Re: [WikiEN-l] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote: Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related matters regardless of how minor they are? Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative nature? Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well). Alan Liefting Research on the amount of bytes added to different namespaces suggests it is true that the project namespace is stagnant.[1] The largest period of growth in the bytes added to the project namespace began roughly in 2003 and tapered off to a smaller, steady proportion of all content added by 2006. One way we might quantify this in a more editor-centric way is to look at the top contributors (by edits and/or by net bytes changed) to major policies, guidelines etc. and get some data on what cohort those editors were from, what they are doing, and when the edits by those top contributors were made. If anyone is interested in this/is not offended by the idea of looking at specific editors in public, I'm happy to start some documentation on Meta. It's pretty easy to grab some lists, but qualitatively examining edit histories takes more time and could always use more help from people who can read a diff. :-) Steven 1. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/Summary_of_Findings ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: Research on the amount of bytes added to different namespaces suggests it is true that the project namespace is stagnant.[1] The largest period of growth in the bytes added to the project namespace began roughly in 2003 and tapered off to a smaller, steady proportion of all content added by 2006. One way we might quantify this in a more editor-centric way is to look at the top contributors (by edits and/or by net bytes changed) to major policies, guidelines etc. and get some data on what cohort those editors were from, what they are doing, and when the edits by those top contributors were made. If anyone is interested in this/is not offended by the idea of looking at specific editors in public, I'm happy to start some documentation on Meta. It's pretty easy to grab some lists, but qualitatively examining edit histories takes more time and could always use more help from people who can read a diff. :-) Doesn't this approach assume that people all interact with Wikipedia in the same way? Many people only participate in a vanishingly small part of Wikipedia and you can have some areas that are deserted and others that are very active. This isn't found by looking at global statistics, but by looking at the actual editing and histories out there on the ground. 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: Doesn't this approach assume that people all interact with Wikipedia in the same way? Many people only participate in a vanishingly small part of Wikipedia and you can have some areas that are deserted and others that are very active. This isn't found by looking at global statistics, but by looking at the actual editing and histories out there on the ground. Carcharoth Yes, looking at edits overall, pages created overall, or bytes added overall are all very generalized tools. For instance, we'd need deeper quant work or qualitative coding in order to see what is being done in that steady proportion of NS4 activity in English. But the general trends are pretty clear, and help to point us in the right direction when working qualitatively or trying to prove/disprove general hypotheses such as Is the the project namespace still growing, in decline, or stable? Steven ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote: Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related matters regardless of how minor they are? Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative nature? Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well). Alan Liefting Research on the amount of bytes added to different namespaces suggests it is true that the project namespace is stagnant.[1] The largest period of growth in the bytes added to the project namespace began roughly in 2003 and tapered off to a smaller, steady proportion of all content added by 2006. One way we might quantify this in a more editor-centric way is to look at the top contributors (by edits and/or by net bytes changed) to major policies, guidelines etc. and get some data on what cohort those editors were from, what they are doing, and when the edits by those top contributors were made. If anyone is interested in this/is not offended by the idea of looking at specific editors in public, I'm happy to start some documentation on Meta. It's pretty easy to grab some lists, but qualitatively examining edit histories takes more time and could always use more help from people who can read a diff. :-) Steven Sounds like an interesting project which might answer a few perennial questions such as to what extent Larry Sanger shaped basic Wikipedia policies. However, please keep in mind that this mailing list and the Wikipedia-l mailing lists were much more active in those days, contained significant discussions of substantive issues, and that policy was sometimes made on those lists, and only memorialized in policy pages. Fred ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On 19 September 2011 18:38, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: Research on the amount of bytes added to different namespaces suggests it is true that the project namespace is stagnant.[1] The largest period of growth in the bytes added to the project namespace began roughly in 2003 and tapered off to a smaller, steady proportion of all content added by 2006. STAGNANT? Think of the children, get them out of Wikipedia immediately! They could catch something! I am NEVER going to Wikipedia again! Ewww. Steven 1. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_Summer_of_Research_2011/Summary_of_Findings Oh wait: [verification failed] -- -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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: Sounds like an interesting project which might answer a few perennial questions such as to what extent Larry Sanger shaped basic Wikipedia policies. However, please keep in mind that this mailing list and the Wikipedia-l mailing lists were much more active in those days, contained significant discussions of substantive issues, and that policy was sometimes made on those lists, and only memorialized in policy pages. Fred Definitely a good point, especially if we want to fold in NS5 contributions into any study. Steven ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On 09/19/11 12:03 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: On 19 September 2011 18:38, Steven Wallingsteven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: Research on the amount of bytes added to different namespaces suggests it is true that the project namespace is stagnant.[1] The largest period of growth in the bytes added to the project namespace began roughly in 2003 and tapered off to a smaller, steady proportion of all content added by 2006. STAGNANT? Think of the children, get them out of Wikipedia immediately! They could catch something! Most dangerously, they could catch a clue. Ec ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On 09/19/11 12:19 PM, Steven Walling wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: Sounds like an interesting project which might answer a few perennial questions such as to what extent Larry Sanger shaped basic Wikipedia policies. However, please keep in mind that this mailing list and the Wikipedia-l mailing lists were much more active in those days, contained significant discussions of substantive issues, and that policy was sometimes made on those lists, and only memorialized in policy pages. Fred Definitely a good point, especially if we want to fold in NS5 contributions into any study. NS5 is another cryptic acronym. Ec ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On 09/19/11 11:35 AM, Carcharoth wrote: Doesn't this approach assume that people all interact with Wikipedia in the same way? Many people only participate in a vanishingly small part