QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 2nd September 2010, 11:38am)
Jimbo spends a lot of time
explaining how to exclude people from collaboration online.
, Jimbo talks about the failure of Campaigns Wikia, because he didn't really understand what his idea was about.
He looks awful there. Probably artifact of the video process. But what he actually says isn't so bad, and he acknowledges that he did it wrong many times.
What he doesn't understand is how to move on from deciding that someone is not appropriate as a participant. He's got some ideals about it, but he doesn't recognize that a wiki can recover from errors, that a path can be open for a "banned user" to return, that still respects the reasons why the guy might have been blocked in the first place.
He clearly doesn't understand how a "consensus" can appear on a wiki that is *not a consensus*, it's just an appearance. Real consensus process, is almost by definition, wiser than any individual or faction. But it is difficult.
Wikipedia simply wasn't set up to facilitate it, and various processes defeat it.
Gross misbehavior by popular administrators goes unaddressed, and someone who confronts it is "disruptive" and is at high risk of being banned. If it hadn't been Lar, what would have happened with this Climate Change mess?
I've seen, many times, an apparent "consensus" that was just plain *mean.* So is that really the "community"? Or is it just that the information processing and filtering processes of the wiki have caused the "dirt" to concentrate in one place?
There are ways to fix this. Propose them and watch yourself be pilloried, by those who like to be able to concentrate dirt in one place and get away with it.
They thought they could do to Lar what they had done to many others. But, I keep saying this, it wasn't their fault. Jimbo is right about good faith.
The problem was and remains defective structure, and a persistence of poor structure, to be expected when it benefits a minority, giving them excess power.
Jimbo understood that he had to establish what he called an "administrative cabal." But he forgot that it would be necessary to also put in place structures that would restrain the cabal, and keep it operating in a service mode instead of a control and domination mode. Power corrupts. Period.
So how do we have privileged users (needed to deal with some kinds of disruption), without creating a monster? There are ways. It can take a lot of words to explain them, it's probably easier to implement them experimentally in some smaller places. Like, say, Wikiversity?