Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions. A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out. But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--understanding implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance. Let those who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will express their personal view. David, as always with your posts, this is an interesting view, and there is much in it that I half-agree with. This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming for is FA. FAs are not written in the way you describe; they typically are polished, they do explain things, apply discrimination in the selection of sources, and place appropriate weight on mainstream opinion, rather than focusing on tabloids and POVs from either end of the bell curve. The same is true about all good encyclopedia or textbook writing, to use your expression. FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. The process you describe rarely results in FAs. Once anonymous community editing takes over, with an opinion inserted here, and a factoid inserted there, articles usually degrade, and lose FA status. That for example is the way the Atheism FA seems to be going currently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheismaction=history The question is if we want a jumble of POVs, with duelling extremist sources inserted by anonymous drive-by editors, or sober articles that give a balanced overview of the knowledge compiled by society's institutions of learning. The problem with the anonymous crowdsourcing process, as it stands, is that the attraction of a good, emotive soundbyte, motivating an anonymous editor to insert it in knee-jerk fashion, outweighs the attraction exercised by a wealth of well-researched published educational content. Researching the latter takes time and serious effort; inserting a soundbyte does not. FA writers do survey, access and reflect this educational content. I believe in good encyclopedia writing. I believe we should aspire to it, and do what we can to foster it. Andreas In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished, it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold: bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; and increasing our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside the current English speaking world, in the other . ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
-Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Kolbe Sent: 05 February 2011 10:21 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming for is FA. Is it? The quality standard FA writers are aiming at is clear, I'm not sure that's the aim of the rest of the project. The rest of the project is governed by crowd sourcing and consensus, and tends to operate in a different manner. FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. Precisely. It is also the case why FA tend to be on more obscure subjects, where it is possible for a small group (or usually one writer) to commandeer the article with little squealing. It is also possible here to totally re-write whatever one finds (if indeed there is an existing article). If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA standard, we'd need to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer was allowed to start from scratch and write a new article, and then demonstrate to the community that it was superior to the existing one. Good writers with expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive to begin with the mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers for every change they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts, or indeed careful research/writers off. The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and what is the (usually welcome) by-product. *Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd sourcing and consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put aside if a certain article is better written a different way. In these cases we'll put up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until and unless something better is offered. *Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created articles. In which case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only in the gaps. If the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then this is to be preferred, and the FA with his superior article must necessarily go elsewhere. I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined which of these is core and which is the means to the end, on the occasions when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another we are all at sea. Scott ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
--- On Sat, 5/2/11, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: From: wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com If we really wanted our core topic articles to be at FA standard, we'd need to adopt a totally different process. One where a writer was allowed to start from scratch and write a new article, and then demonstrate to the community that it was superior to the existing one. Good writers with expertise are always going to find it highly unattractive to begin with the mess they find, and argue with ignorance and POV pushers for every change they wish to make. That process will tend to drive experts, or indeed careful research/writers off. Precisely. FWIW, this is what I recommended to the scholar I mentioned earlier (who has written several books on the Jehovah's Witnesses): Go ahead, announce your intention on the article's talk page and at the relevant WikiProject, write the article, and then present it to the wider community for adoption. I assured him that Wikipedia would welcome the article, once it was formatted and referenced correctly, over the likely objections of both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Witness-bashers frequenting the article. I haven't heard back from him ... :) If we want to have scholars contributing, this is an option that has to be on the table. Andreas The nub of the problem is what aim of this project and what is the (usually welcome) by-product. *Are we aiming at writing quality articles - and crowd sourcing and consensus are merely (often useful) means - but may be put aside if a certain article is better written a different way. In these cases we'll put up with the crowd-sourced amateur article, but only until and unless something better is offered. *Or are we aiming at crowd sourcing and consensus created articles. In which case, we are content to allow mono-authored FAs, but only in the gaps. If the crowd want to create their collaborative mess, then this is to be preferred, and the FA with his superior article must necessarily go elsewhere. I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined which of these is core and which is the means to the end, on the occasions when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another we are all at sea. Scott ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I've always found the problem with Wikipedia is that it has components which usually work remarkably well together (wiki, open editing, no-privileged editors, neutrality, verifiability, quality) but since it has never defined which of these is core and which is the means to the end, on the occasions when there is a conflict between choosing one of the elements over another we are all at sea. Scott Scott, We are not all at sea. The point is to make useful information available to the public. If that goal is keep in mind it is possible to resolve most issues by discussion. Focusing on the task at hand is the key. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 05/02/2011, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) A wikipedia article is NOT, in that sense, an academic paper that you would get published. It's an *encyclopedia* article. They're not supposed to come to a conclusion, they're supposed to summarise all of what is known. I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions. No. The Wikipedia article should then contain multiple different conclusions, even conclusions that disagree with each other. Academic papers almost never do that. The only responsibility of each editor is the responsibility of accurately reporting their sources. That's why having sources is essential, in the long term, in the short term we need(ed) to get articles off the ground even if we haven't found really good sources for everything. A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out. No. Absolutely not! They don't cancel out, they are ALL listed, with suitable emphasis. The reader may come to a conclusion, but the article should only do so if there really is a strong consensus in the world. But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV. No. A true understanding implies including knowing and understanding *all* POVs. This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--understanding implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance. We don't only include facts, we include POVs as well. NPOV is pretty much the inclusion of ALL POVs (with suitable weightings). The Wikipedia is not AN academic paper, it's supposed to be a summary of all reliable sources (most of which should ideally be academic). That's NOT about creating a POV! -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG -- -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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject. That requires people be familiar with such things on an international scale. In practice most such sources will be the result of people using the first thing that comes up on Google that looks like a news source (and the daily mail does rank so well these days) rather than any deliberate attempt to use tabloids as references. Other than getting a database report to list every link to such a site within a ref tag there isn't much we can do about it. -- geni Totally. This sort of problem is well suited to the wiki editing style. Subsequent editors can look for better sources or hedge or even delete the material. References to blogs, which often contain information much to an editors liking, are a good example. Then there is state-controlled media, China's media and government websites being an interesting example. In China even bold cutting-edge journals are self-censored; But how can that be differentiated from any journal's blind spot. For example, peer review for an academic journal can, in practice, amount to exclusion of material that reflect an approach to the discipline the peer jury doesn't approve of rather than actual proof of reliability. Remember though that the entry point to this discussion was use of British tabloids for BLP purposes. There controversial material, a tabloid's stock in trade, may be removed if there is no reliable source. WP:BEANS There can be no exhaustive list of what might be an appropriate source for each type of subject. