Piperdown unblocked, It's official Options

[Giano]

I'd like to refocus this thread to the immediate cause of the problem, David Gerard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Piperdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=148084341

A sure recipe for incompetence is to say, mistakes don't matter, and have no consequence. That's false: they do matter, and they do have consequences. We need administrators who don't make these kinds of mistakes. It's not that they're bad people (though you're free to debate that,) but we need administrators who can and will get it right.

At the risk of sounding tautological, holding administrators accountable means holding them accountable. It's not about judging their intentions or their souls, but judging their performance as it serves or poorly serves the project. David Gerard blew it horribly, hasn't seen fit to revisit his decision or apologize, and needs to go.

In my considerable experience, anything that David Gerard does is always the direct result of a precise order from the now disgraced Arbcom, rather than blame the puppy that bites, it's always better to prosecute the master who trained it. One consolation is that Tony Sidaway was also once used in this manner, and now he is rather cast aside, and a rather odd wikipedic-nomad. To those that wait, all things do come. The curse of Giano strikes sooner or later, as poor, inexperienced, and naive Ryan Postlethwaite discovered recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ethwaite#Oppose. David Gerard will get his deserts sooner, I suspect, rather than later. There are a lot of discontented people watching this shower in action, you cannot fool all the people all of the time - even on Wikipedia. Strong and fair leadership can cure all of Wikipedia's ills.

Giano

[Kato]

Strong and fair leadership can cure all of Wikipedia's ills.

Giano

Good grief. You see, this is why I objected to Giano being praised as a "straight shooter" on this site. This is bolllocks, Giano. Community ills, squabbles and so on are entertaining, sometimes informative and bring in the punters, which is why they should remain a feature here. But the main ills of Wikipedia are caused by the basic premise of anonymous, unaccountable people editing high profile representations of important issues without any genuine regulations or duty of care.

"Strong and fair" leadership cannot overcome most of the criticisms offered in the link below. Only by dismantling the obviously flawed premise can this thing progress.

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/c...s-of-wikipedia/

[Pumpkin Muffins]

But the main ills of Wikipedia are caused by the basic premise of anonymous, unaccountable people editing high profile representations of important issues without any genuine regulations or duty of care.

"Strong and fair" leadership cannot overcome most of the criticisms offered in the link below. Only by dismantling the obviously flawed premise can this thing progress.

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/c...s-of-wikipedia/

What about an "anonymous" editor with a two year track record of impeccable honesty, fairness, judgement and quality? What about a five year track record? Is this still a an 'unaccoutable' person 'without any genuine regulations or duty of care'?

What if there was leadership and a culture that recognized and promoted these people?

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Strong and fair leadership can cure all of Wikipedia's ills.
Giano

While an incompetent or venal leadership will drive honorable people away.

[Kato]

What if there was leadership and a culture that recognized and promoted these people?

...promoted to what?

While an incompetent or venal leadership will drive honorable people away.

This is like changing drivers on a cheaply constructed faulty bus with bald tires, no steering wheel, engine dysfunction and no breaks. It doesn't matter who is driving the bus, it'll still plow straight into a wall eventually.

Someone from outside needs to stop the bus, dismantle the thing, and rebuild it properly from scratch. And sharpish before it hits any more people.

And put some seat belts on the thing as well when you do it.

[Moulton]

A fish rots from the head down.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

What if there was leadership and a culture that recognized and promoted these people?

...promoted to what?

The obvious things, of course. admin, bureaucrat, arbitrator, steward, committee positions and special projects.

Then there are the not so obvious things, such as an editors reputation and power being derived from their worth as an encyclopedist (rather than their worth as a sycophant)- where someone who has distinguished themselves over many years on various topics and with various character traits earns a certain provenance. That's an important part of culture.

[Giano]

Strong and fair leadership can cure all of Wikipedia's ills.

Giano

Good grief. You see, this is why I objected to Giano being praised as a "straight shooter" on this site. This is bolllocks, Giano. Community ills, squabbles and so on are entertaining, sometimes informative and bring in the punters, which is why they should remain a feature here. But the main ills of Wikipedia are caused by the basic premise of anonymous, unaccountable people editing high profile representations of important issues without any genuine regulations or duty of care.

"Strong and fair" leadership cannot overcome most of the criticisms offered in the link below. Only by dismantling the obviously flawed premise can this thing progress.

