comback of the week (weak)?, Roger Davies finally hits the nail on the head... Options

[the fieryangel]

This : regarding SV's demands that the Arbcom archives be deleted...

::It may not be perfect but think it through. Do you really want the only place where arbitrators can look up back stuff to be Wikipedia Review?

[Milton Roe]

This : regarding SV's demands that the Arbcom archives be deleted...

::It may not be perfect but think it through. Do you really want the only place where arbitrators can look up back stuff to be Wikipedia Review?

Why not? The only place you can get intelligent analysis of the way WP should work and actually works, is here. So, go for the entire enchilada.

Well, most of it. Maybe we could upload an encyclopedia into a subforum somewhere...

[SpiderAndWeb]

This : regarding SV's demands that the Arbcom archives be deleted...

::It may not be perfect but think it through. Do you really want the only place where arbitrators can look up back stuff to be Wikipedia Review?

Don't see a problem with that actually...

[Sololol]

This : regarding SV's demands that the Arbcom archives be deleted...

::It may not be perfect but think it through. Do you really want the only place where arbitrators can look up back stuff to be Wikipedia Review?

Don't see a problem with that actually...

Judging by some of the emails it's already where a great deal of pivotal information comes from. Big ups to Jhochman calling for action or resignations.

This post has been edited by Sololol: Sat 2nd July 2011, 6:10pm

[Abd]

Judging by some of the emails it's already where a great deal of pivotal information comes from. Big ups to Jhochman calling for action or resignations.

There is a huge problem with "resignations" as a solution. The best arbs will resign, leaving the worst in place....

Jehochman's comment was cogent. SlimVirgin did even better with this:

If the only way to get rid of the objectionable material is to delete the archives, then that's what must be done. Alternatively, you could hand them over to the control of the Foundation and remove access to them by others. But the current situation can't be allowed to continue, for all the reasons that people have been pointing out for years. A simple fix: (a) hand over archive access to the Foundation by closing the mailing list; (b) open a new mailing list until a more permanent fix has been decided; © don't switch on the archive for the new list; and © conduct almost all of your business onwiki. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The core of this: it was a Bad Idea to conduct routine deliberations off-wiki. It became obvious to me that ArbComm was internally negotiating before participating in RfAr or other on-wiki process, so that they could present an appearance of solidarity. That appearance was more important than making the whole process transparent, so that the community could understand the logic or reasons behind decisions -- for better or worse.

Any email list has a huge security problem: every subscriber will have an archive, potentially, so the list is as vulnerable as the weakest link in the entire subscription list. (Not to mention the possibility of sophisticated hacking the server to create a back-door archive.) So private discussion *must* be limited to situations where privacy is necessary. Users, for example, should be able to make private *personal* requests to ArbComm, but ArbComm would only use the private channel to receive the request and decide whether or not to discuss it publically. They should only very rarely act based on purely private discussions, and all that "evidence" that they provided each other, i.e., accusations against users and the character of users, should have been verboten.

They are now being told the way forward. Will they listen? Maybe. They are not entirely dim.

Stewards, by the way, do the same thing, discussing possible actions off-wiki, sometimes by IRC, before then presenting the wiki with a fait accompli, in routine violation of steward policy, which requires on-wiki discussion of anything that might be controversial.

[Milton Roe]

I believe, if wikipedia review has some self respect left, it should remove these stolen emails and ban the user who posted them for good.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Checked. No self respect left.

Hell, it was down a couple of quarts when I joined.

How about you, Mila? Perhaps your problem is a little too MUCH "self-respect"?

[Kelly Martin]

Despite the huge volumes of stupidity that go on at Wikipedia Review every day, this site still does a much better job of analyzing Wikipedia's dysfunctions, on a bad day, than Wikipedia does on its best. This is more an indictment of Wikipedia's own inability to be self-critical than anything else; certainly we have not managed to collect the best and the brightest of anything here. Present company included.

Note: I'm not volunteering to be Wikipedia's problem solver. I tried that once, and they weren't interested. Seems they enjoy their dysfunctions too much to have them pointed out to them, with recommended solutions.

[Abd]

Wow! Jehochman has drunk more of his own Kool-Aid. He starts with "Have an open mind." Great! But apparently having an open mind is for others, not for him. This is classic Jehochman, in fact.

Now, if you would please stop disrupting the discussion with walls of text, We might make progress.