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: snip one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some people take a percentage approach to it. My view is that the amount of weight something has in an article is a function not just of the *amount* of text, but also how it is written (and also the sources it uses). It may not be clear from the wording of policy, but if something is sourced to a lightweight source, then it should carry less weight (in the sense of being taken seriously) than something sourced to a really authoritative source. It might seem that this is not what WP:WEIGHT is talking about, but in some sense it is. Also, the wording used: if something is said in a weaselly, vague and wishy-washy way (*regardless* of the volume of text used), then that carries less weight than a strongly-worded and forceful sentence. Similarly, a rambling set of paragraphs actually weights an article less than a single sentence that due to the way it is written jumps up and down on the page and says this is the real point of the article. In other words, the *way* an article is written affects the weighting of elements within in, not just the volume. Which all come back to the tone used in writing, which often affects the reader more than the volume of text used. Ideally, a succinct, dispassionate, non-rhetorical tone will be used, and articles looked at as a whole. It is extremely depressing when arguments devolve into the minutiae of sentence structure in an effort to find a compromise wording. It often chokes the life out of the prose of an article. That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive. NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint. I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of not reliable/reliable, where everything on the reliable side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography. Andreas ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive. NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint. I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of not reliable/reliable, where everything on the reliable side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography. Andreas No one is obligated to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight to give various sources. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions. A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out. But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--understanding implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance. Let those who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will express their personal view. In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished, it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold: bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; and increasing our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside the current English speaking world, in the other . On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive. NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint. I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of not reliable/reliable, where everything on the reliable side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography. Andreas No one is obligated to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight to give various sources. Fred -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken over by single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and continued participation by a reasonable number of independent editors with new voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification stagnation. At various times, one or the other person will drive an initiative, and some will voice concerns about short-term and long-term issues, but overall, as long as the atmosphere doesn't drive people away, things will get done. If things aren't getting done, they should be identified and something done about them, but problems won't get solved if people walk away from them. Carcharoth Any culture is a function of the people participating in that culture, and the only way to change the culture is to change the people in it. We need a critical mass of mature, knowledgeable editors; people who participate because they are knowledgeable, and not because they have strong opinions. The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing. Andreas (Jayen466) ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing. This is an excellent point. Though you may get some angst from those already present who may feel pushed out as they see the culture of Wikipedia changing (think how hard it has been for some of those present from the very beginning, or near the beginning, to adapt over the last ten years). How to manage such change is an interesting problem. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 2/3/11 11:59 AM, Carcharoth wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@yahoo.com wrote: The next ten years of Wikipedia should be about multiplying the number of real-life scholars and experts participating. The Ambassadors program is a good start. Once the demographics change, the rest will follow; and until the demographics change, all the talking will avail nothing. This is an excellent point. Though you may get some angst from those already present who may feel pushed out as they see the culture of Wikipedia changing (think how hard it has been for some of those present from the very beginning, or near the beginning, to adapt over the last ten years). How to manage such change is an interesting problem. It's important to make sure we do maintain the aspects of Wikipedia's culture that have made it work, though. I'm a professor in my day job (though I was an undergrad when I became a Wikipedian), and I don't see academia and academic experts as holding all advantages, though they/we do do well in the having-a-lot-of-domain-knowledge arena. What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for the most part? That's something Nupedia didn't succeed in, and on the second point is something even most academic-press books don't succeed in--- the median overview book on a subject sneaks in quite a bit of opinion and original research, and sometimes even digs at academic opponents if the editors let them get away with it, which is why you can't really read an academic book without *also* reading a few journals' reviews of it. -Mark ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 3 February 2011 11:26, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: What about Wikipedia's culture actually led to an encyclopedia being written, with a lot of good information, and a fairly neutral tone for the most part? Nerds are obsessive about things being right and not wrong. This leads to most things about Wikipedia. That's something Nupedia didn't succeed in, and on the second point is something even most academic-press books don't succeed in--- the median overview book on a subject sneaks in quite a bit of opinion and original research, and sometimes even digs at academic opponents if the editors let them get away with it, which is why you can't really read an academic book without *also* reading a few journals' reviews of it. NPOV is IMO 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 3 February 2011 11:28, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: NPOV is IMO W ... Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting everyone edit the website. -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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting everyone edit the website. Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is akin to what we are attempting (and they often succeed better at it than we do). But the way NPOV is defined in Wikipedia may be new, and relatively few academic and expert writers will have contributed to an encyclopedia before. Most have published their own books and papers, in which they are free to present their original research and opinions. Any outreach to scholars and universities needs to communicate that idea clearly. The reality gap between our NPOV aim and the actual state of our articles may otherwise give new contributors the wrong idea. They shouldn't do as we do, they should do better. We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from mature, and still beset with problems. First and foremost, we lack clarity on the topic of media vs. scholarly sources, and the weight to assign to each of them. We simply say, Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. As the term reliable sources encompasses everything from gossip websites, The Sun and The Daily Mail to university press publications and academic journals, it is not easy to say what fair, proportionate representation actually ought to mean in practice. The other day, I discussed Wikipedia with a religious scholar. I had asked why there were no scholars contributing. His comments were illuminating. Here is what he said: ---o0o--- To take an example of a topic with which I'm familiar - Jehovah's Witnesses - I would really need to start all over again, and I don't know whether it's OK to delete an entire article and rewrite another one, even if I had