds of them, and not another bird at all. Right now. Wait a minute, here it is a few minutes later, and I don't see any sparrows. Did "consensus" change? No, consensus never formed!
Coren has, in fact, described the Wikipedia problem, but has projected it on the external, private mailing list, with restricted membership, which, of course, may be an "echo chamber." So? There are problems from off-wiki coordination, for sure, with existing defective structure. But does it really matter if the "coordination" is through a mailing list or is just through a collection of watchlists? The effect is quite the same! And watchlists are private, for the most part, though we can infer them.
ArbComm, in my case, refused to address the problem of group "involvement." I predicted this would then continue to cause problems. Well, here it is, folks..... I did not attack the "cabal," the claims that I did were based on assumptions of intent. I simply described it. I sought no sanctions against any cabal members. I didn't even seek sanctions against WMC, but a ruling that he had acted while involved; what ArbComm chose to do with that was their business.... I did express the opinion that if ArbComm was going to tighten up the rules, it should be forgiving of prior "violations," and should only lift admin bits if it had cause to fear continued violation, such as through continued defiance (as was the case with WMC.)
What's the difference between my case and this one? Well, the cabal in my case was a broad one, with a fair number of administrators involved. In this case, I think it's just one administrator, not many. The topic is of narrower interested, so, in order to counter off-wiki coordination from a blatant POV faction, the so-called "Russian editors," they needed to have something to increase their own efficiency, they didn't have the manpower of the global warming, anti-pseudoscience cabal. However, the actual actions taken on-wiki -- as distinct from the brainstorming that happened off-wiki, reported as if it represented an evil plot -- were mild by comparison to what the GW cabal routinely did, and even did during the RfAr, in full sight, with ArbComm's attention being drawn to it -- if they actually read the case pages, and the evidence, which apparently most didn't.
In fact, ArbComm should delegate cases to a committee of arbitrators who commit to become thoroughly familiar with cases, with, then, the full committee signing off on (or rejecting, occasionally) detailed reports from a subcommittee, and any arbitrator being allowed to enter a dissent before the full vote is taken, to debate the matter before the full committee. With better process, the workload on each individual arbitrator, relative to the overall workload, would decrease. With arbitrators developing their own "staff," it would become even easier for them. All this is well-known and functional in traditional deliberative bodies.
Newyorkbrad expressed regret at the loss of me as an editor, because he considered me an expert on parliamentary procedure. I'm not, though I have served as a parliamentarian in some organizations. My interest is consensus process, and parliamentary procedure is an aspect of that; if consensus process isn't efficient, it becomes unsustainable as the scale increases. NYB was puzzled by my taking a position on cold fusion, but, obviously, never bothered to investigate the basis for that. I was simply someone who, in spite of having a natural skeptical position, happened to read the reliable sources and reversed my position. Thus I considered myself a harbinger of a future consensus that will arise as others likewise become familiar with the evidence, and that was true in many cases in my two years as a highly active editor. After I was banned, already in several cases the community adopted, as consensus, with no apparent sustained opposition, several of the positions I'd advocated, to loud opposition, during my RfAr.
Wikipedia must start to respect minority opinion, far more than it does, and facilitate true dispute resolution process instead of interrupting it by deciding one side or the other is wrong. ArbComm can and should make temporary binding decisions, but these should all be designed to facilitate true consensus, not to crush and decimate one side without addressing the underlying dispute. I'm sure that banning will still sometimes be necessary, but, again and again, I discovered examples of banning where what was really being banned was POV, even expert POV, because the editor asserted the POV.
In this case, the EE "cabal" is a majority POV cabal, generally. Their positions will ordinarily be sustained when the community examines them in depth. There is still danger from majority POV-pushing, and I've written that MPOV is actually more dangerous than fringe POV, to project neutrality, because the latter is obvious and relatively easily recognized -- or imagined! -- and thus FPOV pushing is relatively harmless unless undetected and unnoticed. So how to notice FPOV? Well, coordinate! If everyone watches everything, much less is actually watched with any reliability!
The problem isn't MPOV-pushing, the problem is lack of true consensus process that would, of course, include the "Russian" POV, other minority POVs, as well as, obviously, the majority point of view. (I say obviously even though this wasn't obvious to the Global Warming cabal, for the imagined that "consensus process" meant that mainstream science would be give undue weight. Quite simply, the didn't understand consensus process, and feared it; especially they did not understand that consensus process would not mean that they were all doomed, collectively and individually, to endless debate with fringe advocates. It only takes one editor from a faction to represent a factional position in true consensus process, and that representation is voluntary and doesn't require continual attention. Further, when real consensus process operates, minorities will police themselves, the last thing the sensible among the minority want is a battle with the majority! They'll lose!
One of the most offensive things I've found about Coren's evidence was that he included some speculation from Piotrus about filing an RfC against another editor, but then rejected his own speculation based on the disruption that this would cause without sufficient value to the project. Guess which part of the email was quoted!
Coren is recommending that the list disband. I'm recommending, directly to the list, about the opposite, that they open it up, but manage it to keep possibly disruptive traffic down. Welcome editors of opposing POV, but insist on clear behavioral standards, and enforce these standards on all participants, not just the minority from the other side brave enough to join! If you are in the majority, be brave enough to demonstrate collegiality, you can afford it, or at least demonstrate a sincere attempt, toward the other side. And if you want to discuss stuff privately, do it with other private lists, but the coordination function would work with the list as an open list, thus avoiding the whole secrecy issue, and the list function as a device for negotiating consensus would expand if there was some inclusion from the other side, those on the other side who are capable of civil discussion, and there almost always will be such. Want to deliberate in "caucus"? Do it as such, with security, and do understand that leaks can occur. There is, however, no actual need for what the community might consider "improper coordination" upon wide reflection, except under conditions that don't obtain yet, and which may never obtain. Set up the structures so that you could do it if needed, and you may never need to do it.
Need for massive "revolution"? You'd better be ready! If you have enough editors that, out of their own pockets, they could easily fund a site mirror, and out of their own labor and what would crystallize around them, they could maintain and expand it, maybe you'd be ready. However, a faction prepared to do this would almost certainly be able to obtain the cooperation of the WMF, instead of needing to oppose it, and it would only be sustained incompetent stupidity on the part of the WMF that would make direct alternative action necessary. That level of stupidity is unlikely, and, if it were to arise, a prepared community could handle the problem. It's a classic solution, that's known to work: if you are prepared to manage an existing project, truly, that involves the voluntary participation of a broad community, you are prepared to start an independent one.
The same structures that are necessary to be able to govern a project are the ones that could start a new one if needed, including gathering the capital and labor. The key asset of Wikipedia, aside from the community momentum (who owns that?) isn't owned by anyone, it's an open license.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 14th October 2009, 1:55pm)
Is this case
still dragging on? Someone let me know when Napoleon reaches Moscow. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
How about when Alexander cuts the Gordian knot? Has anyone pinged him? Where is off-wiki coordination when we need it?
Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk?