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/c...s-of-wikipedia/

I know you won't agree with me, but it's not Wikipedia's articles that are the problem, in fact they are quite good, some even brilliant, I frequently have to check very scientific facts, which I don't really understand, and when I've done so, I always have a look to see what Wikipedia has to say, and sure enough there it is, re-enforcing what I have found elsewhere, but in language that puts what I have researched into language, and perspective, I can understand. Of course, I can't use Wikipedia as my only source, and for the level of accuracy I have to have, I would never use just one source anyway. At Wikipedia, rubbish soon gets weeded out, my frequent weeding used to upset a lot of people, and here is the danger, it is the abysmal management driving experts off, that is not just effecting the content produced, but also those doing the weeding. Ultimately this will not just cost them editors, but funding. I know for certain of three companies who used to off-load legally (tax bonus) required donations to Wikipedia who have stopped, directly as a result of recent events - it will be a continuing pattern, which sadly, they are not bright enough to see.

The Arbs, stupidly, think all editors are silly high school kids, and only value an editor when he is promoted to admin and chatting away to them on IRC - a project with that sort of management and ethos, cannot survive for long. So they have to change the management or let standards sink. Sadly, Wales seems to have chosen the latter. I'm probably stupid, but as a great project, I think, it is still salvageable - but, for how much longer?

Giano

[Proabivouac]

I'm sure that when David made those edits he was convinced that he was doing the right thing and honorably defending the wiki.

No doubt. But as I wrote, a sure recipe for incompetence is to say that mistakes don't matter and should have no consequence. From this perspective, it doesn't matter that he thought that he was doing the right thing, any more than it matters that he thinks he's doing the right thing in the way he handles the IRC channel or the mailing list. Lots of people would be happy to take over any of his positions, and discharge them similarly in good faith. Why not give one of them a chance? "Good faith" here is just an excuse for incompetence, for errors at other equally good-faithed people's expense.

[Zenwhat]

Alison made a pretty absurd remark in that ANI discussion:

"I guess we can all close that chapter in WP history and move on. In the end, it was that easy. And now it's over"

Unless the community didn't actually learn anything and another such case is inevitable.

The idea that we should totally forget stuff like this seems kind of absurd. It's through learning from these kinds of mistakes that the community has the opportunity to improve.

Strong and fair leadership can cure all of Wikipedia's ills.

Giano

Good grief. You see, this is why I objected to Giano being praised as a "straight shooter" on this site. This is bolllocks, Giano. Community ills, squabbles and so on are entertaining, sometimes informative and bring in the punters, which is why they should remain a feature here. But the main ills of Wikipedia are caused by the basic premise of anonymous, unaccountable people editing high profile representations of important issues without any genuine regulations or duty of care.

"Strong and fair" leadership cannot overcome most of the criticisms offered in the link below. Only by dismantling the obviously flawed premise can this thing progress.

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/c...s-of-wikipedia/

Kato, starting a wiki relies on some stroke of luck at social engineering.

Now that the site has been established, they have millions in capital, and thousands of volunteers, yes, strong and fair leadership could help them improve.

[Saltimbanco]

I am pretty certain that David Gerard does not generally act on formal instructions. He is simply a control freak, and he enjoys being an asshole to people. If he has a reason to block someone that is in any way plausible, he will do it. And he has no corresponding and offsetting compulsion to unblock people; that, after all, would be letting people do what they want, and where's the fun in doing that?

I expect that if Gerard had banning-level complaints from as few as two typical editors regarding another editor, he'd take a quick look at the allegations and ban away if there seemed to be anything to it. I don't think there is any evidence available to indicate what it would take to undo one of his bans.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Strong and fair leadership can cure all of Wikipedia's ills.

Giano

Good grief. You see, this is why I objected to Giano being praised as a "straight shooter" on this site. This is bolllocks, Giano. Community ills, squabbles and so on are entertaining, sometimes informative and bring in the punters, which is why they should remain a feature here. But the main ills of Wikipedia are caused by the basic premise of anonymous, unaccountable people editing high profile representations of important issues without any genuine regulations or duty of care.

"Strong and fair" leadership cannot overcome most of the criticisms offered in the link below. Only by dismantling the obviously flawed premise can this thing progress.

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080104/c...s-of-wikipedia/

I have three children...all girls...I love them more than I love me, BUT, I would never let them run the world, or a company that I love and work for. Give them 30 years; maybe sobriety and a spiritual experience along the way?

Maybe...

Maybe not! It all depends.

Fake profiles and underage leaders? That is MySpace and Facebook...not an encyclopedia or reliable source of news or knowledge.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

While an incompetent or venal leadership will drive honorable people away.