the time. It's a bit like the joke about the motorist who asked for directions, only to be told, 'If I were you, I wouldn't be starting from here!' The JW article begins with an assortment of unrelated bits of information, it fails to locate the Witnesses within their historical religious origins, it says it was updated in December 2010 yet ignores important recent academic material. The citations may look impressive, but they are patchy, and sometimes the sources state the exact opposite of what the text conveys. So what does one do? ---o0o--- What we have going for us is that Wikipedia has become so big that it has become hard to ignore. And scholars have begun to notice that if their publications are cited in Wikipedia, this actually drives traffic to them. If our success and our faults can induce those who know better than our average editor to come along and help, then we might actually get to the point where Wikipedia provides free access to the sum of human knowledge. It would be no mean achievement. Andreas ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me. -MuZemike On 2/3/2011 10:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: --- On Thu, 3/2/11, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: NPOV is IMO Wikipedia's greatest innovation, greater than just letting everyone edit the website. Yes and no. We haven't exactly invented the neutral point of view. Scholarly encyclopedias strive for an even-handed presentation that is akin to what we are attempting (and they often succeed better at it than we do). But the way NPOV is defined in Wikipedia may be new, and relatively few academic and expert writers will have contributed to an encyclopedia before. Most have published their own books and papers, in which they are free to present their original research and opinions. Any outreach to scholars and universities needs to communicate that idea clearly. The reality gap between our NPOV aim and the actual state of our articles may otherwise give new contributors the wrong idea. They shouldn't do as we do, they should do better. We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from mature, and still beset with problems. First and foremost, we lack clarity on the topic of media vs. scholarly sources, and the weight to assign to each of them. We simply say, Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. As the term reliable sources encompasses everything from gossip websites, The Sun and The Daily Mail to university press publications and academic journals, it is not easy to say what fair, proportionate representation actually ought to mean in practice. The other day, I discussed Wikipedia with a religious scholar. I had asked why there were no scholars contributing. His comments were illuminating. Here is what he said: ---o0o--- To take an example of a topic with which I'm familiar - Jehovah's Witnesses - I would really need to start all over again, and I don't know whether it's OK to delete an entire article and rewrite another one, even if I had the time. It's a bit like the joke about the motorist who asked for directions, only to be told, 'If I were you, I wouldn't be starting from here!' The JW article begins with an assortment of unrelated bits of information, it fails to locate the Witnesses within their historical religious origins, it says it was updated in December 2010 yet ignores important recent academic material. The citations may look impressive, but they are patchy, and sometimes the sources state the exact opposite of what the text conveys. So what does one do? ---o0o--- What we have going for us is that Wikipedia has become so big that it has become hard to ignore. And scholars have begun to notice that if their publications are cited in Wikipedia, this actually drives traffic to them. If our success and our faults can induce those who know better than our average editor to come along and help, then we might actually get to the point where Wikipedia provides free access to the sum of human knowledge. It would be no mean achievement. Andreas ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
--- On Thu, 3/2/11, MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com wrote: From: MuZemike muzem...@gmail.com I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me. See for example use of radaronline.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=radaronline.comfulltext=1 Andreas ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me.-MuZemike All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily Mail, Sun and various other tabloids are regularly used as sources on BLPs. The typical way of getting round the reliability issue will be to use phrases likes it was reported in the popular press that..., on the pretext that that anything tabloids report is notable by virtue of being reported in popular newspapers (regardless of whether the source is reliable or not wrt the facts). After all: surely that The Sun has said x is notable, and The Sun is a reliable source regarding what The Sun has said. :( As has been said, Wikipedia has yet to define what it means by reliable source, and notable source is very easily substituted as a metric, with the small safeguard of attribution (sometimes). Scott ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I'm sorry, but if I see somebody starting to source information from such tabloids you mentioned, especially information on biographies of living people regarding stuff that is not confirmed, there are going to be problems with me.-MuZemike All well in theory, but have you looked? The Daily Mail, Sun and various other tabloids are regularly used as sources on BLPs. The typical way of getting round the reliability issue will be to use phrases likes it was reported in the popular press that..., on the pretext that that anything tabloids report is notable by virtue of being reported in popular newspapers (regardless of whether the source is reliable or not wrt the facts). After all: surely that The Sun has said x is notable, and The Sun is a reliable source regarding what The Sun has said. :( As has been said, Wikipedia has yet to define what it means by reliable source, and notable source is very easily substituted as a metric, with the small safeguard of attribution (sometimes). Scott One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject. Fred Bauder ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source for the subject. That requires people be familiar with such things on an international scale. In practice most such sources will be the result of people using the first thing that comes up on Google that looks like a news source (and the daily mail does rank so well these days) rather than any deliberate attempt to use tabloids as references. Other than getting a database report to list every link to such a site within a ref tag there isn't much we can do about it. -- geni ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: We should also recognise that our definition of NPOV is actually far from mature, and still beset with problems [...] it is not easy to say what fair, proportionate representation actually ought to mean in practice. I agree strongly with the opening part of your post (about NPOV), which I snipped, and am focusing in on the point you raised above, as one of the problems I have with WP:WEIGHT is the way some people take a percentage approach to it. My view is that the amount of weight something has in an article is a function not just of the *amount* of text, but also how it is written (and also the sources it uses). It may not be clear from the wording of policy, but if something is sourced to a lightweight source, then it should carry less weight (in the sense of being taken seriously) than something sourced to a really authoritative source. It might seem that this is not what WP:WEIGHT is talking about, but in some sense it is. Also, the wording used: if something is said in a weaselly, vague and wishy-washy way (*regardless* of the volume of text used), then that carries less weight than a strongly-worded and forceful sentence. Similarly, a rambling set of paragraphs actually weights an article less than a single sentence that due to the way it is written jumps up and down on the page and says this is the real point of the article. In other words, the *way* an article is written affects the weighting of elements within in, not just the volume. Which all come back to the tone used in writing, which often affects the reader more than the volume of text used. Ideally, a succinct, dispassionate, non-rhetorical tone will be used, and articles looked at as a whole. It is extremely depressing when arguments devolve into the minutiae of sentence structure in an effort to find a compromise wording. It often chokes the life out of the prose of an article. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: George, it may be how it works, but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a consensus of the Wikipedia Community is fundamentally dishonest. Marc, you're still looking for a driver. There's no-one driving. Or everyone is. The key to avoid decision-making on Wikipedia being taken over by single-interest groups is to ensure wide-ranging and continued participation by a reasonable number of independent editors with new voices being added to the mix to avoid ossification stagnation. At various times, one or the other person will drive an initiative, and some will voice concerns about short-term and long-term issues, but overall, as long as the atmosphere doesn't drive people away, things will get done. If things aren't getting done, they should be identified and something done about them, but problems won't get solved if people walk away from them. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