This was in response to a post by Jclemens that was relatively brief. "Walls of text" means "You said stuff that I didn't like," at least when a post is less than a screen. It is never true that too-long posts, when people are engaged, disrupt or prevent progress. However, over-long posts can be collapsed with a brief summary, which will actually make them more effective, but this kind of refactoring is rarely done. I never objected to my posts being collapsed, as long as the visible summary was not unfair.

But Jehochman has been one of the editors offended by "walls of text," and even a little hedge of text is too much. It's not a sign of a penetrating intellect, I'm afraid. I think of Jehochman as being well-meaning but sometimes a tad obtuse.

[Abd]

Note: I'm not volunteering to be Wikipedia's problem solver. I tried that once, and they weren't interested. Seems they enjoy their dysfunctions too much to have them pointed out to them, with recommended solutions.

Bingo, Kelly!

If anyone thinks this problem is somehow to unique to Wikipedia, they are naive. It's a universal problem, to be expected when there is a community social structure set up as Wikipedia's was. There are ways beyond this, but they become rapidly impossible to implement, because of the self-defense of structures. It typically takes some outside force, or some very strong internal force, to move out and clean up the mess, once a structure has become rooted.

Basically, at the beginning, the necessary structural aspects that would allow true consensus formation when the scale is large are considered unnecessary complications by the small group getting the organization going. After all, being "collegial," surely we can handle this. And they do, often. By the time the need for something else is apparent, the structure is too deeply rooted to change.

[Sololol]

Judging by some of the emails it's already where a great deal of pivotal information comes from. Big ups to Jhochman calling for action or resignations.

There is a huge problem with "resignations" as a solution. The best arbs will resign, leaving the worst in place....

Agreed, to an extant. I'm pleased someone brought up resignation as it's silly to see Arbs simultaneously bitching about the leak while showing every intention of continuing to use the same system that made it possible (and admitting it was a known problem). They are in an untenable position; they aren't protected by WMF's corporate veil and they can't impose security reform to protect the information that could come back to legally maul them/embarrass everyone. Going back to business as usual is tacit support of the current system. If they are truly unhappy with events (and they should be), threaten a mass resignation unless Jimbo/WMF takes the steps necessary to protect them and other volunteers.

[EricBarbour]

Four years ago, it would have been unthinkable to see Durova say this:

Waits for big acrimonious debate over premature proposal in the wrong venue. The more things change, the more they stay insane. Durova412 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (remembering why my volunteer time now goes to a different charity)

Now, you've got to convince the rest of them. Good luck.

If they are truly unhappy with events (and they should be), threaten a mass resignation unless Jimbo/WMF takes the steps necessary to protect them and other volunteers.

That won't happen, obviously. They are all addicted to the bitchfest and the backstabbing.
And since the WMF provides them a place to do it with semi-impunity, and they don't have to pay for any of it, they eat it up.

There's one change I would make, if I was in charge of that madhouse.
Anyone who came to me and asked to become an arbitrator, would be told one thing:
"Sure, you can be an arbitrator. It's a lifetime appointment. Just send the WMF a check for $20,000. "
That would get rid of all the trolls and crazies and parasites and Risker, immediately.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 2nd July 2011, 9:21pm

[Kelly Martin]

There's one change I would make, if I was in charge of that madhouse.
Anyone who came to me and asked to become an arbitrator, would be told one thing:
"Sure, you can be an arbitrator. It's a lifetime appointment. Just send the WMF a check for $20,000. "
That would get rid of all the trolls and crazies and parasites and Risker, immediately.

Hell, I would charge dues just for the privilege of editing with a named account. Not much, maybe $5 or $10 a year. Also buys you the right to vote in elections and referenda. Because that's how membership organizations work. Can't afford $5 a year? Ask someone else to buy a membership for you, or beg for a freebie.

Fundamentally the problem is that declaring that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't make it true. Not anyone can edit an encyclopedia; most people don't have the requisite competency. Pretending that they do, or that somehow they will gain it organically through experience, is just insane.

[SpiderAndWeb]

There's one change I would make, if I was in charge of that madhouse.
Anyone who came to me and asked to become an arbitrator, would be told one thing:
"Sure, you can be an arbitrator. It's a lifetime appointment. Just send the WMF a check for $20,000. "
That would get rid of all the trolls and crazies and parasites and Risker, immediately.

