User talk:Geogre

Essays

It's new! It's exciting! It's an idea whose time came months ago: The Tags and Boxes Player's Guide Continuation: The Demotion Idea. If RFA is "broken," let's not make it FUBAR: The RFA Derby It's newer! It's not exciting! Essay on Wiki Cults of Personality My attempt at impersonating Marshal MacLuhan: IRC considered Blocklogz, A Wikiwebi Comix: My first attempt at hip artwerkx. Oh, more IRC bashing from an IRC hater, etc. You know -- just whining from a luzer.: People are still getting blocked by "unanimous" IRC consent. So You Wanna Be An Edit Warrior? An essay on how to tell if you may already have the qualifications to be an edit warrior and not even know it!

New: User:Kosebamse/IRC explains pretty well why Wikipedia lost three of its most serious content contributors to salve the egos of some few people and save the playtime of those same few people. The "IRC RfAr": An explanation of "What happened" during the IRC arbitration case, and why it cost Wikipedia far, far more than it gave. The long winded analysis of "civility," with a short and succinct page to follow

New Messages

Talk archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Massages

For the children

For the many readers, there is a new blog entry. (If this makes no sense to you, then ignore it.) Geogre (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For the adult-ering

I would like input from the people who have seen my ideas for how to form a council to advise on the future. I've written some up, and I've sent them to a few people via e-mail. Should I post them here? Geogre (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested too, Geogre -- please post here (or shoot me an e-mail). We seem to be coming unglued rather badly, at least in the matter of governance, and I fear the process is accelerating. Antandrus (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Initially, I was concerned that my name is too "big." I don't mean that I am, but rather that there are people who will oppose anything simply if my name is near it. I had preferred the ideas to come out anonymously or from several directions, because I think they're good (well, I would) and should answer our needs without introducing new griefs. I'll post 'em here by tomorrow, I suppose, and, wiki-style, leave them for anyone to adapt as they see fit. Geogre (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed, at least in the past three years or so, that popularity on Wikipedia negatively correlates with content contribution, and sometimes even with integrity. But don't quote me: I'm just a nasty old fool. And people skilled with words are not always popular, for we are after all writing an encyclopedia, where words are important, and envy is more implacable than hatred (La Rochefoucauld was right about everything). But I'll shut up now. Antandrus (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, see below for the big kahuna idea. I really, really don't care who gets credit for it. Let Kelly Martin take credit for it, if she wants, so long as they do get a policy council and get it in something like what I've described. You know, I was reflecting, the other day, when I was explaining why I don't need Wikipedia and it doesn't need me anymore, that it's not the same thing as it was when I heard a call on National Public Radio for over-educated, under-employed people to add stuff. I remember hearing that, when I was working as a librarian in a closed library. I thought it was genius that they were taking advantage of all the ABD's and grad students in the world, but those people are now the ones Wikipedia doesn't want. -Bot operators with less personal skill than their creation are "mediators," and "cool" is a long comment. Theses are all original research. Footnotes dominate here, where they don't even exist in academia, and people expect a citation to "the Earth is the third planet from the sun." O tempore, O mores. (But John Gay said envy's a sharper spur than pay for wits; it's a cudgel for those without wit.) Geogre (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How to get and structure an advisory council

What you will need for this project: One Wikipedia, an estimate of a representative sample of active editors, and several stewards. You will also need an Initiator. That's YOU, and hopefully you are plural, not singular.

1. Outline a set of criteria that would make a person qualified -- experience with all elements of Wikipedia, breadth of edits, calm, intelligence. Think about the criteria very, very carefully and word them even more carefully. This is the one place to be excruciatingly careful, to get a great deal of input, and to be sure that the end goal is always in mind. That goal is wise policy, nothing else.

Why: Criteria keep people from wandering, and most people will be more honest, if they're given qualities to assess than if they're asked who they think is best. It's one of those paradoxes of evaluation that's pretty well known in business and education. This is why, for example, most employee and educational assessments are structured.

2. Ask editors to recommend someone other than themselves according to those criteria, rating the person on a 1-10 on each. The recommendations go to a group of coordinators or the stewards. They are not posted openly, and any person advocating or discussing voting or canvassing for members to the council will be in violation of WP:CANVAS, including on IRC and e-mail. We will have to rely upon honor, but Wikipedia was founded on such principles.

Why: Obvious, really. The idea is not to be competing, but rather looking for elements of trust. This cuts down on some of the, "Oh, well, that person is evil" stuff. Obviously, it leaves big weaknesses, but step 3 can help forefend. Additionally, prior and future attempts stall because of politics and personalities and self-love and self-importance. Provided that alternate accounts are not involved, this should avoid that to some degree, and since these are simply sent in rather than posted publicly, it will help. We don't want cadres and factions and points of view trying to fight. We want wise policy and we want trust. Have people assess for someone, not against.

