Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Steve Bennett wrote: I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo. Debatable. But I think the way Sanger systematically misunderstands the virtues of WP, and has with CZ promoted some other deadly virtues like having credentialled people as a better class of 'citizen', is certainly telling. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The end of donations
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Jay Litwynbrewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote in message news:7c402e010907301615q7f86e8a1v5edb56ced5a80...@mail.gmail.com... Sorry, thought this was going to foundation-l. -S On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to it? Carcharoth answered that question in October or November snip I'm not entirely sure I did answer that question back then (I can't find anything on a brief search). I might have done, so if you point me to an e-mail I wrote to this list, I'll accept that. Even if I did, no-one should have accepted it at face value, as I was likely just giving an uninformed opinion (can you tag mailing list posts with citation needed?). And any case, what SJ (Samuel Klein) has just said is obviously much better informed! Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Report a Problem hack
I've wondered about this for a long time, but wasn't ever confident about the maintenance issue: it seems like it would be next to impossible to make sure that problems get consistent responses, to effectively manage the potential volume of responses, or even to deal with the inevitable bad reports (either misled or outright malicious). In extreme cases -- I'm thinking of the stuff we send to oversight or OTRS, for example -- keeping a very central, very public list of everything that's wrong might even attract trouble in the form of trolls or iffy responses. Still, I'm glad to see a project finally giving this a go, and I'm very curious to hear how it works out for them. I wish them good luck. -Luna ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Jay Litwyn wrote: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain In book called They never said it!, that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book). It is a lot of fun to say it, though, so if he said it once, then he probably said it a few times. Einstein said something like it on a sign that hung at his door: Not everything that can be counted counts. Not everything that counts can be counted. My book of quotes (Chambers Dictionary of Quotations) says Clemens attributed it to D'Israeli, citing as source Mark Twain ''Autobiography, vol.1 (1924). So although Clemens may have said it, he wasn't first, or at least didn't think he was first. And it does have the ring of D'Israeli, regardless of whether D'Israeli ever said it. After writing all that, I turned to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics We really aren't half bad, are we? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Jay Litwyn wrote: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain In book called They never said it!, that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book). Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ /* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Ok, here's a thing. Should that really be in the wikipedia? It's just all about a quote. Shouldn't that be in wikiquote? I must admit, whenever I ask questions like this, I get 'it's dunn enuff' to be in the wikipedia. Could somebody point me to [[WP:DUNNENUFF]] policy because it seems to be a red link whenever I try it. I've been looking for this policy, it's clearly one of the 5 pillars because it's used quite a lot, but I haven't located it yet. ;-) On 11/08/2009, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote: Jay Litwyn wrote: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain In book called They never said it!, that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book). Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ /* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Every single human being
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:08:52 -0500, Philippe Beaudette wrote: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. ...but *married* human beings can't. (Whether they're in an opposite- sex or same-sex marriage.) -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
The shortcut isn't [[WP:DUNNENUFF]], it's [[WP:IAR]]. You may also find [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] useful. :-P Unless I need to pack my bags and leave for fear my every turn be questioned. What's that Beatles song? Let It Be? Ian Woollard wrote: Ok, here's a thing. Should that really be in the wikipedia? It's just all about a quote. Shouldn't that be in wikiquote? I must admit, whenever I ask questions like this, I get 'it's dunn enuff' to be in the wikipedia. Could somebody point me to [[WP:DUNNENUFF]] policy because it seems to be a red link whenever I try it. I've been looking for this policy, it's clearly one of the 5 pillars because it's used quite a lot, but I haven't located it yet. ;-) On 11/08/2009, Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com wrote: Jay Litwyn wrote: Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com quoted Samuel Clemens in message news:a01006d90904151712x2e95f41r9c2dcf17a4dcb...@mail.gmail.com... There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain In book called They never said it!, that is identified as apocryphal, which means that he did not write it (maybe I can find a finer criterion printed in the book). Have just turned up an instance from 1892, in the */Birmingham Daily Post, /*so I'll add that to the article.*/ /* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 73, Issue 44
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:40:53 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote: 1) Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant than Sanger's. Co-founder is giving too much credit. The guy that has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves more credit than the guy who implements it. Employee is probably giving too little. It was my understanding that Ben Kovitz first expressed the idea of starting a wiki-based encyclopedia, in a conversation with Sanger at a Mexican restaurant right after the Purist Turn of the Millennium. Sanger then took the idea and ran with it, announcing first a Nupedia wiki and then Wikipedia on mailing lists. Wales' role was as Sanger's employer who paid for the whole thing, but the ideas seemed to come from elsewhere. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Three millionth article pool?