This is like changing drivers on a cheaply constructed faulty bus with bald tires, no steering wheel, engine dysfunction and no breaks. It doesn't matter who is driving the bus, it'll still plow straight into a wall eventually.

Someone from outside needs to stop the bus, dismantle the thing, and rebuild it properly from scratch. And sharpish before it hits any more people.

And put some seat belts on the thing as well when you do it.

Yep, that's one solution, a fork to address these issues. In fact, I believe that an internal fork would be worthwhile for wikipedia. Companies often do this and then let the split departments compete and re-invent themselves, or a small group is split off for R&D.

But I think the project, while massive and with a lot of inertia, can be improved with simple and evolutionary nudges.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Thu 28th February 2008, 8:05pm

[Jonny Cache]

But I think the project, while massive and with a lot of inertia, can be improved with simple and evolutionary nudges.

Could some of our E-lightened Leadership please Nudge this thread into the 2Dumb2Live Forum?

Much Grass,

Jonny

[Kato]

But I think the project, while massive and with a lot of inertia, can be improved with simple and evolutionary nudges.

An out of control bus hurtling through a built up area cannot be improved with simple and evolutionary nudges.

As for forking it? Stick a fork in it more like.

You're talking about internal political changes at the politburo, chairs shifting round a desk. You're not seeing what is at stake. And you haven't addressed the core complaints.

Jimbo Wales and "the leadership" are Wikipedia. It fails because it stems from their ideology. Without this flawed ideology, there is no Wikipedia.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

2Dumb2Live?

Quit throwing chicken bones at me

But I think the project, while massive and with a lot of inertia, can be improved with simple and evolutionary nudges.

An out of control bus hurtling through a built up area cannot be improved with simple and evolutionary nudges.

As for forking it? Stick a fork in it more like.

You're talking about internal political changes at the politburo, chairs shifting round a desk. You're not seeing what is at stake. And you haven't addressed the core complaints.

Jimbo Wales and "the leadership" are Wikipedia. It fails because it stems from their ideology. Without this flawed ideology, there is no Wikipedia.

Let's see ... a ways back you say;

The monster is the result of a flawed premise, bad software, terrible ideas at its root that have been addressed here at length etc. It doesn't matter which cast of characters took the helm, the result would be the same.

and here you say;

Jimbo Wales and "the leadership" are Wikipedia. It fails because it stems from their ideology.

You aren't being consistent, Kato.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Thu 28th February 2008, 9:04pm

[Anaheim Flash]

Strong and fair leadership can cure all of Wikipedia's ills. Giano

Sounds like the kind of thing that 'gets the trains to run on time'

What kind of person who voluntarily contributes to a wiki project, would want "Strong and fair leadership" ? it's an oxymoron.

AF

This post has been edited by Anaheim Flash: Thu 28th February 2008, 8:56pm

[Moulton]

The failure of leadership amounts to the failure to establish a functional system of self-regulation. To the best of my knowledge, all successful projects of this nature operate under the umbrella of a carefully crafted Social Contract setting forth the project mission, community values, and conflict resolution process.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, Wikipedia omitted that essential foundation.

[Kato]

Let's see ... a ways back you say;

The monster is the result of a flawed premise, bad software, terrible ideas at its root that have been addressed here at length etc. It doesn't matter which cast of characters took the helm, the result would be the same.

and here you say;

Jimbo Wales and "the leadership" are Wikipedia. It fails because it stems from their ideology.

You aren't being consistent, Kato.

Let me clarify.

The ideology of Jimbo Wales and the Wikipedia leadership is Wikipedia. Remove them from the helm, you still have the ideology. Just as the Soviet Union remained a Marxist-Leninist state long after Lenin had died. And it stayed that way until the system was dismantled, until the giant statues of Lenin were removed.

Wikipedia and its failures stem from this ideology. Vote George W Bush from power, you still have the President and the US constitution. The Queen dies, you still have the monarchy.

[AB]

My intent is now to stop posting here, as I stated I would if the situation of my WP blocking were resolved. While I doubt that unblocking will go quietly into the WP night, let's hope it does. W-R is even more sick of my squeaky wheel than WP is. I'd like to think I didn't just get the grease for squeaking.

Congratulations!

{{{{{Piperdown}}}}}

I suspect you are far too much of a player to be out of it for the duration, so until you get a new "handle" or fake profile, or you can come back as a real live person with a real name, I hope and pray that the lessons herein and at WP will hold a candle out there for all the world to see.

Piperdown is too honest for the former, and many
of us will never do the latter, I suspect.