of Wikipedia and you can have some areas that are deserted and others that are very active. This isn't found by looking at global statistics, but by looking at the actual editing and histories out there on the ground. Most don't just interact in different ways, but at different times. I may have been interested in a topic a year ago, When the topic seemed stable I would have gone on to something very different several times over the course of the year. Now, when the year-old topic bursts into flames, giving it due consideration requires that I put aside my current interests to defend the old topic from people who show no evidence of having put any serious study. They may just be applying some new rule on a policy page whose changes I would have had no reason to monitor. If my previous work was referenced with borrowed books I may no longer have access to those books to support my case. Ec ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: NS5 is another cryptic acronym. Ec Sorry if that was cryptic. NS5 = namespace five = Project talk. Steven ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On 09/17/11 6:04 PM, MuZemike wrote: I think that certainly does happen, mainly because some don't like change. Many RfCs and proposals contain oppose reasons such as solution in search of a problem or If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Other than what Alan mentioned, this has also applied to any technical changes to the system. Other proposals get so bogged down in endless stalemate and filibustering (like with Pending Changes), nothing ever gets done or moves forward. That's where the consensus-based model fails miserably. On the other hand, a straight vote may not also be desirable, especially if the results may be close to 50-50, because you then alienate too much of the community that way. Resistance to change is a chronic disease. At the same time voting is evil for the very reason that you state. That is made worse by framing questions in a win/lose context. I have consistently believed that no vote should ever be closed completely. Action thresholds can be defined, but that should not close a vote. People should be allowed to continue voting indefinitely, or even change their original vote, until a change threshold is reached. That change may never become a reality, but even the right to support the obvious gives a feeling of participation. Ec On 9/17/2011 3:54 PM, Alan Liefting wrote: Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related matters regardless of how minor they are? Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative nature? Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well). ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:04 AM, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: Other proposals get so bogged down in endless stalemate and filibustering (like with Pending Changes), nothing ever gets done or moves forward. That's where the consensus-based model fails miserably. Consensus is in a perpetual struggle with entropy and loses out once the portion of the community involved in the decision becomes large enough that the discussion can no longer organically organise itself. Some structure is needed. If I can promote one alternative, see consensus polling [1] which I suggested five years ago that enwiki might like to try [2], to responses of BURO and CREEP (which are guaranteed responses to any proposal for any sort of structure). -- [1] http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/ConsensusPolling [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus_polling -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
People should [stop] making negative insinuations about the majority or claims of mythical idiots that oppose nearly any sensible idea. Perhaps if you have proposed or supported a change that has not been implemented it was just a poor idea. Yes, we should assume good faith. Fred ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
Yes the pedia is somewhat ossified and change in many areas is difficult to achieve. You only have to look at the various attempts to reform RFA to see that. Of course there are many possible changes that fail because they only have minority support, and while it might be frustrating for the minority who advocate such schemes, it is much easier to accept losing an argument when you are clearly in a minority. Where the process becomes more problematic is when you have a blocking minority preventing change. To my mind consensus based decision making requires a high proportion of participants to be willing to consider other people's viewpoints and seek a consensus solution. Where this becomes frustrating is when you have dogmatic minorities who don't need to consider compromise because they have sufficient numbers to block any change. Where consensus becomes pernicious is when a minority can achieve change against the will of the majority, we see that in the ratcheting of standards at RFA; Once we have over 30% of RFA !voters who want an additional hurdle to adminship then that change has happened, and the de facto bar for adminship has risen a further notch. Most of our current admins went through RFA in an era where 3,000 manual edits and 12 months tenure were far more than one needed to be taken as a serious candidate. If you ran today with only 12 months tenure you might get through, but you risk being told that you are not yet really part of our community. By process of candidates failing to get consensus for promotion the de facto standards at RFA ratchet upwards. That standards inflation has not come about because of a series of consensus or even majority based decisions to change the criteria at RFA, it has come about because minorities emerge who are willing to oppose candidates who don't meet certain thresholds of tenure and editcountitis. WereSpielChequers ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related matters regardless of how minor they are? Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative nature? Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well). Alan Liefting ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related matters regardless of how minor they are? Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative nature? Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well). Alan Liefting Some oppose nearly any sensible idea. You need to get up a head of steam and run over them. Well, not really, but you do need to explain what you want to others who will support your change and do a little bit of campaigning. Readers are welcome to edit policy talk pages even if they never make a single edit. Fred ___ 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] Difficulty making structural changes to WP due to human nature?
I think that certainly does happen, mainly because some don't like change. Many RfCs and proposals contain oppose reasons such as solution in search of a problem or If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Other than what Alan mentioned, this has also applied to any technical changes to the system. Other proposals get so bogged down in endless stalemate and filibustering (like with Pending Changes), nothing ever gets done or moves forward. That's where the consensus-based model fails miserably. On the other hand, a straight vote may not also be desirable, especially if the results may be close to 50-50, because you then alienate too much of the community that way. -MuZemike On 9/17/2011 3:54 PM, Alan Liefting wrote: Is it just me or do others find it difficult to instigate any sort of changes to policies, guidelines, layout, Manual of Style and related matters regardless of how minor they are? Could it be that WP is a reflection of human behaviour and has become a talkfest where nothing changes because of our inherently conservative nature? Or am I trying to satisfy the readers of WP rather than editors and readers? Since readers do not edit they never get to have a say so the editors get what they want (yes I know - editors are readers as well). Alan Liefting ___ 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