On Wednesday 01 July 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: ::Archived at: http://marc.info/?i=b8ceeef70907012048r74142a7av7b8db293e005b...@mail.gmail.com There must be a page for predicting the three millionth article. I can't find it. Where is it? Sadly, there is none, but seeing that we're at 2,989,123 now, and that since May we've been increasing at a rate of ~1300 a day, I'm gonna in one week! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Three millionth article pool?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Joseph Reaglerea...@mit.edu wrote: On Wednesday 01 July 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: ::Archived at: http://marc.info/?i=b8ceeef70907012048r74142a7av7b8db293e005b...@mail.gmail.com There must be a page for predicting the three millionth article. I can't find it. Where is it? Sadly, there is none, but seeing that we're at 2,989,123 now, and that since May we've been increasing at a rate of ~1300 a day, I'm gonna in one week! If this is comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pools Then there is indeed no pool on 3,000,000. But I think we have been slower to get from 2 million to 3 million, than from 1 million to 2 million. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/08/08/Fixing-XML (Tim Bray invented XML.) His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't necessarily agree with. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Usability testing (Try Beta)
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Casey Brownli...@caseybrown.org wrote: Which you can ignore. It's beta-testing, the whole point is to gather feedback and make things better, so I don't have a problem with it. If you mean ignore in the sense of click away from the questionnaire form without submitting, the user will still remain in beta-mode. I appreciate the importance of feedback, but I would suggest an alternative approach: A. Go back to the normal skin first, then prompt the user for feedback. B. Put a skip this button at the top of the questionnaire, even if it does just submit an empty form. C. (my favorite) Direct all feedback to SOME TALK-PAGE ON THE WIKI (or even to this mailing list). I should apologize for the harshness of tone. I meant stupid questions in this context as opposed to smart questions, i.e. specific ones asked based on previous responses as during normal communication between humans. My hypothesis is that you'll get better feedback if users have greater reason to believe someone will read it, address it, and even reply to it. At least I know I would never have bothered to explain all this in the feedback form (for this exact reason). Thanks. C.W. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Where does en:wp need most help?
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, for the autodidacts among us, the 200 core biographies list is a pretty interesting place to start reading. Definitely. I can relate. I mean if I said everything I've ever remembered for more than a month I learned on my own time, it would be only a slight exaggeration. There are quite a few entries on the list I've never heard of, but seem to deserve their place. [[Shaka]], [[Laozi]], [[Thucydides]], [[Margaret Sanger]] Well then, at least nobody tried to sneak Larry into it. :-) (questionable...), [[Cai Lun]]... I should make a book of these articles for the next long train trip... Steve, I might recommend to you [[The 100]] by Michael H. Hart, which is a sub-set of this core biographies list with few exceptions (Moses being the highest-ranked). Incidentally I wrote on this book elsewhere on the internet a few months ago (warning: BADSITE) though being blissfully unaware that WP had a similarly populated list: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23993view=findpostp=171401 —C.W. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com: d. wrote: His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't necessarily agree with. Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized (and even agreed with!) the concerns over someone like him doing any editing. Yep. He gets Wikipedia. As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in it. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Three millionth article pool?
On 11 Aug 2009, at 14:56, Carcharoth wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Joseph Reaglerea...@mit.edu wrote: On Wednesday 01 July 2009, Steve Bennett wrote: ::Archived at: http://marc.info/? i=b8ceeef70907012048r74142a7av7b8db293e005b...@mail.gmail.com There must be a page for predicting the three millionth article. I can't find it. Where is it? Sadly, there is none, but seeing that we're at 2,989,123 now, and that since May we've been increasing at a rate of ~1300 a day, I'm gonna in one week! If this is comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pools Then there is indeed no pool on 3,000,000. But I think we have been slower to get from 2 million to 3 million, than from 1 million to 2 million. Carcharoth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-millionth_topic_pool Mike ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
SilkTork has started closing down and summarizing the poll results. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll I am still reviewing the statistics and sum total comments, but some takeaways I already have - 0. It's a problem. 1. We're not enforcing consistently at all, and that's hurting us. 2. We're BITEing new users. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: on 8/11/09 4:13 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: SilkTork has started closing down and summarizing the poll results. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll I am still reviewing the statistics and sum total comments, but some takeaways I already have - 0. It's a problem. 1. We're not enforcing consistently at all, and that's hurting us. 2. We're BITEing new users. Is anyone really surprised at this? On this very List people are constantly bragging about how wonderful Wikipedia is; focusing exclusively on how big it is. Yet completely ignoring how screwed up the culture is. It's like a company's media people pushing how good their product is, and how big their company is, and completely avoiding how poorly their workers are treated - while those in the executive suite are focused on trying to persuade people to invest money in them. Arrogance without wisdom is hubris. This is a formula for disaster. on 8/11/09 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia is a project and a community but, above all, it is an encyclopaedia. It is an encyclopaedia that a lot of people find very useful. Our system is working. There is certainly room for improvement, but I don't see this disaster you speak of. Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus and denial I was speaking of. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Is anyone really surprised at this? On this very List people are constantly bragging about how wonderful Wikipedia is; focusing exclusively on how big it is. Yet completely ignoring how screwed up the culture is. It's like a I'm really not seeing the same level of unalloyed positivity you are. Speaking for myself, I've said on several occasions over the past two or three years, both here and elsewhere, that our culture has significant systemic problems. When discussing this, I never felt I was alone in this opinion; it's widely held amongst a sizeable fraction of my contemporaries, people who've been involved for a few years and had the opportunity to see the cultural shifts. This cultural dysfunctionality is a real problem; it has been a real problem as long as I can remember; and it's getting worse. As you say, the people who deny it exists aren't helping anyone deal with it. But, conversely, assuming that no-one beyond a few lone voices know or care about it doesn't help us deal with it either. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus and denial I was speaking of. I'm not denying we have a problem with civility. I got desysopped for a civility block the community and ArbCom objected to. What I'm denying is that this problem is going to lead it disaster. There is absolutely no evidence of that. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Is anyone really surprised at this? On this very List people are constantly bragging about how wonderful Wikipedia is; focusing exclusively on how big it is. Yet completely ignoring how screwed up the culture is. It's like a on 8/11/09 6:50 PM, Andrew Gray at andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: I'm really not seeing the same level of unalloyed positivity you are. Speaking for myself, I've said on several occasions over the past two or three years, both here and elsewhere, that our culture has significant systemic problems. When discussing this, I never felt I was alone in this opinion; it's widely held amongst a sizeable fraction of my contemporaries, people who've been involved for a few years and had the opportunity to see the cultural shifts. This cultural dysfunctionality is a real problem; it has been a real problem as long as I can remember; and it's getting worse. As you say, the people who deny it exists aren't helping anyone deal with it. But, conversely, assuming that no-one beyond a few lone voices know or care about it doesn't help us deal with it either. I hear you, Andrew. But the few lone voices are the only ones I ever hear; the others are the ones with the megaphones handed to them by the executive suite. Present a positive picture; that's how donations are raised. Cynical, perhaps. But, sadly, true. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus and denial I was speaking of. I'm not denying we have a problem with civility. I got desysopped for a civility block the community and ArbCom objected to. What I'm denying is that this problem is going to lead it disaster. There is absolutely no evidence of that. I think there is a significant structural risk in the community steadily getting less welcome to new blood. A. People burn out, we need new recruits on an average roughly 18 month cycle just to maintain a participation level. B. The more insular and inwards looking we become the less likely we are to see structural problems, both internal and external. C. We are (still) missing diversity of coverage due to a focus of our userbase in certain demographics. I found a few days ago that one of the most commonly found light mechanical / structural construction materials used in modern first world construction had no article (strut channel / unistrut). I keep tripping over this sort of stuff every time I turn around. 3 million articles minus epsilon is not done by any means. D. And a narrow standard worldview in some respects is not good for community consensus building, if we want the encyclopedia to be representative of the world around us that we're writing about. The Well, it's getting worse, but it's always been getting worse misses the point - we're useful and relevant because we meet certain criteria for our user base. This sort of stuff strikes out at our usefulness and relevance to our userbase, not just internal problems. If people see us as an insular, crazy bunch of encyclopedia nuts rather than as a genuine open movement that's important to them and society writ large, we lose everything. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
George Herbert wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus and denial I was speaking of. I'm not denying we have a problem with civility. I got desysopped for a civility block the community and ArbCom objected to. What I'm denying is that this problem is going to lead it disaster. There is absolutely no evidence of that. I think there is a significant structural risk in the community steadily getting less welcome to new blood. A. People burn out, we need new recruits on an average roughly 18 month cycle just to maintain a participation level. B. The more insular and inwards looking we become the less likely we are to see structural problems, both internal and external. C. We are (still) missing diversity of coverage due to a focus of our userbase in certain demographics. I found a few days ago that one of the most commonly found light mechanical / structural construction materials used in modern first world construction had no article (strut channel / unistrut). I keep tripping over this sort of stuff every time I turn around. 3 million articles minus epsilon is not done by any means. D. And a narrow standard worldview in some respects is not good for community consensus building, if we want the encyclopedia to be representative of the world around us that we're writing about. The Well, it's getting worse, but it's always been getting worse misses the point - we're useful and relevant because we meet certain criteria for our user base. This sort of stuff strikes out at our usefulness and relevance to our userbase, not just internal problems. If people see us as an insular, crazy bunch of encyclopedia nuts rather than as a genuine open movement that's important to them and society writ large, we lose everything. I agree with the last point, but I see it as new editors coming along with enthusiasm only to find that we already have the article they wanted to create- so their only option is to seek to improve it according to their perspective, which may not be consonant with the embedded culture. Whereas they will see omissions and room for improvement, sometimes I think there is an element of If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sure, they need to get used to issues such as [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:UNDUE]], and this is most obvious, in my experience, in popular culture articles, which are fast-moving and are seen by these editors as needing to report *everything*. The answer to that is, as [[Tony Blair]] said, Education, education, and education- but the cultural gap may be too great for existing editors to want to spend time explaining what may be relevant and what may not. That, perhaps, is why new editors who don't get it are discarded, however great the effort we may make to point them at [[WP:5P|principles]]. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/12 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus and denial I was speaking of. I'm not denying we have a problem with civility. I got desysopped for a civility block the community and ArbCom objected to. What I'm denying is that this problem is going to lead it disaster. There is absolutely no evidence of that. I think there is a significant structural risk in the community steadily getting less welcome to new blood. I agree, but is there evidence that we are losing a significant number of new users due to incivility? Numbers of new editors have dropped recently, but that is to be expected as we pick more and more of the low hanging fruit. I don't see how a poll can determine whether our civility problems are having a large impact, only a survey of people that leave after a short time can do that. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
The same community that is getting more and more uncivil is the same community that banned WP:ESP in an uncivil manner! Fayssal F. Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:36:57 +0100 From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: a4359dff0908111636l2150bfa9he5e14383bdccf...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2009/8/12 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net: Thank you, Thomas, you just made my point. This is exactly the type of focus and denial I was speaking of. I'm not denying we have a problem with civility. I got desysopped for a civility block the community and ArbCom objected to. What I'm denying is that this problem is going to lead it disaster. There is absolutely no evidence of that. I think there is a significant structural risk in the community steadily getting less welcome to new blood. I agree, but is there evidence that we are losing a significant number of new users due to incivility? Numbers of new editors have dropped recently, but that is to be expected as we pick more and more of the low hanging fruit. I don't see how a poll can determine whether our civility problems are having a large impact, only a survey of people that leave after a short time can do that. -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 73, Issue 46 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
2009/8/12 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: The poll can tell us that a lot of people, enough that it's probably statistically significant as a sample (albeit self selected), are concerned about the component issues. Lots of people are concerned about the health effects of telephone masts, the connection between MMR vaccines and autism, the dangers of leaving electric fans on overnight, etc., etc.. That doesn't mean any of them are actually serious problems. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An expert's perspective - Tim Bray on editing the XML article
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/11 Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com: d. wrote: His approach was to recruit a pile of other XML experts, who he didn't necessarily agree with. Another important aspect of his approach was that he recognized (and even agreed with!) the concerns over someone like him doing any editing. Yep. He gets Wikipedia. As someone commented on his blog, one of the problems is that the experts in an area are likely to have been very heavily involved in it. Also biased by that involvement towards a particular mindset, especially when it comes to speculative or cutting edge or controversial work. Tim was invited to speak at one of the Wikimanias, but couldn't make it. Sj ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I'm openly in support of a strong civility ethos - but it can't be a gamed one where some can and others can't. A community like this can't have some who can do stuff with impunity and others who'll get blocked for the same stuff. A good ethos matters; a policy is just words in comparison. The aim of a civility ethos/policy (if it can be said to have an aim) is roughly this: - When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked, and often over-react. Others get dragged in to the incipient drama to defend rather than to resolve. It encourages heat and not light to do so. - Most users wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it can poison the atmosphere or discourage or de-motivate others as a result. - People are realistic, they know there will be disagreement, often strongly. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude offensive manner, may be demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way can be. - Politeness - as an affirmative choice - tends to hold the emotional temperature down. It helps disputes to be resolved calmer if people are not uptight and heated. It may not stop users misbehaving (eg civil edit warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will almost always have some positive effect. The thing about a policy is, it needs wide and level enforcement. How many of the current concerns, I wonder, would be addressed, if admins were actively expected to enact a high level of good conduct? If there were norms like do not intervene in a dispute between others except to help settle it according to communal norms and support good quality resolution? While some poor conduct is unavoidable, a lot would be improved if more users considered themselves responsible for avoiding heating speech in favor of lighting speech. Especially, a double standard for admins (or arbs, or established content writers) is not okay - users have the right to expect more, not less, from such trusted users. FT2 On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/12 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: The poll can tell us that a lot of people, enough that it's probably statistically significant as a sample (albeit self selected), are concerned about the component issues. Lots of people are concerned about the health effects of telephone masts, the connection between MMR vaccines and autism, the dangers of leaving electric fans on overnight, etc., etc.. That doesn't mean any of them are actually serious problems. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Marc Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 8/11/09 7:15 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: I think there is a significant structural risk in the community steadily getting less welcome to new blood. A. People burn out, we need new recruits on an average roughly 18 month cycle just to maintain a participation level. B. The more insular and inwards looking we become the less likely we are to see structural problems, both internal and external. C. We are (still) missing diversity of coverage due to a focus of our userbase in certain demographics. I found a few days ago that one of the most commonly found light mechanical / structural construction materials used in modern first world construction had no article (strut channel / unistrut). I keep tripping over this sort of stuff every time I turn around. 3 million articles minus epsilon is not done by any means. D. And a narrow standard worldview in some respects is not good for community consensus building, if we want the encyclopedia to be representative of the world around us that we're writing about. The Well, it's getting worse, but it's always been getting worse misses the point - we're useful and relevant because we meet certain criteria for our user base. This sort of stuff strikes out at our usefulness and relevance to our userbase, not just internal problems. If people see us as an insular, crazy bunch of encyclopedia nuts rather than as a genuine open movement that's important to them and society writ large, we lose everything. Well said, George! The problem is that the executive suite will sit up there and watch us ruminate and commiserate and, as they see it, get it out of our systems as they have many times in the past when this subject has been brought up, then return their attentions to what they think is important. The bottom line here is: what can we passengers do about it when we aren't the ones driving? What? This is Wikipedia. The passengers *are* driving! Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries of you are being incivil, that is a detriment to open discourse. Well, then there's the issue of differing cultures and neuroatypicalities (such as people on the autistic spectrum), where some people actually don't know how to be polite in some environments. How do we deal with somebody from a different country? What about somebody who we suspect has, or claims to have, a neurological disability that affects how xy interact with others?* These are questions we must ask ourselves. Emily PS *These questions are rhetorical. You can answer them, but I don't expect anyone too. On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:18 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: I'm openly in support of a strong civility ethos - but it can't be a gamed one where some can and others can't. A community like this can't have some who can do stuff with impunity and others who'll get blocked for the same stuff. A good ethos matters; a policy is just words in comparison. The aim of a civility ethos/policy (if it can be said to have an aim) is roughly this: - When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked, and often over-react. Others get dragged in to the incipient drama to defend rather than to resolve. It encourages heat and not light to do so. - Most users wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it can poison the atmosphere or discourage or de-motivate others as a result. - People are realistic, they know there will be disagreement, often strongly. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude offensive manner, may be demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way can be. - Politeness - as an affirmative choice - tends to hold the emotional temperature down. It helps disputes to be resolved calmer if people are not uptight and heated. It may not stop users misbehaving (eg civil edit warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will almost always have some positive effect. The thing about a policy is, it needs wide and level enforcement. How many of the current concerns, I wonder, would be addressed, if admins were actively expected to enact a high level of good conduct? If there were norms like do not intervene in a dispute between others except to help settle it according to communal norms and support good quality resolution? While some poor conduct is unavoidable, a lot would be improved if more users considered themselves responsible for avoiding heating speech in favor of lighting speech. Especially, a double standard for admins (or arbs, or established content writers) is not okay - users have the right to expect more, not less, from such trusted users. Maybe a tad too much jargon there? It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries of you are being incivil, that is a detriment to open discourse. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries of you are being incivil, that is a detriment to open discourse. Well, then there's the issue of differing cultures and neuroatypicalities (such as people on the autistic spectrum), where some people actually don't know how to be polite in some environments. How do we deal with somebody from a different country? What about somebody who we suspect has, or claims to have, a neurological disability that affects how xy interact with others?* These are questions we must ask ourselves. Emily PS *These questions are rhetorical. You can answer them, but I don't expect anyone too. On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:18 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: I'm openly in support of a strong civility ethos - but it can't be a gamed one where some can and others can't. A community like this can't have some who can do stuff with impunity and others who'll get blocked for the same stuff. A good ethos matters; a policy is just words in comparison. The aim of a civility ethos/policy (if it can be said to have an aim) is roughly this: - When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked, and often over-react. Others get dragged in to the incipient drama to defend rather than to resolve. It encourages heat and not light to do so. - Most users wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it can poison the atmosphere or discourage or de-motivate others as a result. - People are realistic, they know there will be disagreement, often strongly. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude offensive manner, may be demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way can be. - Politeness - as an affirmative choice - tends to hold the emotional temperature down. It helps disputes to be resolved calmer if people are not uptight and heated. It may not stop users misbehaving (eg civil edit warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will almost always have some positive effect. The thing about a policy is, it needs wide and level enforcement. How many of the current concerns, I wonder, would be addressed, if admins were actively expected to enact a high level of good conduct? If there were norms like do not intervene in a dispute between others except to help settle it according to communal norms and support good quality resolution? While some poor conduct is unavoidable, a lot would be improved if more users considered themselves responsible for avoiding heating speech in favor of lighting speech. Especially, a double standard for admins (or arbs, or established content writers) is not okay - users have the right to expect more, not less, from such trusted users. Maybe a tad too much jargon there? It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries of you are being incivil, that is a detriment to open discourse. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
on 8/11/09 8:47 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries of you are being incivil, that is a detriment to open discourse. Well, then there's the issue of differing cultures and neuroatypicalities (such as people on the autistic spectrum), where some people actually don't know how to be polite in some environments. How do we deal with somebody from a different country? What about somebody who we suspect has, or claims to have, a neurological disability that affects how xy interact with others?* These are questions we must ask ourselves. Emily PS *These questions are rhetorical. You can answer them, but I don't expect anyone too. These are excellent questions, Emily. And if (and I hope, when) a truly honest, serious, well-supported effort is put into dealing with the Project's culture, these types of questions, and the issues they raise, can be a significant part of the discussion. Marc On Aug 11, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:18 AM, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: I'm openly in support of a strong civility ethos - but it can't be a gamed one where some can and others can't. A community like this can't have some who can do stuff with impunity and others who'll get blocked for the same stuff. A good ethos matters; a policy is just words in comparison. The aim of a civility ethos/policy (if it can be said to have an aim) is roughly this: - When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked, and often over-react. Others get dragged in to the incipient drama to defend rather than to resolve. It encourages heat and not light to do so. - Most users wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it can poison the atmosphere or discourage or de-motivate others as a result. - People are realistic, they know there will be disagreement, often strongly. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude offensive manner, may be demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way can be. - Politeness - as an affirmative choice - tends to hold the emotional temperature down. It helps disputes to be resolved calmer if people are not uptight and heated. It may not stop users misbehaving (eg civil edit warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will almost always have some positive effect. The thing about a policy is, it needs wide and level enforcement. How many of the current concerns, I wonder, would be addressed, if admins were actively expected to enact a high level of good conduct? If there were norms like do not intervene in a dispute between others except to help settle it according to communal norms and support good quality resolution? While some poor conduct is unavoidable, a lot would be improved if more users considered themselves responsible for avoiding heating speech in favor of lighting speech. Especially, a double standard for admins (or arbs, or established content writers) is not okay - users have the right to expect more, not less, from such trusted users. Maybe a tad too much jargon there? It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries of you are being incivil, that is a detriment to open discourse. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
How about... The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations, while not compromising core values. Is that accurate or not? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations, while not compromising core values. How about specifying just what those core values are or at least putting them in the see also section? I'm thinking of assume good faith in particular. Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Carcharoth wrote: How about... The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations, while not compromising core values. Is that accurate or not? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
on 8/11/09 9:03 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: How about... The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations, while not compromising core values. Is that accurate or not? Try evasive. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Try evasive. Why is it evasive? Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: on 8/11/09 9:03 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: How about... The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations, while not compromising core values. Is that accurate or not? Try evasive. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: It is also human nature that everyone, at one time or another, feels the need to speak frankly and forcefully. If that is met by hurt cries of you are being incivil, that is a detriment to open discourse. Carcharoth Indeed. It's also human nature to want things they don't have, to attack people who hurt you, and to care about ones own wishes and not the wider circle of interests. These are indeed human nature, but they don't legitimize certain actions, and the fact that I want to be rude or let off steam may be human nature doesn't speak to a community's right to say sorry bud, not here to specific actions or specific styles of interaction. In other words, we accept as a culture that it's human nature is subordinate as a reason to is it common good -- mainly in order to permit different people to coexist peaceably. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