We seem to be confusing several separate issues here. 1) Directive versus self organising organisations. Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my instinctive assumption that strong leadership is more often a disadvantage than an advantage. 2) Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus. Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking minority. 3) Direct versus indirect Democracy Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If 49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it, and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other options wins. But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments. Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but the fundamentalists. The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable way to get round the drawbacks of consensus. My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_projects Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less successful. So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them. WereSpielChequers On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence? Marc You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of sense does that make? Your use of the word skulduggery in this context is very telling, Fred. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: People agree and support the decision. Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus cannot be factually validated? on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer. This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others. That's the way it works, though. I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of work you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory). George, it may be how it works, but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a consensus of the Wikipedia Community is fundamentally dishonest. on 2/1/11 11:12 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Consensus is the method which was chosen for Wikipedia to determine things (in general). Raw majority voting (or supermajority voting) was intentionally not chosen. It's entirely fine to point out that this leads to existential angst over what consensus is, means, or how anyone ever determines it. But that's what we do, every day for the last 10 years. Something worked, at least some of the time. You're looking for a deeper meaning (fair) and a way to legitimately and concretely get approval for changes (fair to ask for) that gives you an answer you feel was unambiguously arrived at. We have no guarantee that the last clause will ever be satisfied under the consensus system. Some issues are uncontroversial and it's not really challenged that consensus exists. Some issues are very controversial, and calling the consensus either way is ambiguous. I understand and acknowledge that the ambiguity is a pain point for you. That is the system, for better or worse. There is no magic wand. George, your equivocation surprises me. My assessment of the Wikipedia consensus process remains the same. And your implied suggestion that it works because Wikipedia is still here and going strong: you are mistaking size for strength, mass for solidity. Wikipedia's structure may be massive, but it is by no means solid. My prognosis if some basic lifestyle changes aren't made: Poor. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument would be over. Consensus still wins. On 2/2/11, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: We seem to be confusing several separate issues here. 1) Directive versus self organising organisations. Those who believe that centrally controlled, planned organisations are inherently superior to and less chaotic than decentralised self organising organisations where power is devolved and individuals empowered to make decisions will tend to have a problem with the way Wikipedia runs itself. In political terms I see this as a Marxist Leninist/Liberal divide, I don't know why there are still people out there who think that a planned organisation with a strong leader should outperform unplanned but cooperating groups of empowered people, but there are people with that view and they will tend to think of Wikipedia as chaotic, and consider chaotic a criticism. I'm not convinced that real world political ideologies have a good match with Wikipolitics, but I will happily admit to being a Liberal in my instinctive assumption that strong leadership is more often a disadvantage than an advantage. 2) Consensus versus Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus. Consensus building requires all or most participants to be willing to discuss their differences and seek common ground. It fails when people realise that to frustrate change all they need achieve is a blocking minority. 3) Direct versus indirect Democracy Direct democracy has the disadvantage that it doesn't scale up as well as indirect democracy, and there is an argument that at one point EN wiki was getting too big to work as a direct democracy, however as the active editorship and active admin cadres are both dwindling that argument is losing strength. Direct democracy has the failing that a small minority of the clueless can give you inconsistent decisions; If 49% want better services and are willing to pay the taxes to fund it, and 49% would like to have better public services but not if that means paying the taxes that would be needed, and 2% want low taxes and better services, then in a direct democracy the 2% win both referenda and the idea of referenda takes a knock, whilst in an indirect democracy the 2% are the swing voters who decide which of the other options wins. But it does have the advantage that you have a group of people from the whole community who are empowered to rule on intractable local disputes such as climate change and various nationalistic arguments. Whilst depending on the people who turn up risks driving off all but the fundamentalists. The case for more indirect, elected democracy in Wikipedia would either depend on the argument that the community has scenarios where existing procedures have produced inconsistent results, or where the only people who turn up are involved, or that this is an acceptable way to get round the drawbacks of consensus. My own experience of getting change on Wikpedia has been mixed, I was involved in BLP prod, one of the biggest recent changes, and little but remarkably uncontentious changes such as the death anomalies project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-13/Sister_projects Some of my other attempts to change Wikipedia have been rather less successful. So I've got a lot of sympathy with those who want change that has majority but not consensus support, much fellow feeling with those who support a change but accept that the community doesn't agree with them, and rather less sympathy with those who try to impose what they believe is right even if they know that the majority oppose them. WereSpielChequers On 2 February 2011 02:59, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values (openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a fairly weak system especially if the council members had their own veto in council decisions and the community kept a power of referendum to undo any council mistakes. The only danger i see is some people will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor of status quo. Whether or not we want to give them authority to close debate is well debatable but even with that we wouldnt be creating another jimbo but rather an extension of the existing community governance. As for secret ballots we already elect a much more powerful and perhaps more dangerous body by secret election and those are the community reps to the board so i think it is a viable and proven system. On 2/2/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: i see the role of an elected leadership as a supplement to the consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument would be over. Consensus still wins. Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It should not result in sterile deadlocks though. I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea. 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 ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
so this leaves this proposed council with a responsibility to mediate policy disputes and the authority to decide a deadlock in favor of a strong majority based on strength of arguement and core values (openness transparency etc) - this would basically end up being a fairly weak system especially if the council members had their own veto in council decisions and the community kept a power of referendum to undo any council mistakes. The only danger i see is some people will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor of status quo. Whether or not we want to give them authority to close debate is well debatable but even with that we wouldnt be creating another jimbo but rather an extension of the existing community governance. As for secret ballots we already elect a much more powerful and perhaps more dangerous body by secret election and those are the community reps to the board so i think it is a viable and proven system. Agreed, (not about anonymous voting, but that how we do things, for now) 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: The only danger i see is some people will no longer be assured of the ability to derail consensus in favor of status quo. The fact that consensus can change on Wikipedia is both its great strength and its great weakness. It is possible, if the stars are aligned right (i.e. the right people show up to the discussion), to 'change' a long-established consensus. Sometimes it emerges, through later discussion and participation, that this so-called change in consensus was illusory or false. Sometimes, it emerges that the consensus had in fact changed, and the change to the status quo was correct. Finding this out, though, takes lots of time and discussion. This is the weakness of the consensus-based system, in that you sometimes need endless discussion merely to maintain the status quo. And also that for some situations, consensus can swing from side to side, between two or more different camps. Assessing the consensus requires looking at both the short-term arguments and the long-term trends. Otherwise you end up with a system where things chop-and-change constantly, and no stability is achieved. The classic example is naming debates, where a great deal of time and energy goes into discussing what title an article should be at, and if consensus was truly ruled on every few months, you might get a situation where an article was at one name for a few months, and then at another name for another few months. Clearly that sort of result just drains time and resources away from where it should be focused, and allows people to obsess over specific issues rather than looking at the big picture. This is why allowing the status quo to stay in the absence of consensus otherwise is used. Anything else leads to increased instability. Either that, or you insist on and enforce moratoriums on repeating the same debates until a set period of time has passed. Accept that the present discussion (whatever it is) has run its course, and move on to work on other things, and then return to the old discussion after that set period of time has passed. Over time, you build up a long-term picture of how and whether consensus is changing over month and years, or not, as the participants and arguments change and evolve and mature. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