3. Get a list of the top 60 finishers and then make them candidates for consideration listed on a namespace page by the stewards. There will be positively no statements by the candidates, and no oppose votes. Instead, there will be a two week assessment period, during which editors will, again using the criteria, give 1-10 scores on the various criteria for the sixty persons listed. 3a. Selection will not be a balance of oppose and support or anything so compromised. Instead, the stewards will have determined a representative sample of the editing population and divided that by ten. No candidate will be successful without an aggregate score above that mark (this functioning like quorum). 3b. If a person sees a very serious reason for disqualification, he or she will inform the stewards and coordinators. Disqualification criteria are that the person will be likely to act in a private, national, or special interest rather than a wide, international, or community interest. Disqualification will have nothing to do with "conflict" or "drama" or even "policy violations" of the candidate, as it is not up to the stewards or coordinators to tell the project who it trusts. However, if a person has a vested interest or a conflict of interest or has evidence of a private desire that trumps the general, then that would be a reason for disqualification. 3c. The coordinators and stewards simply tabulate the scores. All parties are prohibited from revealing or discussing results on any medium until the final 60 are posted.

Why: This council will not have "power" to harm or help people, so the idea that a person on it will get to be important is silly. When matters are "tied" in the minds of the stewards and coordinators, the presumption should be for safety/disqualification, but the criteria must be solely oriented toward communal/private interest and wisdom/folly. A wise thought from an unpleasant person is worth a dozen banal platitudes. Secrecy is vital, because any hints about how things will going, especially on non-portable, non-transparent media like IRC and e-mail, will result in "votes" and hate fests.

4. The result of the assessment will be a council of TWENTY people. Of the twenty, five will serve at a time for one month periods. Membership will rotate every month.

Why: This may be the most vital part of the plan. By having the groups rotate, it prevents personalities from dominating, so no one person can bully or dominate the rest. Additionally, it keeps one person or five people from becoming "important" or thinking they have power of any sort. All of the anxiety about the council being a "government" or being "power" or being a "revolution" should be put to bed instantly by the knowledge that it will be a continually shifting set of persons.

5. Method: The council should appoint or seek representatives to speak for separate viewpoints on a given issue. These "champions" or representatives will present arguments for their position, arguments against alternative positions, along with careful rebuttals of claims against their position. They will not involve themselves in direct, interlined conversation with champions/representatives of other points of view on council pages. The council will review all cases, plus any volunteer cases ("amicus briefs"), and submit questions to champions. They will then fashion their own policy recommendation(s).

Why: Again, we've seen death by argument too many times to count, and we especially see the routine "forest for the trees" sort of argument that Wikipedia is famous for. No one gets anywhere when discussing policy because every single person needs to offer his opinion, even if it's almost identical to the twenty opinions just above. All of the "me too" and the "yeah but" stuff gets so thick that no one can support anyone or any thing. If the council wants to actually review and fashion policy recommendations (only recommendations), then it needs to basically research policy alternatives. They can find the passionate true believers of the sides and let them get all the best ideas from their side together and speak with one voice, and then they can also listen to anyone who walks by who happens to have thought about things. Additionally, many times our best thinking is not found among the advocates, because people have gone away from an issue in disgust. Open the issue of infoboxes, and you'll see hundreds of editors who hate them but gave up arguing. The point is that the "champion" method and the "amicus" system allows clear presentation and consideration for the council.

6. When the council concludes its deliberations, it makes a policy recommendation to Wikipedia that Wikipedia must approve. It is not automatically policy, but it is also not for arguing about. It is an up or down vote, with a presumption of approval. This means that any proposal that garners quorum and an approval rate of 67% or more will be adopted.

Why: If this is a thing where the council makes a big RFC, the result will be "no consensus" to everything. Instead, the council should get a bit of a break, so that a council recommendation simply needs approval (say a 2/3rds majority, with quorum in place). If it goes to Village Pump where every person gets a brand new opinion, then we'll have every person trying to speak for the novelty of speaking, and then we'll get reiteration, and then....

What to do with these?

Use 'em. Claim 'em as your idea, if you want. I don't care. I just think it's a good idea, and I think it's a damn sight better than ArbCom picking their favorite warriors or votes or some other rot. Tell me, honestly, if I haven't avoided the problems.

The point is, there are ways of doing these things, people, if we just stop thinking in terms of power and appointing ourselves demigods. Geogre (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)