On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 07:51:06PM -0800, Dario Taraborelli wrote: > So what went wrong?
Local consensus does not override global consensus. * The research committee failed to adhere to applicable consensus. [1] * In lieu of consensus, the research committee failed to adhere to or point to any applicable policy permitting or denying their action. [2] * In lieu of policy, the research committee failed to discuss or explain their actions on-wiki within a reasonable time-frame, nor was any subtantial corrective action undertaken within a reasonable time frame. (IAR, WIARM, BRD) [3][4] Therefore, the decision to terminate the use of the study banners at this time was correct, and could be (and was) validly carried out by any meta admin. (In the end 2 different people drew the same conclusion almost simultaneously) It seems reasonable to suggest that the research committee take the time to obtain an (at least slightly) broader consensus before restarting their study[5]. It is reasonable to believe that the research committee might be sanctioned individually or collectively, should they fail to do so. The making of on-wiki statements is highly recommended, as off-wiki statements do not contribute to consensus. In future, before a person or committee starts or continues use of a wiki-resource, it would be wise to: * Research, interpret, and adhere to any applicable policy/guideline/essay documents. * Obtain and/or research and/or interpret relevant consensus, and adhere to it. * Plan sufficient time and resources for the correction of (inevitable) unforseen issues. If this is done in a timely manner, this needn't take a lot of time or difficulty. Fixing errors and misunderstandings post-hoc is more costly. sincerely, Kim Bruning [1] AN* discussions are not merely "suggestions". Depending on consensus, statements made on AN* can be actionable. Compliance might be mandatory, failure to comply may be sanctionable. The following consensus discussion is applicable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study This discussion can be interpreted as denying the request to run this survey in the then proposed form, and discouraging the current form. The discussion also provides some minimal requirements to make the survey acceptable. These requirements were only partially met. [2] So far I've only found the following proposed policy: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice_banner_guidelines . Note that this recommends that banners be approved by the community beforehand. This was not done. [3] AFAICT, no input at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Adverts . It may be open to discussion whether or not the research committee was properly informed via their page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior#Discussions_about_the_banner [4] Jerome and I did try some last minute IAR-ish defence of the project (and we convinced a number of people!). Obviously, our last-minute arguments were insufficient to balance out the previous and continuing issues at the time. (worth a try though! :-) [5] WP:POLL suggests that simply discussing and then adhering to a common position is potentially sufficient. Running an actual poll might be counter-productive. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l