Marc, you should know me better than that. No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment, but there are other information needs in the world also, among which is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined the original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel. Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing can really do this; I do not think we have found a good free model, I suspect that it may need central editorial control of a relatively conventional nature. I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also. We should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior. There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the first priority. I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong views about the way they would really like it. To work within a diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals. In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing structures. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy. You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors. on 2/1/11 7:30 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-) FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote. Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger. What is the specific difference we're speaking about here, Carcharoth? And, what is the danger you're talking about? 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 -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote: Marc, you should know me better than that. No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment, but there are other information needs in the world also, among which is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined the original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel. Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing can really do this; I do not think we have found a good free model, I suspect that it may need central editorial control of a relatively conventional nature. I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also. We should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior. There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the first priority. I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong views about the way they would really like it. To work within a diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals. In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing structures. I apologize David, I did misread your statement. Thank you for this writing. Like you, I believe very strongly in the ideas and goals of the Wikipedia Project. But I fear for its future. I have made these fears known, and have tried to make rational suggestions as to how to prevent what will happen if the behemoth that the Project has become does not improve its organizational structure. What I have encountered in this effort are two basic types of persons: Those, blind in their euphoria, still dancing on airplane wings; and those whose own self-interests have blinded them, and caused them to resist any change that would effect those self-interests. Fortunately, there is a third, much smaller (right now) group who can put aside their emotions and self-interests, think rationally beyond today and consider the future of the Project. They are the Movement within the Movement. They're the hope. As for me, I have said all that I can say at this point. It's time for me to step back and watch. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote: The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is dangerous is just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia - remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making. Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.) ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote: The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is dangerous is just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia - remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making. Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.) ...And a policy discussion which was driven by a small, vocal, and policy-active minority, who drove a solution upstream against a consensus gap. The long term damage that incident did has been consistently shoveled under the rug. -- -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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, wiki wrote: The notion that what new editors really value is the ability to participate in policy discussions, and that any move away from that is dangerous is just more nonsense of the libertine variety. We are building an encyclopedia - remember that? The rest is just pragmatic sausage making. Well, I can tell you I left because of a policy decision (well, there were a whole bunch of things but the policy decision was one of the worst.) ...And a policy discussion which was driven by a small, vocal, and policy-active minority, who drove a solution upstream against a consensus gap. The long term damage that incident did has been consistently shoveled under the rug. Which incident are you both talking about? If Ken's user page makes it obvious, just say that, but I can't immediately remember what you are both talking about here. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
David (Goodman) and Marc (Riddell) said it better than I could have done. But I don't think stepping back and watching is necessarily the best response. Those who have the time should take part in discussions like this, and refine their positions as a result of what they say and read. And write it down somewhere, as it is all too easy to just let things go until the next such discussion. Carcharoth On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote: Marc, you should know me better than that. No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia has proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment, but there are other information needs in the world also, among which is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined the original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel. Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing can really do this; I do not think we have found a good free model, I suspect that it may need central editorial control of a relatively conventional nature. I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also. We should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior. There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the first priority. I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong views about the way they would really like it. To work within a diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals. In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing structures. I apologize David, I did misread your statement. Thank you for this writing. Like you, I believe very strongly in the ideas and goals of the Wikipedia Project. But I fear for its future. I have made these fears known, and have tried to make rational suggestions as to how to prevent what will happen if the behemoth that the Project has become does not improve its organizational structure. What I have encountered in this effort are two basic types of persons: Those, blind in their euphoria, still dancing on airplane wings; and those whose own self-interests have blinded them, and caused them to resist any change that would effect those self-interests. Fortunately, there is a third, much smaller (right now) group who can put aside their emotions and self-interests, think rationally beyond today and consider the future of the Project. They are the Movement within the Movement. They're the hope. As for me, I have said all that I can say at this point. It's time for me to step back and watch. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I think an (elected) council is a better form than a benevolent dictator position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene. I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki. I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and consent of the entire community. -Stephanie On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: [...] And if changes were proposed to this present system, who (or what entity) would approve and implement them? on 1/31/11 10:14 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The community, by consensus, for approval. Whoever chose to participate and was allowed to do so, for implementation. This may have worked when the Community was the size it was in the beginning, but how, with such a enormous Community that has evolved, do you determine consensus? Part of the greater problem is that self-selection by interest (our current mechanism for involvement in change and implementation) does not select for competence or for agreement with the consensus (or with what the consensus stands for). We lack a functional dictator (or president) to cut the knot and enact efficiently; Jimmy might be able to do so, but burned a lot of his street cred with the community writ large with the incident that led to reductions in founder bit authority. I personally disagree with that, but I see a clear problem with community accepting his fiat now. Facing any significant opposition his position would not be an effective tiebreaker. People stop trusting their leaders, when their leaders stop trusting them. It¹s a cautionary tale. I have lived in communes in the past; some still flourish today. Its members are the definition of anti-authority thinking. But the ones that succeed are led by persons just as anti-authority in their beliefs as the rest, but have the interpersonal skills and trust of the community to lead it toward achieving its commonly-agreed-upon goals. The needs and wishes of the Community must come first. A leader merely assures that every Member has a voice, and that that voice is heard as distinctly as all of the rest. That leader can also assure that, if there is a hole in the roof, the group stays focused on finding methods of fixing it, rather than spending countless hours arguing about why everything inside is getting wet. Given the size and complexity the Project has attained, such a leader is needed. Aaron Sorkin said: Choosing a leader: If we choose someone with vision, someone with guts, someone with gravitas, who's connected to other people's lives, and cares about making them better; if we choose someone to inspire us, then we'll be able to face what comes our way, and achieve things we can't imagine yet. And I will add one more. The ability to separate their thoughts and ideas from themselves. When this is accomplished, the person can defend the former without feeling they must defend the latter. It's time. Marc I stand ready to respect wisdom, but not authority. So if someone steps up and proposes changes that make sense I'm behind them all the way. As far as someone who thinks they can tell us all how to think, well, no. We'll make any change that makes sense. What are your proposals? (Other than having a great leader) Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
(This is a repost for Marc since GMail helpfully sent the previous as HTML and mucked up the formatting) I think an (elected) council is a better form than a benevolent dictator position, but we still would need to be clear on what their responsibilities are, and how and when they should intervene. I would propose that as an election process for a council, we do an open comment page and secret ballot process for this position, with the same oversight as the historical Special:Boardvote process. Election officials would be selected for their neutrality - if we can't get sufficiently neutral election officials from within our project, find members of other projects that have minimal to no involvement in or connection to en.wiki. I would also propose that this is a good time to adopt a formal charter for English Wikipedia, as a statement of the core values on which we are built, and the form of governance with which we protect those values and steer our project forward. This should be a simple document - a framework for policy rather than a codification of all the policies we have, and when and if it's adopted by the community, it should be submitted to the foundation for their approval. I believe that they could approve such a document without taking on the oversight of editorial processes and of content itself, but I am not a lawyer, so someone else would have to comment on the legal situation. The argument for of a charter of this form is that certain sensitive aspects of policy, such as the meaning of consensus, method of governance, and other crucial issues should not change except through careful deliberation and consent of the entire community. Seems Ok. Using the arbitration committee for this purpose is not good as there are way too many chores involved with that. Fred Bauder ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
Fred, this authority could bring order to the present chaos. As for my proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them out with persons who also believe this change is necessary. This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the entire community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of consensus, nor described for me how the consent of the entire community is determined. Marc I think you need to define the problem. What problems are not being addressed by lack of centralized authority? As Stephanie suggested we could have an elected council. What would their role be? 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
Yes, the civility message is garbled. Because: 1) the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally, tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring and a willingness to battle vested-interests). 2) whether one engages in (1) above or not, if you involve yourself in attempting to change things it is likely to be a very emotional experience. You will need to care passionately about your issue (or you'll give up) and then deal with the frustration caused by the fact that changing anything is almost impossible. Strategic or not, that's liable to make many of us irritable and angry in the long-run. 3) When you are dealing with an issue that matters, and having to battle all the way, nice, well-meaning, people picking you up on minor points of civility are likely to have an effect utterly reverse of their intention - they are likely to illustrate how Wikipedians pick up on internal etiquette and ignore the issue. More frustration and anger. Of course, the reverse argument is that being nice, civil and persuasive is actually a more effective way of getting things changed. Unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that is true. And the experience of trying it, and finding it doesn't work, is likely to lead to more frustration and short-temperedness (rinse and repeat). What we need are structures that allow calm debate and effective communication to work efficiently. A structure that rests of punishing incivility will simply lead to more bureaucracy and gaming and will be used as a partisan weapon. It is entirely the wrong response. Scott -Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: 01 February 2011 16:24 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:07 PM, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: A leader(ship) would find it easier to say thank you, you're right, we should do this, but please could you tone it down a bit. I thought that is what (some) arbitrators *did* say to you! Maybe the message got garbled in the transmission. But that is the problem. Even if ArbCom says something like that, there is no guarantee that people will listen, or that sometimes subtle points will come across in the rather civil language arbitrators have to use. After all, if the people involved in disputes were the listening sort, there would be less disputes. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
Fred, this authority could bring order to the present chaos. As for my proposals, I have none that are fully formed. I would hope to work them out with persons who also believe this change is necessary. This is for Stephanie: I had trouble reading your post the way it came formatted on my computer. However, I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the entire community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of consensus, nor described for me how the consent of the entire community is determined. Marc on 2/1/11 11:01 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I think you need to define the problem. What problems are not being addressed by lack of centralized authority? As Stephanie suggested we could have an elected council. What would their role be? Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term consensus and, especially, the term community consensus used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that community consensus measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community! 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: 1) the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally, tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring and a willingness to battle vested-interests). I think that is a short-sighted view. You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later you find that the problem has come back and got worse. I would focus on: WP:CHRONIC INCIVILITY (as a subset of WP:RFC/U) WP:LONG-TERM (to pull together long-term issues and see them through) 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: That means we need a stronger executive that can decide to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation. These are the two approaches that work in most situations. I'm very much in favour of structured debates, rather than the chaotic ones that sometimes take place. But you need to set up the debate so that someone (or a group) is tasked with closing it and moving things forward. Too many debates just founder and fade away, with nothing being done. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
My own simple solution would be to elect a policy advisory committee *The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort, where the status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated community attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile. *The PAC by majority voting would define the issues, call for evidence of the problems, and assess the possible reform possibilities (like an arbitration, the community free to make submissions). *The PAC would vote and either endorse the status-quo or a preferred solution *If a preferred solution emerges, this would go for community consultation and then be tweaked by the committee. *The final preferred solution would then be set against the status quo in a straight up/down community vote. Scott ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
