Mailing List Archive

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
> I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
> attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
> met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at
> all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?

The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.

If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's
Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you
can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems
are likely to be unfixable.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Marc Riddell
> <michaeldavid86@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
>> attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
>> met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at
>> all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?

on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.

A sad state of affairs.
>
> If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
> these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
> manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's
> Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you
> can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems
> are likely to be unfixable.
>
Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that
group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control"
and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group.
It is my professional business to know such things.

Marc


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>wrote:

> I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
> attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
> met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged
> at
> all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?
>

Part of the problem is that "the powers that be" in the English Wikipedia is
a wide spread, very diffuse group, other than Jimbo.

A larger number of elder statesman admins / experienced users are discussing
civility issue problems on-wiki, which is a good sign.

Part of the problem is that there isn't an entirely functional community
consensus on what levels of incivility deserve intervention and what don't.
I and a number of others are quietly working to establish a functional
working standard, by intervening more actively, but several of us have been
slapped by parts of the community in the process.

Fred's getting more grumpy about it in public of late, I've had my moments,
etc.

I think that there is not realistically going to be a sudden sea change on
this issue. But I also think that we realistically can create a momentum
for improvement over a multi-year timescale.

That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online
communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the
community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of
change.

Jimbo would have to make it a major in-community priority of his, or Arbcom
would have to make it a major in-community priority of theirs, to make it
faster. I think Jimbo's too busy and Arbcom is too unwieldy in one sense
and focused on more specific problems.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/2/5 Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86@comcast.net>:

> I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
> attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
> met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at
> all. Where does one go from there if not the Foundation itself?


If you mean posting to wikien-l about it, the people there have
suggested that you have to take it to the wiki. You demurred from
this.

The Arbitration Committee might be a point of approach.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
>> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
>> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
>>
> A sad state of affairs.
>

Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of
project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are
taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to
do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take
responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in
their approach to problems. A co-operative or consensual model is
difficult when worth has been defined in term of the rights (or rites)
of winning and losing.

There are people out there willing to see themselves badly injured in a
traffic accident as long as they believe that doing so was consistent
with their "correct" interpretation of the traffic laws.
>> If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
>> these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
>> manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's
>> Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you
>> can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems
>> are likely to be unfixable.
>>
>>
> Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that
> group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control"
> and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group.
> It is my professional business to know such things.


As I understand it you do very good work with some very problematical
individuals, but those individuals have a very strong incentive for
co-operation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Andrew's observation.
Size does matter. In education, smaller classes and smaller schools
tend to have better results than big learning factories. The question
remains: how can that observation be used to greater advantage?

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

George Herbert wrote:
> That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online
> communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the
> community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of
> change.
>

The model for this kind of community has not yet been written.

> Jimbo would have to make it a major in-community priority of his, or Arbcom
> would have to make it a major in-community priority of theirs, to make it
> faster. I think Jimbo's too busy and Arbcom is too unwieldy in one sense
> and focused on more specific problems.
>
>
>
We shouldn't be looking for a panacea. When everyone expects a detailed
examination of his petty problems by Arbcom he becomes a big part of the
reasons for its disfunctionality.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

(I'm on my Blackberry which makes it hard to comment inline - please bear with me.)

Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
>> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
>> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
>>
> A sad state of affairs.
>

Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of
project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are
taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to
do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take
responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in
their approach to problems.

(<<<End of Ray Saintonge''s comment)

Hear, hear. We're trying to do something new, and new is hard. I applaud everybody who tries to work together in these projects collaboratively and productively.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:21:36
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased
incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant>


Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is
>> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the
>> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality.
>>
> A sad state of affairs.
>

Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of
project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are
taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to
do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take
responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in
their approach to problems. A co-operative or consensual model is
difficult when worth has been defined in term of the rights (or rites)
of winning and losing.

There are people out there willing to see themselves badly injured in a
traffic accident as long as they believe that doing so was consistent
with their "correct" interpretation of the traffic laws.
>> If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
>> these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
>> manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's
>> Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you
>> can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems
>> are likely to be unfixable.
>>
>>
> Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that
> group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control"
> and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group.
> It is my professional business to know such things.


As I understand it you do very good work with some very problematical
individuals, but those individuals have a very strong incentive for
co-operation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Andrew's observation.
Size does matter. In education, smaller classes and smaller schools
tend to have better results than big learning factories. The question
remains: how can that observation be used to greater advantage?

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having
> these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a
> manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dunbar's
> Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you
> can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems
> are likely to be unfixable.
Can we use this idea to good advantage?

Some of us have indeed found our time best spent in smaller projects.
Perhaps participation in a WikiProject in a subject of one's choosing
should be a prerequisite to adminship. That could give the person
experience in co-operation.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> George Herbert wrote:
> > That it will probably take that long is unfortunate, but large online
> > communities become very unwieldy in some ways. Having realism about the
> > community dynamics is a necessary step in engaging in them as an agent of
> > change.
> >
>
> The model for this kind of community has not yet been written.
>

I have to disagree. Wikipedia is clearly not exactly like previous large
online communities, but it has a lot in common with Usenet and other large
online projects and social groups of the past. Failing to heed history and
see the analogies where they apply is folly...



> > Jimbo would have to make it a major in-community priority of his, or
> Arbcom
> > would have to make it a major in-community priority of theirs, to make it
> > faster. I think Jimbo's too busy and Arbcom is too unwieldy in one sense
> > and focused on more specific problems.
> >
> >
> >
> We shouldn't be looking for a panacea. When everyone expects a detailed
> examination of his petty problems by Arbcom he becomes a big part of the
> reasons for its disfunctionality.
>

Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I
had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out
the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are
persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time
positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and
other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The
damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term
community values sense.

This is a real problem. Take it seriously.


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I
>> had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out
>> the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are
>> persistently abusive and disruptive to other users. Even being a long time
>> positive contributor cannot overcome the damage done to the community and
>> other editors in particular when one problem abusive user persists. The
>> damage is both severe in the acute sense and insidious in the long term
>> community values sense.
>
> on 2/5/09 6:44 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild) at pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:

> I disagree that divine intervention is a solution, but I agree with
> the principle that a productive editor who cannot collaborate is not a
> productive editor. Perhaps you and others can take a look at <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaboration_first >, and put
> together a convincing essay to that effect.

> Convincing the silent
> majority to take a cohesive stance against such behaviour is one
> possible solution.

Absolutely, Jesse. Confront it every time you encounter it. This may be the
most important - and most effective - solution to the problem. The remaining
problem is how to convince that silent majority that their silence is also a
part of the problem.

Marc



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l