Re: [WikiEN-l] Superusers?
On 24/08/2010, Fences Windows fences_and_wind...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Sounds like Pure wiki deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system (and that's not a good thing). It's nothing to do with that at all. It's about using a jury, rather than judicial system. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_reform. If normal admin deletion were retained (which it will be), a jury system would make AfD like a trial: editors make arguments for and against deletion, acting as the prosecution, defense, and witnesses, then the jury decides the outcome, which an admin (judge) enacts, presumably with veto power if the jury has decided something crazy. No veto power. You would go through DRV. Are admins generally making such bad decisions that we need to replace their decisions with laborious jury panels? What laborious? The jury can just independently read the evidence and vote. They don't even have to give a reason (unlike right now, where a reason is required to try to head off outright fraud, but if that doesn't work, people can just state a fake reason). ArbCom works as a jury panel, and it moves at snail's pace. Snails are animals and they move at a snail's pace. Therefore all animals move at a snail's pace? Remember that we do have DRV for controversial decisions. A simpler change, which I've proposed before, would be to require admins to give a rationale for their close on any AfD that is not unanimous. They still can say more or less whatever they want, it doesn't remove bias from an administrator in any way. The bias is often in who decides the AfD. DRV allows participants in the original debate to take part, which is somewhat flawed. A jury system could work for DRV, as there would be a managable workload compared to assessing every single XfD decision. The system would need to have a way of involving active editors in 'jury duty', which is tricky for a volunteer project. Different schemes could be used, as I imagine it could happen, the review would be open for a while, and then it would close and over (say) a couple of days or so the jury would vote on it. FW -- -Ian Woollard ___ 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] Superusers?
On 27 August 2010 01:18, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: Remember that we do have DRV for controversial decisions. A simpler change, which I've proposed before, would be to require admins to give a rationale for their close on any AfD that is not unanimous. They still can say more or less whatever they want, it doesn't remove bias from an administrator in any way. The bias is often in who decides the AfD. To swing this, you'd probably need quite a large amount of AFD closure data demonstrating (preferably inarguable) bias. Ideally, you'd need to show that it was inherent to the process, rather than because of a few individuals not sufficiently checking their biases at the door. (this is evaluating your arguments, rather than an opinion on whether what they argue for is good or not) - 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] Superusers?
On 27/08/2010, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: To swing this, you'd probably need quite a large amount of AFD closure data demonstrating (preferably inarguable) bias. Ideally, you'd need to show that it was inherent to the process, rather than because of a few individuals not sufficiently checking their biases at the door. I would expect that that could be done, but I'd have to think about it. But if the process allows people not to check their biases at the door, then that's a problem in the process. Actually, the politics of the Wikipedia would probably make an interesting case-study for some academic. (this is evaluating your arguments, rather than an opinion on whether what they argue for is good or not) That's perfectly fair enough. It may even be that it's not a good idea. The principle of unexpected consequences and all that. - d. -- -Ian Woollard ___ 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] Superusers?
On 27 August 2010 02:01, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: I would expect that that could be done, but I'd have to think about it. But if the process allows people not to check their biases at the door, then that's a problem in the process. Every process allows that. That's because you can't make effective rules against stupidity or bad faith. You'd need to show that assuming good faith is not sufficient, and that the process actively breaks it. (That *should* be enough, but sadly isn't IME.) Actually, the politics of the Wikipedia would probably make an interesting case-study for some academic. I'd be amazed if sociology students desperate for a paper haven't already swarmed in great numbers. - 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] Superusers?
On 27/08/2010, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 August 2010 02:01, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: I would expect that that could be done, but I'd have to think about it. But if the process allows people not to check their biases at the door, then that's a problem in the process. Every process allows that. That's because you can't make effective rules against stupidity or bad faith. The point about random juries is that the stupidity and bad faith tends to average out (the deviation from the average goes with the square root of the number of participants). So to a fair degree you can. You'd need to show that assuming good faith is not sufficient, and that the process actively breaks it. (That *should* be enough, but sadly isn't IME.) We don't actually want to have to assume good faith, ideally we'd prefer to encourage good faith, and ideally measure the degree of good faith or make it so that the odd person not exhibiting it doesn't really matter that much. But sure, if for some reason it turns out that juries are selected from and mostly made up of bad actors, then probably nothing can be done. Some parts of the Wikipedia (i.e. noticeboards) do seem to work scarily like that, they self-select for people with a particular mindset. - d. -- -Ian Woollard ___ 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] Webypedia - an alternative to Wikipedia
G'day folks, Killer Startups reports: http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikipedia Do we need yet another online encyclopediahttp://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikipedia#that is powered by the people a la Wikipedia? It seems we do, as that is exactly what WEBYpedia is all about. It is an encyclopedia entirely fuelled by users. Anybody can contribute to it, in the way that he wishes: by creating a new post, by modifying an existing one, by leaving a comment with his own ruminations on anything that has been published… But if we were to compare it with Wikipedia http://www.killerstartups.com/Web20/webypedia-com-an-alternative-to-wikipedia#, it would be necessary to mention that there is one difference at play. Granted, it is merely a technical one but it is a difference all the same: WEBYpedia is a blog encyclopedia. This means that contributing an article is considerably easier than submitting anything to Wikipedia. Any person who has ever blogged will know how to do it. Still, that is unlikely to make people desert Wikipedia and turn to this site massively. Wikipedia has got a prestige that is hard to take down. I guess that those who always think that it’s convenient to have alternatives to go around will check WEBYpedia out. I am not sure about the rest. This is their website. There seems to be a lot of how to material there. http://webypedia.com/ -- Keith Old 62050121 (w) 62825360 (h) 0429478376 (m) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