Hell, I would charge dues just for the privilege of editing with a named account. Not much, maybe $5 or $10 a year. Also buys you the right to vote in elections and referenda. Because that's how membership organizations work. Can't afford $5 a year? Ask someone else to buy a membership for you, or beg for a freebie.

Fundamentally the problem is that declaring that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't make it true. Not anyone can edit an encyclopedia; most people don't have the requisite competency. Pretending that they do, or that somehow they will gain it organically through experience, is just insane.

That's actually an interesting idea -- I believe the Something Awful forums work in this way. You have to pay $5 for editing privileges, and if you get blocked, you have to pay the $5 again to be reinstated. Maybe even charge larger amounts as a "security deposit" for higher privileges like adminship, being an arbitrator, etc. If you want to sock extensively, doing so will be expensive, plus you'll be paying the project for the time needed to deal with you.

[powercorrupts]

There's one change I would make, if I was in charge of that madhouse.
Anyone who came to me and asked to become an arbitrator, would be told one thing:
"Sure, you can be an arbitrator. It's a lifetime appointment. Just send the WMF a check for $20,000. "
That would get rid of all the trolls and crazies and parasites and Risker, immediately.

Hell, I would charge dues just for the privilege of editing with a named account. Not much, maybe $5 or $10 a year. Also buys you the right to vote in elections and referenda. Because that's how membership organizations work. Can't afford $5 a year? Ask someone else to buy a membership for you, or beg for a freebie.

Fundamentally the problem is that declaring that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't make it true. Not anyone can edit an encyclopedia; most people don't have the requisite competency. Pretending that they do, or that somehow they will gain it organically through experience, is just insane.

Yeah and anyone can be the president of America.

As I've said somewhere on WR in regard to paid editing (suggesting a special forum I think), Wikipedia is a skilled business. Computer-savvy people (geeks if you like) can easily forget this - rather like the old 'techno-speak' cliche, but 'normal' people just aren't technically savvy enough to grasp Wikipedia, esp before all the gadgets were built-in, and even with them in place.

On top of that you have all kinds of barriers (just off the top of my head):

age - Being of the 'computer generation'(s) helps hugely.

education - It's largely a middle class pursuit, and getting a good education is largely luck for many people, despite how 'hard working' you may be.

nationality/freedom - Partly assuming that .en version.x is the WP that counts.

language/literacy - Many people are dislexic for example.

class - The old divider.

income/wealth - WP doesn't pay you, so your time must be free and covered.

time - Relating to many of the others of course. Some people have no choice but to work 24/7.

health/energy - Esp physical - what if you are disabled? No paying others to help I'm afraid - as for all of these issues.

temperament - How many people walk straight out appalled? Esp professionals.

ego - WP is not a place for the timid.

neutrality - No 'confilct of interest' please, and it is seriously frowned upon to edit your own articles (BLP or business).

philosophy/gullability - If you are not part of The Project now you are increasingly marginalised, despite whatever initial idea you might have had about WP.

integrity/communality - WP is made for arse kissers. It is very hard to get anywhere on arguments alone. WP was also missing from a UK newspaper's list of 10 social networking sites recently. It should have been there, with its value as a business too, perhaps even projected onto businesses who can repurpose it, like Amazon.

Ethical values - Do you or don't you? Can you sit by and watch? It's not that easy, and many edit in two minds, or stay away unhappy about it.

I'm often astounded how few people do actually edit Wikipedia despite all this - but then I remember what a battleground it is, and ponder how many of the 'editors' who do are in fact sockpuppets. All the action is in cult areas (pokemon, games, star trek - whatever it is now. Whole areas lie empty or untended.

Wikipedia has had no experience of a realistic interpretation of 'everyone' editing, or of articles nearing completion either (FA's are often just B grade mid-teen homework of course, and full of easily-questionable stuff). I don't think the WMF is interested in either myself. How can it ask for money to expand itself and employ people if it doesn't need help? It's just a boring old capitalist story. It's like asking bankers to take the 'rap' now and help out - the reply is "Excuse me, we are bankers." The WMF is an expanding business, and primarily it needs to make money, not least to get as independent from Google as it can manage to (like most other internet businesses I would guess). The word 'charity' is the biggest con - when you employ just one person in a decent job, and need money to expand, the potential is to be anything other than 'charitable'.