on 2/1/11 12:43 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term consensus and, especially, the term community consensus used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that community consensus measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community! Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving. David, yes and the road becomes more complex and hazardous with every new mile that is traveled. And, if that continues, then I am afraid for a Project and a Community that I have come to have a great deal of respect and affection for. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 01/02/2011, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: If you don't consider it as a trade-off then bad things happen, you can lose the most productive members. Good propaganda, and it worked, but our most productive members are not habitually nasty, only a few are. This is a good example. I resent you for referring to my general discussion as 'propaganda'. This is rather uncivil. So please can Bauder be suspended from this list as he violates civility Many thx. ;-) /tongue in cheek example The point is that it's a continuum, what some people consider incivility may not be considered by others, and they vary on how much is needed for action. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any statute of limitations, so I've seen numerous cases where people come along with a dirty laundry list from several years; implicitly this may overwhelm thousands and thousands of positive edits, and the incivility may be directed at people that are objectively up to no good. That's the trade-off. As George says, everyone is incivil sometimes. But my fundamental point is that perhaps it's about trade-offs between things; so identifying the trade-offs identifies the areas that require leadership. Things that aren't traded, don't require leadership, since consensus will very typically do the right thing for things that aren't traded off. Fred -- -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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
Carcharoth, we evidently edit entirely different wikis. You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later you find that the problem has come back and got worse. What quick fixes??? The problem is that nothing gets done short or long term. My approach doesn't produce quick fixes for the impatient, I have been at some of the issues patiently for years and getting nothing done, or little and only be attrition. Perhaps an aggressive approach seldom works, but the opposite of civil patience shows no sign of working any better. You are right, you /should/ be able to demonstrate that civil patience is more productive than bullheadedness, the problem is that the evidence is at best neutral. -Original Message- From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: 01 February 2011 17:54 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: 1) the qualities one needs to get anything done in Wikipedia are generally, tenacity and bullheadedness. Drawing enough attention to the issue and breaking through the natural apathy and inertia of the wider community is also essential (and that, frankly, often involved strategic drama-stirring and a willingness to battle vested-interests). I think that is a short-sighted view. You may get something done in the short term, but you end up not building in infrastructure and culture for the future. Quick fixes to problems don't scale. You need long-term, sustainable systems that work. A bullheaded quick fix might look good, but a few years later you find that the problem has come back and got worse. I would focus on: WP:CHRONIC INCIVILITY (as a subset of WP:RFC/U) WP:LONG-TERM (to pull together long-term issues and see them through) 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
How about this for starters for a leadership council. 5 members, serving staggered 3 year terms, and possibly subject to recall, with the following duties: - To engage members of the community in open and frank discussions about policy, technical, and content/style issues. - To participate in discussions of broad-reaching issues, lending moderation and reminding the community of it's core responsibility and values. - To rule on the presence or absence of consensus where it is contested. - To occasionally impose decisions based on the advice of the community where the consensus process cannot produce a decision, and where the decision would reflect both a majority viewpoint and the long-term interests of the project. - To occasionally call referendums on technical and policy matters after sufficient discussion has taken place, and where the wishes of the community are not clear. - To use the site notice and watchlist notice functions to call attention to broad-reaching policy and technical discussions requiring more community input. - To impose temporary policy decisions where timeliness is critical due to potential for disruption to the community or gross violation of our core values. The community would retain the ability to govern through consensus, and would further have the ability to call referendums on any decision imposed by the council. Overturning a council decision would be by simple majority, so that the council would lack the ability to go completely against the wishes of the community. Someone take this and keep editing please :) On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 2/1/11 12:43 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term consensus and, especially, the term community consensus used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that community consensus measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community! Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving. David, yes and the road becomes more complex and hazardous with every new mile that is traveled. And, if that continues, then I am afraid for a Project and a Community that I have come to have a great deal of respect and affection for. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
on 1/31/11 11:43 PM, Carcharoth at carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: It's time. To march on Tahrir Square? Or the tower of babble :-) I think you will find that Choosing a leader only works if you have the mechanisms in place to do so. Then let's create that mechanism. I'm not even sure it is *possible* to lead an entity like Wikipedia. If the whole of an entity is composed of a single entity - such as a community - then is is possible to lead. Even a riot needs leadership if the group that is rioting has any hope of calling attention to its issues. A group without a leader is just a mob. Horses being led to water to drink and old dogs being taught new tricks come to mind. If the horse is thirsty enough it doesn't care how it gets to the water. And an old dog will learn new tricks when he discovers that the old ones don't work anymore. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
This idea arose in the context of a discussion which generally addressed civility. The warnings would be civility warnings. Fred To that end, a warnings tool would be helpful, supplementing or replacing the uw- templates with a MediaWiki extension that requires that warnings be acknowledged by the editor to continue editing, and providing a record of warnings. This is basically a very soft block that the editor is free to remove themselves. Warnings need not be generally visible except in the case where a matter progresses to arbitration, but they should persist for a period of time so that patterns of behavior become apparent. -Stephanie Brilliant! Fred Bauder ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 1 February 2011 17:30, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Fred, you still haven't answered my questions. I see the term consensus and, especially, the term community consensus used in many contexts on this and other Lists. But what does it mean? And by what means is that community consensus measured or determined? It's a huge Community! it's like saying, National policy is determined by a consensus of the American Community! Marc - it's literally true that there is no-one driving. - d. I'm going to answer his question, it is a very good one, but I do manage to do a few things besides answer email. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: That means we need a stronger executive that can decide to break deadlocks when they happen, or lend structure to debate so that it can run it's course, as appropriate for the situation. These are the two approaches that work in most situations. I'm very much in favour of structured debates, rather than the chaotic ones that sometimes take place. But you need to set up the debate so that someone (or a group) is tasked with closing it and moving things forward. Too many debates just founder and fade away, with nothing being done. Carcharoth The closing of debates is something an elected council could do. That preserves the role of the community in formulating and debating policy. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