on 8/11/09 9:10 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Try evasive. Why is it evasive? Because he is saying that basically what we are suggesting: a common set of standards governing personal interaction cannot be found. This is simply not true. And a concerted, serious effort to accomplish this is what is needed; not it's hopeless, because it's too big. Nonsense! Marc Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: on 8/11/09 9:03 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: How about... The Wikipedia community is too large and diverse for any single standard of civility to be effective. Careful application of broad standards of civility need to be adapted to individual situations, while not compromising core values. Is that accurate or not? Try evasive. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: AGF is a good place to start. No Personal Attacks is another one, but AGF is more core. I'd settle for a social contract - I think civility is too loaded a term in Wikipedia after all the past. If we were going to design such a page, I'd start with the communal need to work together and (given the diversity of users) the need to actively avoid where possible distraction into disputes, and personal squabbles. I'd then add the following as principles (rewording needed to avoid obvious issues): - Wikipedia is a community of diverse individuals. It covers many cultures and norms, and sees in that diversity, a source of immense value to the project. - Dispute resolution is the communally mandated way of resolving all disputes. Because disputes can be volatile, dispute resolution is expected to be actively promoted by all users who wish to engage in a dispute, either by trying to resolve it, or by referring the dispute to a formal resolution venue. - Users have a proactive duty to mitigate disputes or else avoid them. Disputes should be framed around evidenced behaviors and content, and participation in a dispute thread is for the sole purpose of calming the dispute, and addressing the underlying issue. - All participation in a dispute or series of disputes must start from an initial presumption that the other party is trying to comply with a good standard of conduct, unless there is clear evidence that offsets this. Such evidence must be cited, not merely claimed. - Administrators and experienced users have twin roles - to procure good editorial conduct and enforce upon errant users that substandard conduct will not be accepted, and, to do so in a manner that minimizes the dispute so far as possible. Users who cannot or will not do this, should avoid participation in, and comment upon, the dispute. I wouldn't propose it in that form, but if those ideas ended up in a dispute and conduct norm, I would not object. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Because he is saying that basically what we are suggesting: a common set of standards governing personal interaction cannot be found. This is simply not true. And a concerted, serious effort to accomplish this is what is needed; not it's hopeless, because it's too big. Nonsense! I didn't interpret what Carcharoth said to mean that that's it's hopeless. I think what he meant was We have several core values that we refuse to compromise on, yet we recognize that they need to be applied on a case by case basis depending on the individual situation. The fact that we have so many people, who grew up and live around the world, and who have brains and political/religious/sexual beliefs that may or may not have brains that are considered the 'norm', makes this even more important. Is this true, Carcharoth? Yes. Thanks for explaining what I was trying to say. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
I'd settle for a social contract - I think civility is too loaded a term in Wikipedia after all the past. I agree. If we were going to design such a page, I'd start with the communal need to work together and (given the diversity of users) the need to actively avoid where possible distraction into disputes, and personal squabbles. I'd then add the following as principles (rewording needed to avoid obvious issues): I'd also point out that everybody has at least two commonalities: 1. We're all human. Yes, we have bot accounts, but if the bot isn't up to Wikipedia's standards, it's the *owner* who's responsible. 2. We all have the right to have everyone assume that we are here to build an encyclopedia, NOT to do anything else. This can be phrased as We are here to build an enclycopedia until proven otherwise., and probably belongs as a principle. Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:25 PM, FT2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:11 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: AGF is a good place to start. No Personal Attacks is another one, but AGF is more core. I'd settle for a social contract - I think civility is too loaded a term in Wikipedia after all the past. If we were going to design such a page, I'd start with the communal need to work together and (given the diversity of users) the need to actively avoid where possible distraction into disputes, and personal squabbles. I'd then add the following as principles (rewording needed to avoid obvious issues): - Wikipedia is a community of diverse individuals. It covers many cultures and norms, and sees in that diversity, a source of immense value to the project. - Dispute resolution is the communally mandated way of resolving all disputes. Because disputes can be volatile, dispute resolution is expected to be actively promoted by all users who wish to engage in a dispute, either by trying to resolve it, or by referring the dispute to a formal resolution venue. - Users have a proactive duty to mitigate disputes or else avoid them. Disputes should be framed around evidenced behaviors and content, and participation in a dispute thread is for the sole purpose of calming the dispute, and addressing the underlying issue. - All participation in a dispute or series of disputes must start from an initial presumption that the other party is trying to comply with a good standard of conduct, unless there is clear evidence that offsets this. Such evidence must be cited, not merely claimed. - Administrators and experienced users have twin roles - to procure good editorial conduct and enforce upon errant users that substandard conduct will not be accepted, and, to do so in a manner that minimizes the dispute so far as possible. Users who cannot or will not do this, should avoid participation in, and comment upon, the dispute. I wouldn't propose it in that form, but if those ideas ended up in a dispute and conduct norm, I would not object. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Yes. Thanks for explaining what I was trying to say. You're welcome. :-) I'd qualify as being neuroatypical. I've been on the receiving end of what I just did on several occasions throughout my lifetime. The best thank you would be to pass it on. Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:29 AM, Emily Monroebluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Because he is saying that basically what we are suggesting: a common set of standards governing personal interaction cannot be found. This is simply not true. And a concerted, serious effort to accomplish this is what is needed; not it's hopeless, because it's too big. Nonsense! I didn't interpret what Carcharoth said to mean that that's it's hopeless. I think what he meant was We have several core values that we refuse to compromise on, yet we recognize that they need to be applied on a case by case basis depending on the individual situation. The fact that we have so many people, who grew up and live around the world, and who have brains and political/religious/sexual beliefs that may or may not have brains that are considered the 'norm', makes this even more important. Is this true, Carcharoth? Yes. Thanks for explaining what I was trying to say. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
on 8/11/09 9:29 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Because he is saying that basically what we are suggesting: a common set of standards governing personal interaction cannot be found. This is simply not true. And a concerted, serious effort to accomplish this is what is needed; not it's hopeless, because it's too big. Nonsense! I didn't interpret what Carcharoth said to mean that that's it's hopeless. I think what he meant was We have several core values that we refuse to compromise on, yet we recognize that they need to be applied on a case by case basis depending on the individual situation. The fact that we have so many people, who grew up and live around the world, and who have brains and political/religious/sexual beliefs that may or may not have brains that are considered the 'norm', makes this even more important. Is this true, Carcharoth? (A sidebar, Emily. I think the discussion (as it does very frequently when it's about this subject) is drowning in words. Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do you treat another human being? - Marc) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do you treat another human being? I agree. This is yet another question that we all need to ask when having such a discussion. Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: on 8/11/09 9:29 PM, Emily Monroe at bluecalioc...@me.com wrote: Because he is saying that basically what we are suggesting: a common set of standards governing personal interaction cannot be found. This is simply not true. And a concerted, serious effort to accomplish this is what is needed; not it's hopeless, because it's too big. Nonsense! I didn't interpret what Carcharoth said to mean that that's it's hopeless. I think what he meant was We have several core values that we refuse to compromise on, yet we recognize that they need to be applied on a case by case basis depending on the individual situation. The fact that we have so many people, who grew up and live around the world, and who have brains and political/religious/sexual beliefs that may or may not have brains that are considered the 'norm', makes this even more important. Is this true, Carcharoth? (A sidebar, Emily. I think the discussion (as it does very frequently when it's about this subject) is drowning in words. Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do you treat another human being? - Marc) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do you treat another human being? The biggest clue isn't some civility standard - it's when some user says please talk about the issues, actions, and evidence, rather than insinuations and ad hominen. Any user should have that right. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
ad hominen What does ad hominen mean? Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:59 PM, FT2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Any solution to this problem should start with the simple question: How do you treat another human being? The biggest clue isn't some civility standard - it's when some user says please talk about the issues, actions, and evidence, rather than insinuations and ad hominen. Any user should have that right. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
It means attacking the person that made an argument rather than the argument itself. Aw, thanks. It's rather difficult to look something up on wikipedia, while participating in a discussion about wikipedia, and new page patrolling on wikipedia as well (whew!). Emily On Aug 11, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: 2009/8/12 Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com: ad hominen What does ad hominen mean? It means attacking the person that made an argument rather than the argument itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Civility poll results
It's interesting that Marc assigns the blame for the myriad conduct problems to leadership (the executive suite, though I'm not sure who this represents). I might argue the opposite. The lack of leadership makes it impossible to maintain consistent standards of behavior. The amorphous and unstable crowd can't consistently agree either on what these standards are or how they should be enforced. It's a basic reality of life as an adult that employees with perfect work product but terrible attitudes are often terminated; their own work is fine, but their presence disrupts the work of others. Yet firm behavioral expectations and consistent enforcement are made possible by stable leadership. This is an obvious concept proven by thousands of years of human history, but Wikipedia is committed to an approach closer to anarchy. What we need, then, is a solution that provides for fair and consistent enforcement of fair and consistent standards in a community that lacks any normal facets of social stability. Unfortunately, people far brighter than I have been ruminating on this problem for years without arriving at such a solution. Perhaps the most credible proposals involve a reorganization of the decision making processes on Wikipedia, but these have all been shot down by some of the same people who complain most strenuously about cultural degradation. Until folks come up with more than complaints and minor tweaks to existing policies, I think its unlikely that significant progress is possible. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