My own simple solution would be to elect a policy advisory committee *The PAC would only consider policy areas, and only as a last resort, where the status-quo did not enjoy evident consensus, but where repeated community attempts to resolve the problem had proved futile. *The PAC by majority voting would define the issues, call for evidence of the problems, and assess the possible reform possibilities (like an arbitration, the community free to make submissions). *The PAC would vote and either endorse the status-quo or a preferred solution *If a preferred solution emerges, this would go for community consultation and then be tweaked by the committee. *The final preferred solution would then be set against the status quo in a straight up/down community vote. Scott Promising suggestion 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even. The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two people are in the same room, let alone 160,000. - 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy. Though it's a little harder to be accepted for this, even newcomers are listened to, especially if they do not trying to do propaganda for promotionalism; it is not necessary to serve a long apprenticeship. This is the point of open culture as a general way of working: it's open. Of course, it produces inevitable inefficiencies and instabilities, but it has the attraction to new people that they can come and soon affect things. There are more than enough formal organizations in the world for those who prefer their efficiency and stability. There are many informal organizations also. Some, like open software, are in principle open to all, but in practice have extensive technical prerequisites. the uniqueness of Wikipedia is that it is open to even the beginners, and yet produces work of major public usefulness on a par with that produced by formal organizations and experts. And that it accomplishes this on a broad multilingual basis is unmatched by any organization. We have something that has proven successful far beyond any expectations. It puzzles me why anyone would want to risk a fundamental change in its structure. Let it continue as far as relative anarchy can take it. It cannot do everything, or suit everybody. If one wants something different, try other projects. The main thing Wikipedia needs for improvement at this point, is some real competition. The worst thing to happen to Wikipedia these last few years, is that the alternate program at Citizendium did not succeed sufficiently to challenge it. On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even. The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two people are in the same room, let alone 160,000. - 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 -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote: Snip We have something that has proven successful far beyond any expectations. It puzzles me why anyone would want to risk a fundamental change in its structure. Because it, as well as its needs, have grown beyond its original structure. Let it continue as far as relative anarchy can take it. And then what, David? It cannot do everything, or suit everybody. If one wants something different, try other projects. David, are you really saying what I hear you saying - []If you don't like the way things are, go someplace else[]?! Marc Snip On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2011 20:33, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: You propose a political boss. Utterly unacceptable, Napoleonic even. The arbcom are already politicians, elected and all. Wikipedia is a city of 160,000 people any given month. Politics happens when two people are in the same room, let alone 160,000. - 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 ___ 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On 1 February 2011 23:06, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: on 2/1/11 5:32 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote: It cannot do everything, or suit everybody. If one wants something different, try other projects. David, are you really saying what I hear you saying - []If you don't like the way things are, go someplace else[]?! FWIW, I read it as Wikipedia sorely needs competition and it may not be possible any more to get any. Blog post: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2011/01/19/single-point-of-failure/ - 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/02/2011, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: The attractiveness of Wikipedia is not just that anyone can contribute content, but that anyone can help make policy. You don't seem to live in the same world as other editors. Goodness, is that an incivil comment? :-) FWIW, I agree with nearly everything DGG wrote. Moving away from what makes Wikipedia different is a step that is fraught with danger. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost
on 2/1/11 9:22 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Fred, please re-read what I said. The Council would be a body elected by the Community. How is that arbitrary? Why would their be loss of volunteer and donor support? And, I specifically said that the Council would have nothing to do with day-to-day editing or behavioral disputes. Where is the loss of independence? Marc You were talking about something else. However even the council is a bad idea with anonymous editors electing it. We have no idea what kind of skulduggery is involved. Secret ballot by anonymous people; what kind of sense does that make? Your use of the word skulduggery in this context is very telling, Fred. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the entire community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of consensus, nor described for me how the consent of the entire community is determined. Marc on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement. C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached? Marc on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: People agree and support the decision. Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus cannot be factually validated? Marc The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and follow it. 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the entire community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of consensus, nor described for me how the consent of the entire community is determined. Marc on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement. C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached? Marc on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: People agree and support the decision. Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus cannot be factually validated? Marc on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and follow it. And how many of these Talk Page votes are usually cast before the results are announced as being the consensus of the entire Wikipedia Community? 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: People agree and support the decision. Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus cannot be factually validated? It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer. This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others. That's the way it works, though. I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of work you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory). -- -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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
I could make out the last sentence which contained the phrases, meaning of consensus, and consent of the entire community. No one has yet defined for me the meaning of consensus, nor described for me how the consent of the entire community is determined. Marc on 2/1/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: We discuss policy issues at length, consider the reasons for adopting alternatives, and come to agreement. C'mon Fred, isn't that rather vague? What I'm asking (again) is, after the discussion is other, how is it determined that a consensus of the Community has been reached? Marc on 2/1/11 9:24 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: People agree and support the decision. Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus cannot be factually validated? Marc on 2/1/11 10:16 PM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The rising of the sun could not be factually validated if we thought like that. People write on the talk page of the policy that they agree; do not change the language of the policy, which anyone can edit, remember; and follow it. And how many of these Talk Page votes are usually cast before the results are announced as being the consensus of the entire Wikipedia Community? Marc That depends on how important and significant the issue is. Remember watch lists. A change that is consistent with existing policy does not call for debate; a major change to one of the pillars of policy would call forth major participation and debate. Fred 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: People agree and support the decision. Fred, who are these people that are making these decisions and declaring that there in Community consensus, knowing that this consensus cannot be factually validated? on 2/1/11 10:34 PM, George Herbert at george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: It is in the nature of online collaborative communities that this general question has no exact answer. This is fundamentally unsatisfying to a number of people, including those who prefer various not-yet-universally-supported changes; scientists, observers, critics, and journalists from outside the community trying to understand or quantify it; many others. That's the way it works, though. I appreciate your point, which is that this way of doing things is often infuriating, insane, or impossible to actually get anything done in. The reality is that we're there. That's how Wikipedia works (for whatever definition of work you care to apply to the state of the project here, which you and others feel are unsatisfactory). George, it may be how it works, but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a consensus of the Wikipedia Community is fundamentally dishonest. Marc We make decisions according to our long-standing policy of making decisions by consensus and have successfully for many years. You saying that our experience is bogus does not make it so. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Consensus 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] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}
On 2 February 2011 04:02, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: George, it may be how it works, but it also misleading - or worse. To state that any decision made in this manner is a consensus of the Wikipedia Community is fundamentally dishonest. Marc, you're still looking for a driver. There's no-one driving. - 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
